> K2DSL: I didn't say you were using P to solve for T so why state

You said it again ... there is only *one* unknown in that equation

> that? I said there are 2 unknowns in the equation which is accurate.

since the two items you claim to be "unknown" are related to each

other by a constant (known). Thus, if you know one, you know both

- they can not both be unknown.

> If I remove the top 20% of status records based on backed up QSOs

You can't arbitrarily remove 80% of the samples - each sample is as

> leaving 80% of the samples, that removes 95% of the QSOs you are

> using from the samples.

valid as any other. Picking and choosing data to suit your hypothesis

is wrong, wrong, wrong.

> Without the top 20%, the remaining 80% of the samples result in an average

You don't know *as a fact* that the total QSOs are 10,598,584. You have

> 85 QSOs/log. Knowing 125,261 logs uploaded as a fact within the sample

> period, Total QSOs in the sample period = 10,598,584 QSOs.

an inaccurate value for QSOs/log because you arbitrarily discarded the

largest logs. Any time you lop off the top 80% of the samples you are

going to understate the average log size and excessively reduce the

level of previously processed records - specifically because it is the

large non-contest logs that are the primary source of the duplicates

we're trying to measure! Of course you know that are are intentionally

trying to manipulate the data to support your "low dupes" mythology.

> that calculates out to:

Which is an absurdly low number since it is only about 1/3 of the dupe

> New QSO = 82%

> Previously uploaded QSOs = 18%

level given by K1MK. You're not going to have a 65% decline in the

rate of dupes between the first four weeks of December and February

with only a 15% increase in new QSOs - not when the number of logs

processed increased by 50% in the same time period. Your hypothesis

fails even the most basic examination.

There is nothing to support a 75% *decrease* in average log size -

which would be required to reach your 18% dupe rate - between December

and February. Instead, all of the signs point to a modest increase in

average upload size - on the order of 15% or so.

> That is how skewed the data is and also what others have been

The only place skewedness enters the equation with sampling is that

> criticizing. With knowledge of the fundamental way the data will

> show in any one second, a single large file will have much greater

> impact as can be seen from this simple analysis.

one needs a larger sample to reach the same confidence level as one

would achieve with a less skewed (smaller standard deviation in terms

of "normal" distributions) population. Go study statistics instead of

spewing a bunch of stuff that is provably wrong.

> You don't have to agree with the approach (I didn't particularly

All this shows is that you can distort the result when you 1) discard

> agree with yours) and I know you won't like the outcome, but it shows

> that not having the facts and making general assumptions based on a

> limited set of data and one that is particularly skewed can result in

> potentially inaccurate analysis.

data that does not agree with your desired outcome and 2) results are

unreliable when you arbitrarily reduce the sample size. Both of those

are known principles of statistics/statistical analysis.

You're never going to agree with my analysis because it doesn't support

your belief system. There is obviously no use debating this further -

however, all of the equations to calculate the "expected value" of a

distribution, probability mass function, cumulative distribution

function, confidence intervals, and the other parameters on which to

base an unbiased analysis are available on-line for you to study and

maybe learn something.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2/23/2013 7:51 PM, David Levine wrote:

>> K2DSL: You need a data point you don't have to solve for either total

>> # of QSOs or previously processed QSOs.

>> Formula: Total # QSOs uploaded - New QSOs Uploaded = Previously

>> Uploaded QSOs T - N = P abbreviating the above.

>> Data isn't available for T or P so you have 2 unknowns. What you

>> have presented is your personal determination of T based based on

>> assumptions extrapolated from the data snapshots. That's what I noted

>> in my original comment above - there are 2 unknowns.

>

> W4TV: I'm not using P to solve for T .... T is determined *independently* by

> sampling the entire population and P is calculated from that. There is

> only one unknown - T (total QSOs) since P is T-N and we know N from the

> status data at https://p1k.arrl.org/lotwuser/default.

>

> K2DSL: I didn't say you were using P to solve for T so why state that? I

> said there are 2 unknowns in the equation which is accurate. The only FACTs

> are # new qsos and # logs uploaded. You can't claim Total # of QSOs as a

> FACT as it's your guestimate based on the incomplete data provided. This

> specific item is what others are questioning.

>

> If I remove the top 20% of status records based on backed up QSOs leaving

> 80% of the samples, that removes 95% of the QSOs you are using from the

> samples. That is how skewed the data is and also what others have

> been criticizing. With knowledge of the fundamental way the data will show

> in any one second, a single large file will have much greater impact as can

> be seen from this simple analysis.

>

> Without the top 20%, the remaining 80% of the samples result in an average

> 85 QSOs/log. Knowing 125,261 logs uploaded as a fact within the sample

> period, Total QSOs in the sample period = 10,598,584 QSOs. We know as a

> fact the new QSOs in that sample period is 8,709,697 so that calculates out

> to:

> New QSO = 82%

> Previously uploaded QSOs = 18%

>

> You don't have to agree with the approach (I didn't particularly agree with

> yours) and I know you won't like the outcome, but it shows that not having

> the facts and making general assumptions based on a limited set of data and

> one that is particularly skewed can result in potentially inaccurate

> analysis.

>

> David - K2DSL

>- I run ACLog... When you hit the "ALL SINCE" button, change the date to

be something about a week prior to the LoTW failure...

I "believe", ACLog got very confused as a result of the fail mode of

LoTW. That corrected a very similar problem for me.

--

Thanks and 73's,

For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:

www.nk7z.net

for MixW support see;

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info

for Dopplergram information see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info

for MM-SSTV see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 09:05 -0700, reillyjf@... [ARRL-LOTW]

wrote:>

>

> Thanks for the suggestion. I did a complete download, and beat the

> number of duplicates down from 275 to 30. No exactly sure why the

> N3FJP ACL is missing this information.

> - 73, John, N0TA

>

>

>