I'm afraid in this case you are wrong, because you are making assumptions based on data that you reject...the multiple survey position.1974ER wrote:Ouch... Wrong, wrong, wrong... at least on the EU realms. I have not examined the US realms as closely, but all EU servers I have examined more carefully show similar (mind you, similar, not identical) patterns. Populations are often at their lowest from around 02 to 04, at their highest around approximately 19 to 22.Quote: "The only way you know that a certain time produces a high population is...wait for it...multiple samples run at the same time."
The only possible way you would know that populations are "often at their lowest from around 02 to 04" is by multiple surveys.
Again, you are incorrect, though we may be using a different meaning for "transient".And the only way to know that the highest population is not transient (peaking at 23.30, for example) is to run multiple samples covering DIFFERENT times, not just one.
To know that a population is stable (to move away from the word "transient") at a certain time is to see that population again and again at the same time, requiring multiple surveys. A survey done at 11;) and again at 23:30 will tell you nothing about the population at either 11:00 or 23:30 as the data sample is too small to draw a conclusion on.
Here we do indeed disagree. But the problem is what you consider to be good data.You see, I think... and I do apologize if I am utterly wrong, that given the following situation we would pick completely opposite approaches:
Server x has 100 Alliance entries, 10 Horde entries.
I assume you would go for Alliance, seeing that is has strong data, which would make it easy to increase the the data quality. I on the other hand would probably go: "Horde has miserable amount of data, I should fix that."
You equate high population to good data and low population to bad data.
Data is data.
I may be completely misunderstanding you, so I beg your forgiveness. But the position you seem to be taking is equal to a census of Paris, France would be good data (because of high population) but a survey of Bucktooth, Florida would be bad data (because of low population).
Population is whatever the population is. The data is good or bad based on the quality of the data.
Now, we can change that a bit around. If you want to know the population of France, you can survey huge population centers and ignore the rural communities and you'll have a pretty good idea of the population of France. On the other hand, if you survey the rural communities and ignore the high population areas, you'll have a rather bad idea of the population of France.
In either case, though, only multiple surveys will tell you if your data is good or bad. Perhaps that high population area was a high population area due to some external or temporary circumstance? The only way you'd know is multiple surveys.
So again I go back to my point in the above post. Multiple surveys verify data. The data you want depends on what you are looking for, whether server makeup or population. But ultimately, multiple surveys are required for good data.
Going further, if we were given 30 days and told we are only allowed one census per day, you would assumably pick the time which had the most old entries and fell within you playing time. You would then proceed to run the daily census on the same strike of the clock every day to the best of your ability. And this even if the lesser quality data suggested that the peak population might be several hours off of your chosen time.
I, on the other hand would spread out a bit... most likely picking probable highest times for the first few days to feel things out and then variate a bit, maybe for example going 19, 20, 21, 19, 20, 21, etc...
At the end of 30 day period... the likely result would be (assuming the server is not horribly unbalanced) that we have both ran 30 censuses, I have seen more new characters, updated a few more, tied or lost just by a little, and you would have more "quality 30 characters" than I would.
The last line I agree with. And it seems I produced another "wall", sorry.
EDIT: Corrected a few minor typos. [/quote]