• joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What percentage increase do you feel is required for surge to be a reasonable definition. A 35% increase feels surge-y me.

      • soggy_kitty
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The council planted a new tree on my road, trees surged in population from 1 to 2 yesterday

        • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s why we’re talking about relative percentages.

          In your example we would need to know how many trees existed on your road/city before. If there were less than 3 or 4 trees in your city before this, saying there was a surge is likely fine.

          • soggy_kitty
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I gave you that information, I said “from 1 to 2” and added context of “a tree” (singular)

            My terribly made point is that although technically correct when talking about relative increase it’s dumb as fuck to say trees “surged in population” after adding just one more on one street. It’s a drop on the ocean.

            I feel like the term surge respects the final total relative to what its maximum could be as well as the relative increase. But obviously language is regional and up for interpretation

            • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m super confused by your point.

              In this case we’re looking at Steam.

              I have no clue how many people submit to the steam survey, but I’ll assume it’s representative.

              A quick google suggests steam has about 120 million active users.

              Linux went from about 1.4% to 1.9%.

              Rough math says Linux went from 1.7 million to about 2.3 million.

              Or an increase of 600 000.

              That a lot, both in relative terms and in real terms.

              Here’s a counter example for you.

              You own stock in banana company. Over one day the price increases 2x. All the news agency’s are talking about how banana surged in price today. Will you then suggest that banana didn’t surge in price because it only makes up 1% of the overall stock market?

      • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not just a percentage thing. 1 person yesterday to 2 people today is a 100% increase. Not much of a surge, at least in terms of news worthiness. Going from 6% to 10% sounds more news worthy than going from 1% to 2% despite the latter being a much larger percentage increase.

        • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Of course, percentage just help show relativity. It’s why people can look at a 0.5% increase and dismiss it as not significant.

          Would it help if I translated the percentage for you? Linux surged 600000 to 2.3 million.

      • Helix 🧬@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Small number random samples in big data sets have huge error margins. You need to smooth this over time to see the real trend.