tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-211578983663662204.post2848347160073426577..comments2021-09-05T15:24:46.597-07:00Comments on MICHIGAN FAMILY TRAILS : 2017 FAMILY TREE PROGRESS REPORT ~ By the numbersâ€“How many new people? How many new events and sources?Diane Gould Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15362418860289987479noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-211578983663662204.post-43914812554861248702017-12-31T11:45:44.549-08:002017-12-31T11:45:44.549-08:00Dianne. Thank you for your comment. I've nev...Dianne. Thank you for your comment. I've never been very good at math and I followed the lead of Randy Seaver on his post about this subject. So, please tell me how to figure out the number of citations per person. I'd love to know. Always like to learn new things. Happy New Year!Diane Gould Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362418860289987479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-211578983663662204.post-90465333474847530002017-12-30T21:26:22.400-08:002017-12-30T21:26:22.400-08:00I find it interesting that your number of citation...I find it interesting that your number of citations per person is basically exactly the same from 2014 to the end of 2017. You've maintained your pace. What's totally baffling me is why you are mixing in percentages. Dividing the number of citations by the number of people gives you the number of citations per person, not the percentage of citations per person. The number 9719 is 222% of the number 4363; that doesn't say anything about "per person". By the way, your number of citations per person is ahead of mine. Just checked and it's 1.65. I don't know whether that's good or bad but I know I have work to do to catch up with you! Dianne Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06639001669633855805noreply@blogger.com