srsly?
The author of the original FGei thread talked about normalization at great length. That's the whole purpose of the FGei in the first place. If the GDocs sheet weren't trying to normalize, it wouldn't be calculating an FGei.
You deride people's correct answers by talking about logical fallacies, all the while inferring that you completely understand FGei, when in fact you have either missed or ignored its most essential element. Whatever credibility with me you had remaining after your first post has completely washed away now. Don't expect any change in that status in the foreseeable future, if ever. - Pella
1.) I didn't read the original FGei thread. (clearly)
2.) I thought FGei was simply a method to test and calculate efficiency. I'm surprised using a method that requires normalization being used since the number of tests that are required to reduce the percent error are significantly higher than a fixed count. I figured a hard cut off would be used or something like that. (again should have read more.)
3.) I didn't deride people's correct answers by talking about logical fallacies, I was deriding YOUR initial answer AFTER YOU attacked me for questioning the formula; yet, could not explain to me why I was wrong.
All you had shown me was that you were not confident in what the equation was doing because you responded defensively and were unable to answer the question or refute my point. Where CuCN was able to do so in a few sentences. Which comes to point 4.)
4.) Since your first reply you have taken a dismissive and repeatedly stated that I have no credibility with you. a.) It doesn't matter. b.) I don't care. Who are you to me? However, since you chose to answer in such a way and you care so much about credibility on an internet forum. You have lost all credibility with me.
