Black Brunch....hahhah have you guys heard about these retards yet?

[Archer77]

Oh, I read it LOL. In this very thread, you pretended to be making a different argument because your argument in that thread was so stupid!  

I corrected myself and returned to my original argument.  You continue to argue the sample size was limited to ten and it's not.  I reviewed the data and found that my original argument was correct.  

Is the sample size limited to ten people or not?    It's obvious you didn't read the thread at all.  If you did you would know the case size isn't limited to ten total cases but thousands over months.

[Archer77]

lol 3 college degrees there boss, when I get a benefit from spelling correctly here I will do so.

Now where are these pics?

I'm not 100% sure its him. 

[Al Doggity]

His comment is based on the false and ignorant claims you made about the study sample being limited to only ten people.  

I never said the sample size was limited to 10.YOU DID!  
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866350#msg7866350

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/table/tab_7_5/?report=objectonly

This explains why they use a sample size of ten. It's so serial incidents don't inflate the total number of rapes and sexual assaults. I may have made this point before.

THIS IS ME!!   :

They don't use a sample size. That paragraph says nothing about sample size. it says that it limits "series incidents" in the total crime count to a number of 10. That has nothing to do with certain categories being unreliable if they have fewer than 10 examples. These two points aren't under the same section. They are completely unrelated.

[Archer77]

I never said the sample size was limited to 10.YOU DID!  
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866350#msg7866350

THIS IS ME!!   :

You're lying. This is two quick searches.    I feel tempted to released pictures of your inflated gut and ugly wife.

So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.

A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology

Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:

(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?

Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?

[Al Doggity]

I know you're probably furiously editing it right now, so here's a screencap.

eta I posted a direct link in previous post to your post.

[tonymctones]

do you even lift albert?

[Archer77]

I know you're probably furiously editing it right now, so here's a screencap.

eta I posted a direct link in previous post to your post.

Yeah that only proves my point. You lied when you denied saying the size was limited to ten.  A

[Archer77]

They literally are saying that.  They literally say that because the sample size is so small,  the standard error of  the estimates is extremely high. LIterally.

No, it isn't because they use much larger sample sizes throughout the rest of the report.
Right in the link you provided it shows that the survey included over 150,000 people.
When it comes to a sample size of less than 10, even they are saying that!

Newsflash: Not only can you ignore this thread if you don't like the content, but you can open any other thread you like. Interestingly enough almost all of them contain bickering.  

And is it really a no-win situation? Do you honestly believe that there's any survey that interviews 150,000 people  then only counts 10 of those people in the name of accuracy? Do you honestly believe that a survey of 10 people provides an accurate assessment of ANYTHING nationally?

You're absolutely wrong.  Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.


In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.

It's that simple.  They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong.  What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS.  Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated.  It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba.   Zippity doo daa.

In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.



What a liar.  Reread your mathematics thread.  I explained it all to you.

[Archer77]

They literally are saying that.  They literally say that because the sample size is so small,  the standard error of  the estimates is extremely high. LIterally.

No, it isn't because they use much larger sample sizes throughout the rest of the report.
Right in the link you provided it shows that the survey included over 150,000 people.
When it comes to a sample size of less than 10, even they are saying that!

Newsflash: Not only can you ignore this thread if you don't like the content, but you can open any other thread you like. Interestingly enough almost all of them contain bickering.  

And is it really a no-win situation? Do you honestly believe that there's any survey that interviews 150,000 people  then only counts 10 of those people in the name of accuracy? Do you honestly believe that a survey of 10 people provides an accurate assessment of ANYTHING nationally?

You're absolutely wrong.  Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.


In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.

It's that simple.  They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong.  What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS.  Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated.  It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba.   Zippity doo daa.

In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.

[Al Doggity]

You're absolutely wrong.  Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.


In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.

It's that simple.  They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong.  What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS.  Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated.  It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba.   Zippity doo daa.

In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.



What a liar.  Reread your mathematics thread.  I explained it all to you.

From that thread:

I only looked at one of the reports but the number of results with the ! looks to be very small and not frequent.  Most of them have samples in the thousands.  So you will need to temper your conclusion if you are wanting to use the presence of the ! anywhere to reject the entirety of the data within this archive.  But for specific results marked with the !, they are very likely not valid yes.

My point is specifically for cases containing 10 or less sample studies.

