[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Stats for SRH Postings in 1996
In article <4svfb3$p0q@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> 1996 is IRRELEVANT.
>
>Why is 1996 irrelevant? It wasn't denied that there were posting delays
>before.
Can you provide proof of this? In fact, the contrary is quite true -
even as recently as 2 weeks ago, there were unsupported claims being
made that the 1995 statistics I gathered were skewed. In fact, if I
remember correctly, you even followed up to one of my articles and
repeated one of the claims trying to ignore the 1995 statistics.
>Since there is not much delay now, I fail to see the relevance of the
>1995 statistics. Since the RFD plans to replace the _current_ srh, only the
>current (1996) stats are relevant. 1995 stats are irrelevant.
On the contrary - I've asked how the 1996 stats were calculated, and
I've received no answer. In fact, I've documented how that 1996 stats
Ajay posted could _not_ be derived from the publically-available
archives. In other words, you are now placing blind faith in a set of
numbers whose derivation is unknown and whose accuracy has not been
verified.
Once again, I ask how the claimed 1996 numbers were derived.
-Vivek
