i've thinking about the wide (W-I-D-E!) discrepancies between adjudications in Rupnet with the results amassed by running the Greenland scripts. apart from the fact that Rupnet lists mostly India AOS cases (which to my view should have little if any bearing on the situation), the other obvious dilemma that makes the two processes fairly non-statistical is the fact that Rupnet, unfortunately, comprises of only a miniscule percentage of the total cases filed. just how much is the million $ question.
the average of the first 4 months in 2002 postings from Rupnet is a depressingly low 71 per month, compared with a lower limit of 500 per day and a higher of over 700 per day of actual 485 cases. this translates (considering a work-week of 6 per week) to Rupnet representing anywhere between 0.57 and 0.41 - and that's in percentage, my friend, so it's already multiplied by that 100 number!
hence, Rupnet cases = 0.41% - 0.57% of total 485 cases filed in those months.
here you have it - no wonder it's ske-e-e-e-wed! and we're pretty much scre-e-e-e-wed!
the average of the first 4 months in 2002 postings from Rupnet is a depressingly low 71 per month, compared with a lower limit of 500 per day and a higher of over 700 per day of actual 485 cases. this translates (considering a work-week of 6 per week) to Rupnet representing anywhere between 0.57 and 0.41 - and that's in percentage, my friend, so it's already multiplied by that 100 number!
hence, Rupnet cases = 0.41% - 0.57% of total 485 cases filed in those months.
here you have it - no wonder it's ske-e-e-e-wed! and we're pretty much scre-e-e-e-wed!
Last edited by a moderator: