Return to Home Page Facebook Facebook Twitter RSS Feed Contact and and

Ratings Report from July 2010 Corrected

UTICA/ROME — The recent release of Eastlan’s Fall 2010 ratings estimates for Utica/Rome have drawn light on some problems with an earlier story published here on back in July 2010.  In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to take this chance to explain the errors made here, and the corrective action which has been taken.

Shortly after publishing the latest Eastlan Ratings this week, a manager from one local cluster emailed to ask how the Spring 2010 ratings managed to change.

Basically, the current (Fall 2010) ratings were imported to from an Excel spreadsheet received directly from Eastlan Ratings.  So, there’s no question that the ratings which now appear are 100% correct.  This spreadsheet file completely replaced the old chart (rather than “merging” with or adding to it).

However, when I first added the Spring 2010 numbers back in July, I simply added the Spring numbers to an existing chart.  Thanks to the “chart-creation” module of the site software being not-so-user-friendly, it was quite possible that I could have transposed some of the numbers, entering them in the wrong order.

To go along with the release of the Spring 2010 ratings, a recap story was published on July 13, 2010.  Shortly after this story was published, there was question and confusion over the accuracy of the numbers.  As a result, I went into the chart editor and thought that I had been correcting the numbers — and the article was rewritten accordingly.

But, when the Fall 2010 numbers came out, showing different Spring 2010 numbers than I had previously posted on the ratings page — that’s when the questions arose.  When I looked back at the “old versions” of that July 13th article, I discovered, much to my surprise — that the original article and the original numbers were right!  So, the July 13th recap of the Spring 2010 book has been reverted back to the original version, matching with the correct ratings data.

In summary, I apologize for any confusion and misunderstanding created by this series of events.

Bottom line, a number of “errors” were “corrected” back in July, but as it turns out, everything was correct in the first place.  So the “corrections” have been corrected themselves, and everything you see on the site is now accurate.

Other stories about:

Comment with your Login