I thought Gene said the median age was 35. How would that play out in this case? 3500 people, median age is 35. So if everyone under 35 is 18-34, and everyone over 34 is 35-70, then there is a bigger age range over 34. That means there is a higher concentration of people in a smaller age range, right? Not that this matters, but I was just trying to clarify.0
--- In [email protected], "Daria Akers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Median and average are not the same thing. You are referring to the average > not the median. Average = sum of all numbers divided by number of entries > Median = count all entries, put them in numerical order and find the middle > of all entries. Similar concepts but not the same. > > On Nov 27, 2007 10:54 PM, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gene addressed this in the chat--35 is exactly the median, which would > > be perfect if the age range was 0-70. but since it is probably more > > like 18-70, the median would be more like 45 if the ages were evenly > > distributed, or something like that. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I think it is impressive that there are almost exactly the same number > > > of under 35 and 35+ poll takers. What is the probability of that? Is > > > 35 exactly middle age and the chat is equally appealing to all ages? > > > I'm guessing the under 35 is actually mostly 18-34 so it is only 16 > > > year range, whereas 35+ is probably more like a 30-40 year range. So > > > that means maybe there is a higher concentration of people in a smaller > > > age range under 35 vs. a smaller concentration of people in a wider age > > > range over 35? I just thought it was interesting that the split was > > > almost exactly even. > > > > > > Also 3000 people took the poll, not to mention how many people read the > > > chat. That's a lot of people taking time out of the day to do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
