There is so many things wrong in the way data is presented. Most obvious fault is already pointed out by chrss. Apart from the fault with the way data is calculated, how lokwulf say that big gap b/w top two and the rest. It is even easier to say that big gap b/w top and rest...
Yogesh, there are so many things wrong with your critique of this data, where shall I start ! Well ...
1. chrss did not point out a "fault" in the data, he actually clarified what the data meant. Thanks chrss.
2. There is no error in the way the data is calculated, the data was sourced from Grepostats, and I tripple checked it for accuracy. The source data was accurate, and the calculation was accurate, so when you say "the fault with the way data is calculated" I guess you actually meant to challenge the interpretation of the data, not the way its calculated.
3. You conclude that I didn't measure the relative performance of alliances according to their number of members THEREFORE the data is wrongly presented ! YOUR conclusion is invalid !
I had no intention of measuring performance per member. I wanted to measure overall performance per alliance, and compare them to the best alliance.
If you criticise me for something I wasn't trying to do then you'll be here a VERY long time !
4. I AM in Fusion, congratulations you got that right !
5. You had a pointless rant about "what is a big gap" !?
Its tiresome to have to argue the point when its so obvious, but here goes:
I said there was a big gap between the top 2 and the others. The gap between 2nd and 3rd (24%) is nearly TWICE the size of the gaps between any of the lower ranks (8%,12%,2%,0%,6%,4%,10%,0%,13%).
Are you using this to suggest that I didn't think there was a big gap between 1st and 2nd ? Wrong again. I do think there was a big gap between 1st and 2nd, thats why I congratulated CJ for being so impressive. But there is also a big gap between 2nd and 3rd. So 23% or 24% is a big gap, and 13% or less is a small gap. Is this hard to understand !?
6. Obviously the number of colonisations depend on who you are at War with.
Fusion are also at War with Donkeys, so some of our colonisations are extremely difficult ! But we also fight easier targets so some are easier.
But that is the nature of statistics, they are an abbreviation of reality, so it is impossible for them to tell the whole story. However they tell enough of the story to be useful.
If you have the time to come up with an index of conquest difficulty, then I'd be interested to see it !
