| Topic: | Re:Re:More support than objections | |
| Posted by: | Anette Megyaszai | |
| Date/Time: | 10/08/23 17:18:00 |
| Good Afternoon, I would like to take this opportunity to address my seemed “inability to read and calculate numbers” as reported by some on the forum, regarding the evidence on Sunday trade: “They’ve now supplied just six months of data, but made just the same error, calculating on the basis of 7 non-market Sundays when any six-month period has at least 8. In this more limited period covers are still higher on market Sundays, and sales are less than 1% different. This period was likely selected to make the strongest claim of damage - in the other six months sales would have been well up on market Sundays" I reported clearly the numbers based on 6 months of trade, if you were so kind to look at the headers on each column, you would see them labelled: • Flower 1st Sunday • Vintage 2nd Sunday • Cheese 3rd Sunday • ( no market) Sunday after cheese market 4th Sunday Surprisingly enough it seems there is only one of each of these per calendar month, however there is 5th Sunday on some months as astutely noted in earlier comments – this is not included in calculation the Sunday in question is the 4th Sunday that the debate is about. For simplicity and not to be confusing the data was indeed supplied on below bases: 6 x 1st Sunday 6 x 2nd Sunday 6 x 3rd Sunday And yes you have guessed it … 6x 4th Sunday There is no 5th Sunday in any division and subtraction formulas as these are not included. Please do not make and publicise incorrect assumptions, prior asking for validation. What is actually very simple data collection has be turned in to misinformation by some. Please PM me if you wish to have a sit down conversation and I will more than happily be willing to go through numbers with you and clearly show that the data is indeed for 6 Sunday across all the market data. Thank you for your time. |