I feel like talking about rates. It seems like people are very confused about rates. Let’s take a look at a simple example and then have a lively discussion about why there seems to be such resistance to using them when comparing data figures in our articles.
Let me give a simple rate example.
You and I both own factories. Mine happens to be bigger, and so I can produce far more. In fact, while you produce 10 items per day, I produce 10,000. Nothing to do with our skills or abilities as individuals; I just have a bigger production facility.
Now not everything we make can be of the best quality. Sometimes things just don’t work and we get a defect. You? You only have one defect per day. Me? I have 100 a day!
So if you’re looking only at nominals, you will crow that your product is far superior to mine, because while I have 100 defects a day, you only have one. Those who understand rates will note that for you, 10% of your products are defects, while for me, 1% of mine are defects.
This is called a rate, and it’s the only way you can accurately compare between groups.
Now when you look at other things that have nominals, do keep in mind the context. Know out of how many, know that you’re using the same criteria, etc. It’s all far more important than the total numbers, because outside of their context they are meaningless.
Let’s strive for some accuracy in our debates.