Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a
few small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

And it can deal with those as well.

And so ... your question is?

--
__________________________________
HTH

Bob

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a few
small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

The medal count table is only used in the US with the exception of Google
which uses
the same standard as the rest of the world, how on earth anyone can think
that

26 gold, 26 silver and 27 bronze (US) is better than
43 gold, 14 silver and 19 bronze (China) is mind-boggling !?



--


Regards,


Peo Sjoblom

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a few
small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Also, see "Daily Dose of Excel" - Counting Olympic Medals...
http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/



"Peo Sjoblom"

wrote in message
The medal count table is only used in the US with the exception of Google
which uses
the same standard as the rest of the world, how on earth anyone can think
that
26 gold, 26 silver and 27 bronze (US) is better than
43 gold, 14 silver and 19 bronze (China) is mind-boggling !?
--
Regards,
Peo Sjoblom

I was watching womens gymnastics last night. There is *no way* that this one
Chinese gymnast was 16 years old.

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Peo Sjoblom" wrote in message
...
The medal count table is only used in the US with the exception of Google
which uses
the same standard as the rest of the world, how on earth anyone can think
that

26 gold, 26 silver and 27 bronze (US) is better than
43 gold, 14 silver and 19 bronze (China) is mind-boggling !?



--


Regards,


Peo Sjoblom

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a few
small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Perhaps the weighting is done by event? Gold in ping-pong not being given as
much weight as gold in Tennis? Not as much value in a gold for basketball as
for water polo? Ok ... just kidding. Skill is skill, gold is gold.

Could be they've weighted it by available skill pool - obviously China has a
potential talent pool to draw from that's significantly larger than any other
single country in the world, based on population.

Who knows - these things are probably like any statistics ... run them by
enough people in the advertising department and they'll say what ever you
want them to.

"Peo Sjoblom" wrote:

The medal count table is only used in the US with the exception of Google
which uses
the same standard as the rest of the world, how on earth anyone can think
that

26 gold, 26 silver and 27 bronze (US) is better than
43 gold, 14 silver and 19 bronze (China) is mind-boggling !?



--


Regards,


Peo Sjoblom

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a few
small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Frankly I don't think any of the female gymnasts look like 16 year olds.
If I had gone through puberty with girls looking like that it wouldn't have
been much fun. <g

--


Regards,


Peo Sjoblom

"T. Valko" wrote in message
...
I was watching womens gymnastics last night. There is *no way* that this
one Chinese gymnast was 16 years old.

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Peo Sjoblom" wrote in message
...
The medal count table is only used in the US with the exception of Google
which uses
the same standard as the rest of the world, how on earth anyone can think
that

26 gold, 26 silver and 27 bronze (US) is better than
43 gold, 14 silver and 19 bronze (China) is mind-boggling !?



--


Regards,


Peo Sjoblom

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a
few small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Yes I saw that before, it's hilarious.

--


Regards,


Peo Sjoblom

"Jeremiah Johnson" wrote in message
...

Also, see "Daily Dose of Excel" - Counting Olympic Medals...
http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/



"Peo Sjoblom"

wrote in message
The medal count table is only used in the US with the exception of Google
which uses
the same standard as the rest of the world, how on earth anyone can think
that
26 gold, 26 silver and 27 bronze (US) is better than
43 gold, 14 silver and 19 bronze (China) is mind-boggling !?
--
Regards,
Peo Sjoblom

Bob wrote on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:35:18 +0100:

And so ... your question is?

I don't see any question marks in my post!

"James Silverton" wrote in
message ...
Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim
"winners" for the Games based on medal count. The commonest
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

It's a Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma .

"James Silverton" wrote:

Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a
few small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

(sorry, wrong country)

"dlw" wrote:

It's a Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma .

"James Silverton" wrote:

Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a
few small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Well then, perhaps
a Freudian Slip tied into a Gordian knot?


"dlw" wrote:

(sorry, wrong country)

"dlw" wrote:

It's a Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma .

"James Silverton" wrote:

Hello All!

I notice that various newspapers are beginning to proclaim "winners" for
the Games based on medal count. The commonest counts can dealt with by
Excel and it was interesting in 2004 that various reasonable weighting
schemes for gold, silver, bronze, 1:1:1(total medals), 5:3:1 and 3:2:1,
made no difference to the order of the top 10 countries. There were a
few small differences if only gold medals were counted.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not