Hi Rand,
I have no idea what the list membership is; I was only referring to the
the number of replies to the 'age' question. My guess is that the age
distribution of the list will probably be pretty close to normal. I
agree that the 'lurkers' almost certainly outnumber the contributers by
a significant factor - I was one for a long time!
Cheers,
Ian
Rand E wrote:
> Sample size too small ? I believe that our list membership is 4 or 5
> times that number ( 87 ? ) of respondents. I seem to remember 3 or 4
> hundred as a list membership not too long ago. So many lurkers ? Or is
> this maybe my "Senior Moment" ?
> Rand E.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Ian Lowman wrote:
>
>> Hey, doesn't that make me (and my fellow 46ers) a mode - that most
>> underused of statistical averages?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Talking of normal (?) isn't it about time someone dragged out the
>> central limit theorem? I'm guessing our sample size is too small, or
>> that the obvious non-independence would have an overriding effect.
>>
>>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|