On 10/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
You're trying to make an accurate judgment based on 100k of articles from a 2 million article field? Don't insult our intelligence.
I hear science has invented this thing called "statistics", using these novel ideas called "samples".
Assuming our 100k were selected randomly, and that some attempt was made to consider the effects of articles which have been deleted since they were created... I can't see any data on the selection method, though.
I would be interested to see the results which have counterparts in our records - article creation rate, say - being compared, to see if any systematic discrepancies emerge. It won't prove the sample is perfect, but it will let us know if we have major weirdness.