Re: Statistics on non-free usage
- To: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Statistics on non-free usage
- From: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:44:34 +0100
- Message-id: <20040109164434.GC7661@iliana>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20040109143658.GC5607@iliana> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 +0000 Sven Luther <email@example.com>
> >Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
> >know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
> I'm not sure what you mean by "error ratio". Can you explain?
Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
classified examples divided by the wrong ones or soemthing such.
I know my packages are used, let's say by 5 peoples. but John reported
nobody using it, so 5/0 -> inifity.
> The error rate is the proportion misclassified, which cannot be
> infinite under any circumstances where there are some subjects. I'm
> also not sure how it applies here.
Ah, yes, that is the stuff taken in the other direction, but then, the
error ratio in my example would be 0 (as 0 correct over 5 total).
speaking of 0 error ratio doesn't seem reasonable. Maybe 100 % error
ratio would be what we want here.
Anyway, it is clear that the data provided by John were crap, and cannot
> There is probably a non-zero error, but I think it would need to be
> greater than .5% before you can claim the table is showing the wrong
It shows 0, so if at least one person uses it (like me) then we already
have 100% wrong values, no ?