Ellinwood Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Careful guys. Those are the 1981-2010 anomalies. The contest is based on the 1971-2000 anomalies. I was looking at the 1971-2000 normals Though they could be off by a tenth... taking it off of my company's site (we go to the hundredths). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smith Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 FYI, subject to verification, these are the final contest anomalies (and reported 81-10 anomalies in brackets) DCA ... +2.5 (+1.8) NYC ... +0.2 (+0.1) BOS ... +1.6 (+1.8) (my source for contest normals, or 1971-2000 means, is the table in the July contest thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 FYI, subject to verification, these are the final contest anomalies (and reported 81-10 anomalies in brackets) DCA ... +2.5 (+1.8) NYC ... +0.2 (+0.1) BOS ... +1.6 (+1.8) (my source for contest normals, or 1971-2000 means, is the table in the July contest thread) Those 1971-2000 #s look right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I don't see any reason why we can't just switch to using the 81-10 norms for the contest. As long as everyone is working off of the same baseline, it shouldn't matter. Sept is too late, maybe for Oct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share Posted September 2, 2011 I don't see any reason why we can't just switch to using the 81-10 norms for the contest. As long as everyone is working off of the same baseline, it shouldn't matter. Sept is too late, maybe for Oct? Because it's inconvenient for me. I built my spreadsheet to use one or the other, not to split it up halfway through the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I don't see any reason why we can't just switch to using the 81-10 norms for the contest. As long as everyone is working off of the same baseline, it shouldn't matter. Sept is too late, maybe for Oct? I agree, but I think Mallow touch on this earlier and gave a reason not to....I forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Because it's inconvenient for me. I built my spreadsheet to use one or the other, not to split it up halfway through the year. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share Posted September 2, 2011 August results: Congrats, MN Transplant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 August results: Congrats, MN Transplant! Sweet. Take that, consensus and normal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Congrats MN! Perhaps we should put the old normals next to the new normals at the start of each thread and remind everyone to go off the old normals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Sweet. Take that, consensus and normal! If I hadn't of had a bout of Tourette's syndrom with NYC, you'd of had a good taste of my skeptical dust! Congrats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.