Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archives/2009/Jul

Boring impeccable statistics.
. So, do you have some place to save those data? . I don't think anyone is interested in information at that level of detail. Reading your table is almost as exciting as reading the Manhattan phone book. Would you like to average and define annual attendance and revenue for the entire period? That would be mildly interesting. What percentage of the US population took the old est training? What percentage took The Forum? That would be mildly interesting. What percentage took courses from Jose Silva? What percentage took Lifespring? That would provide a relevant basis for comparison. A bunch of raw numbers is useless and boring. Wowest (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I have some place to save those data? ... I have heard about some new-fangled ideas about digital storage, which apparently lets you store all sorts of stuff in many different ways, making it easy to distribute and difficult to lose. It seems to have something to do with computers. -- A sample of one has an opinion that no-one has interest in information at this level of detail? ... Wikipedia teaches us by the example of its very scope that unexpected numbers of people have an interest in apparently obscure areas of human knowledge. -- One can compare reading this data with reading the Manhattan phone book? ... No. The two texts use different methods of ordering different sets of data of differing sizes and applications. And one can readily get hold of a Manhattan phone book (at least a current one), whereas one has to dig for statistics on the growth and shrinkage of Landmark Education even before undertaking the work of summarizing them in any meaningful manner. -- Would I like to average "annual attendance and revenue" for the "entire period" of the existence of Landmark Education, thus producing something "mildly interesting"? ... Why yes, I would -- along with averages for offices and employees and leaders. But that would require many more basic figures and more accurate and consistent data. Does anyone have such numbers? or must we make do with what Landmark Education has already published? -- The question as to "[w]hat percentage of the US population took the old est training" has relevance -- particularly to the Erhard Seminars Training and the Werner Erhard and Associates articles, but answering that question in this context per se might end up in the "Category:Articles with limited geographic scope" and inhibit "mildly interesting" comparisons with the world-wide figures so helpfully provided by Landmark Education. -- The question as to "[w]hat [percentage of the US population] took The Forum" has relevance also to the Werner Erhard and Associates article, but answering that question in this context per se might end up in the "Category:Articles with limited geographic scope" and inhibit "mildly interesting" comparisons with the world-wide figures so helpfully provided by Landmark Education. -- The question as to "[w]hat percentage [of the US population] took courses from  Jose Silva"  has some tangential relevance, but answering that question in this context per se might end up in the "Category:Articles with limited geographic scope" and inhibit "mildly interesting" comparisons with the world-wide figures so helpfully provided by Landmark Education. It might belong better in a separate article comparing Landmark Education and the superficially quite different Silva Method. -- The question as to "[w]hat percentage [of the US population] took Lifespring" has relevance which some might find more than "mildly interesting",  but answering that question in this context per se might end up in the "Category:Articles with limited geographic scope "and inhibit "mildly interesting" comparisons with the world-wide figures so helpfully provided by Landmark Education. But percentages, even for a single defined area, can mask dissimilarities and provide misleading "insights". They might even classify as derivative  original research! A bunch of numbers as rounded and published by Landmark Education (rather than "raw numbers") provides at least an attempt at a factual basis "for comparison"s. If the numbers appear consistent in their sampling and relate plausibly to one another, then readers and editors can produce their own derivative data for their own private delectation and use. If on the other hand the figures appear erratic and inconsistent (or even self-contradictory), one can take that as a warning against making unjustifiable claims and against writing such statements as the one that inspired this particular thread of discussion. Either way, these "impeccable statistics" appear far from "useless". -- I very much regret any implication that the figures so impeccably and generously  placed in the public domain by Landmark Education should appear in any way "boring" -- but personal opinions on boredom may differ as well. I myself might go and visit some Wikipedia discussion-pages associated with (say) chemical formulae and adorn them with the information that I find the discussions boring -- but I suspect that I would find just doing so rather boring it itself, apart from unhelpful in the quest for writing better articles. At least readers and editors of Wikipedia can skip over and ignore statistics conveniently grouped in a table if they suspect that they may become bored by them. Other readers and Wikipedians may at least have the opportunity of reading and evaluating the published, sourced data. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)