Subject:
|
Re: Database Piece Count
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:59:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
636 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.database, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.database, Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com> writes:
> > > Can someone update the piece count for some of these older sets from the
> > > late 70s and 80s? Can you ballpark it? Should it be left to a public vote
> > > for what people think is the piece count?
> >
> > Personally, I'd rather see a '?' than an entry that says "around 800".
> > No data is better than inaccurate data. [...]
>
> That's always been my philosophy as well.
This could be a zen-ish question, but do you mean inaccurate, or
insufficiently precise?
I think that there are situations where knowing that something is 800 +/-
100 is very useful in the general case (as long as it's ACCURATE, that is,
as long as it truly is between 700 and 900 inclusive) and better than not
knowing at all.
Not sure if this is one of those situations or not.
IRL I tend to work with rough estimates all the time and find them very
useful compared to having no idea at all.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
