http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8030898.stm

Must have been desperate!

It really annoys me when news articles quote an approximate or estimated distance, speed, weight, etc and then state the estimate in alternate units to far higher resolution than the original figure. In this case 'about 150 ft' (which implies something in the 100-200 ft region) is requoted as 46 m which implies 44-48 m.

'About 150 ft' is 'about 50 m'

Thank you!

That's the shits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MautoK
Must have been desperate!

It really annoys me when news articles quote an approximate or estimated distance, speed, weight, etc and then state the estimate in alternate units to far higher resolution than the original figure. In this case 'about 150 ft' (which implies something in the 100-200 ft region) is requoted as 46 m which implies 44-48 m.

'About 150 ft' is 'about 50 m'

Thank you!

---

And now I've actually read the article, it says 45m - not 46!! That's even less precision than the straight 2 s.f. conversion I assumed he'd done (which would indeed give 46m)! Sheesh what do you want from the guy? Would "about 150ft (some metres)" be sufficiently inprecise for you?

Geek mode now permanently off.

Liam

[Edited on 2/5/09 by Liam]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liam
Have to disagree. Why do you interpret 'about' as meaning +/- 33%? 'About' is a non-technical term that implies whatever precision the person using it wants to imply! The article converts units and retains two significant figures - fair enough.

Geek mode off

Liam

---