Nice try  

[Al Doggity]

In both of the posts you quoted from me, I literally say that the sample size is 150000.

[Archer77]

From that thread:

Nice try  

None of that matters because I corrected myself and returned to my original argument.  In the last thread you made I review the data and clearly proved you were wrong.  The cases aren't limited to ten cases as you claimed but thousands.  The ten refers to series incidents.  

[Al Doggity]

do you even lift albert?

4 days a week. I'm in excellent shape.

[Archer77]

In both of the posts you quoted from me, I literally say that the sample size is 150000.

 You are claiming in the cases where a sample size of ten is listed they are using only ten total cases and in the rest of the study they are using 150K.  Your argument from the beginning was the sample size was to small.

So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.

A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology

Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:

(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?

Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?

[Al Doggity]

None of that matters because I corrected myself and returned to my original argument.  In the last thread you made I review the data and clearly proved you were wrong.  The cases aren't limited to ten cases as you claimed but thousands.  The ten refers to series incidents.  

I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.

[Archer77]

You were using the term sample size and you believed the sample size was limited to ten.  This was your argument from the word go.  You argued that the sample size was to small to accurately judge.  You had no clue what the number ten actually meant and why it was used.

So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.

A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology

Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:

(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?

Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?

4 days a week. I'm in excellent shape.

If it is who I think it is hes really fat and has a zit marked face.

[Al Doggity]

 You are claiming in the cases where a sample size of ten is listed they are using only ten total cases and in the rest of the study they are using 150K.  Your argument from the beginning was the sample size was to small.

It is a review of crime for the year.  

150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.

Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.

Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.

The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.

Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.

You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.

[Archer77]

It is a review of crime for the year.  

150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.

Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.

Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.

The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.

Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.

You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.

I noticed you've begun deleting your posts.   Wait, are you now arguing that there were only ten sample cases?  Did you just argue that wasn't what you were saying?  Do you even know what your saying?    And the ten refers to ten incidents. I provided the information that confirms that in your other thread.  You ought to do something about those acne scars.

Reread the information on methodology they provide as well as the posts in your mathematics thread.

[Al Doggity]

You're lying. This is two quick searches.    I feel tempted to released pictures of your inflated gut and ugly wife.

  If you do and he becomes an object of ridicule on the board, I'll feel bad for RRKore, but it will teach him to be more cautious in the future. It will also remind people of what a lying dirtbag you are. Just a few days ago, this was you:

It's difficult to measure.  Some will be vocal while others will not be. pms with sent me a stuff on you and wants me to post it. I won't. Be careful who you talk to.

Then this one:

I wouldn't do it because I'm not that kind of fella.  I've decided not to reply to pms myself.  People take conversations from pm and bring them to the board.   And RRkore, for verification I will only say I hope you and your wife(chanisa?) had as much fun in Thailand as it looks like you did.

Cue eyeroll:  

[tonymctones]

4 days a week. I'm in excellent shape.

where are the pics then?

[Archer77]

If you do and he becomes an object of ridicule on the board, I'll feel bad for RRKore, but it will teach him to be more cautious in the future. It will also remind people of what a lying dirtbag you are. Just a few days ago, this was you:

Then this one:

Cue eyeroll:  

reread your mathematics thread you pizza faced fat ass.  I'm not going to re-post all that information for your dumb fat ass again.

[Al Doggity]

I noticed you've begun deleting your posts.   Wait, are you now arguing that there were only ten sample cases?  Did you just argue that wasn't what you were saying?  Do you even know what your saying?    And the ten refers to ten incidents. I provided the information that confirms that in your other thread.  You ought to do something about those acne scars.

Reread the information on methodology they provide as well as the posts in your mathematics thread.

It is a review of crime for the year. 

150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.

Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.

Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.

The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.

Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.

You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.

[Al Doggity]

where are the pics then?

I never said I posted pics.

[Archer77]

It is a review of crime for the year.  

150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.

Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.

Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.

The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.

Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.

You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.

Again, you didn't read your own thread.  I posted information specifically about sexual assault and limiting the number of incidents to ten to prevent skewing the data.  Read your own damn thread.

I never said I posted pics.

A wise idea.

[Al Doggity]

I noticed you've begun deleting your posts.   Wait, are you now arguing that there were only ten sample cases?  

My argument has stayed the same. You're the one who seems to come up with a new argument in every post. You claim that you corrected yourself in the last thread, but you repeated the same incorrect argument in this thread.