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.
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
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?
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.
What percentage increase do you feel is required for surge to be a reasonable definition. A 35% increase feels surge-y me.
The council planted a new tree on my road, trees surged in population from 1 to 2 yesterday
100% surge is legit
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.
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
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?
Given the sheer amount of Steam users, it’s still not a bad increase.
Sergei?
sir gay?
It’s not the percentage total but the speed of increase.
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.
Considering the many millions of steam accounts. A 1% increase is nothing to sniff at.
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.
Small number random samples in big data sets have huge error margins. You need to smooth this over time to see the real trend.