Suggestion:20071018 Fix stats page percentages

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed.

20071018 Fix stats page percentages

The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:17, 18 October 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvement

Suggestion scope
Stats page, everyone who gives a shit.

Suggestion description
Its quite simple, really. Ever since the stats page has been open, its percentages are fucked up. It automatically rounds up the zombie population and rounds down the human one. On the 21st of April last year this was demonstrated most tellingly (Numbers harvested from Kevans talk page archive, where i posted them in ages past):

Standing Survivors : 19425 (50%)
Standing Zombies : 19425 (51%)

This really does need to stop. The stats do not provide an accurate picture of the makup of the game, and given how many people use them to justify their positions both here and in debates elsewhere, its time they were fixed to accurately reflect the percentages.

My proposal is that the percentages be shown to at least one decimal place, with proper rounding in place for the decimal point(Up at 5+, down at 4-).
So, the present percentages:

Standing Survivors : 16409 (57%)
Standing Zombies : 11994 (43%)

Will become:

Standing Survivors : 16409 (57.8%)
Standing Zombies : 11994 (42.2%)

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep - Ok Mr. Grim. Here is your very serious vote.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:22, 18 October 2007 (BST)
2. Sure - Whatever. doc crook 02:37, 18 October 2007 (BST)
3. Keep- Meh. Why not? --Vkkhamul 02:54, 18 October 2007 (BST)
4. Keep - Yes? Sockem 02:55, 18 October 2007 (BST)
5. Keep - Yep. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 03:01, 18 October 2007 (BST)
6. Keep - Of course.--Karek^maps?! 03:38, 18 October 2007 (BST)
7. Keep – Agreed. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:12, 18 October 2007 (BST)
8. Keep - As you can tell from my most recent suggestion, I am all for more (and more accurate) information on the Stats page. It makes no sense to round Zombies up and Survivors down. Survivors frequently find themselves in an (un)dead state. Mrh? Cows count as Zombies, and are quite common. Far fewer Zombies "accidentally" find themselves in a living state. Even if the percentages continue to be rounded to whole numbers, the rounding should at least be skewed the other way. --Steakfish 04:45, 18 October 2007 (BST)
9. Keep - The more accurate the better. --Sonofagun18 05:42, 18 October 2007 (BST)
10. Keep - Amen. --the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 06:10, 18 October 2007 (BST)
11. Weak Keep - One percent here or there doesn't affect very much, but it still is misleading. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 06:12, 18 October 2007 (BST)
12. Keep - Yup.--Seventythree^Talk 07:50, 18 October 2007 (BST)
13. Keep - I vote 89.8% keep for this one :P--  Savant  Chit-Chat  08:05, 18 October 2007 (BST)
14. Keep - Because authors are voters too. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:47, 18 October 2007 (BST)
15. Keep - Fix the math! -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 09:02, 18 October 2007 (BST)
16. Sheep - Sure, why not. Studoku 09:09, 18 October 2007 (BST)
17. Keep - No brainer. --WanYao 10:14, 18 October 2007 (BST)
18. Keep - Maths is fun --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 10:48, 18 October 2007 (BST)
19. Fart - whilst it's all well and good to have accurate maths (thus my voting in the Keep section here), it's a funting sad state of affairs when people are arguing over single points of percentage. Jebus H Life, people! --Funt Solo 12:09, 18 October 2007 (BST)
20. Keep - Huh? --Perne 12:40, 18 October 2007 (BST)
21. Keep - Moar numbers! --^T 13:42, 18 October 2007 (BST)
22. Weak Keep - Most people should be able to take any percentage or presentation of a statistic with a grain of salt. That being said, it is Math, and even a marginal error is still an error. --Ryiis 14:48, 18 October 2007 (BST)
23. Weak Keep - I am always for fixing things and making them right, but I also agree with Boxy below - so it is a weak keep vote for me. --Shazzelim 15:24, 18 October 2007 (BST)
24. Keep I don't think a 1% difference should matter at all in any debates, but why not be slightly more accurate? --Jon Pyre 15:49, 18 October 2007 (BST)
25. Keep - Reasonable argument. Also, math is an exact science. LCpl Hicks 15:53, 18 October 2007 (BST)
26. Keep - If people are basing arguements on it, the most accurate the better. Otherwise I'm ambivilent about it.--Actingupagain 16:25, 18 October 2007 (BST)
27. Keep - A little more precision is a good thing...or harmless, at least.--Jiangyingzi 17:50, 18 October 2007 (BST)
28. Whatever BoboTalkClown 20:10, 18 October 2007 (BST)
29. Keep I guess. Couldnt we just ask him to put 51% ish--Rosslessness 20:12, 18 October 2007 (BST)
30. Keep - Putting it into Peer Reviewed doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. Its a problem, and it should be fixed, if it ever is. --Karlsbad 21:58, 18 October 2007 (BST)
31. Keep - The stats are practically meaningless, as combat reviving happens less than clawing to death, so zombies will always show higher numbers than actual zombie players, but meh, I'll let you have your .3%. --Howard Bentley 23:09, 18 October 2007 (BST)
32. Keep - +1-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:13, 18 October 2007 (BST)
33. Weak Keep - As said, who cares, but it is something that should still be done. --Shatterspike1 00:03, 19 October 2007 (BST)
34. More information can hurt. Problem is the stats are muddled by Mrh?-Cows.--Pesatyel 03:31, 19 October 2007 (BST)

    Well, regarding mrh cows, i generally just eliminate them by removing from the zombie population the total number of revivifying bodies. You get a more or less accurate picture of the daily revive rate too that way. dead bodies are usually just dead people and dead zombies. I usually assume a population of about the same as the revive rate is dead people, and the rest being dead zombies. Its not perfect, and it makes a lot of assumptions, but they are reasonable ones. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:48, 19 October 2007 (BST)

35. Keep Why the hell not? Accuracy is nice! ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 04:12, 19 October 2007 (BST)
36. Keep - Internets, serious business. Glenstone 06:02, 19 October 2007 (BST)
37. Keep - Gets a keep from me, but I don't see this as a very high priority fix. Nevertheless all small things put together make for great improvements.. - Whitehouse 13:52, 19 October 2007 (BST)
38. Against my better judgment, and if it'll quell at least some of the stupid fucking drama & bitching, can't argue against accuracy, etc, whatever Slightly Lions 16:24, 19 October 2007 (BST)
39. Keep - Sure, why not? -- Mordac the Refuser 17:22, 19 October 2007 (BST)
40. Keep - What the guy above me said.--Kolechovski 15:30, 23 October 2007 (BST)
41. Keep- I like it, just a simple way of cleaning up statistical errors.-- BKM 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Keep - Why not? -J. A. 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - What? Kevan has to waste his time reading a suggestion to ensure that the stats are rounded properly, when the error is 1% point at most? Meh. No-one should be making decisions on one percent difference on the stats page -- boxy • talk • 12:55 18 October 2007 (BST)
2. Kill - Those stats' purpose is exaggerated. 1% error? Oh, common... --~~~~ [talk] 18:09, 18 October 2007 (BST)
3. Kill - As Duke. --MrCoolantSpray 18:37, 18 October 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes