Quality Content Writers Group
Just so you can see how figures can be manipulated
by Arthur Webster Just plain honesty
Arthur Webster 
Just plain honesty
I really didn't know where to post this but it seems to be something that should be shared.
Below is a copy of a post that I have made to another blog where the claim has been made that $528+ had been made by the anonymous writer and that it was easy. I don't expect the post to stick but it has been copied and pasted exactly as I dictated it.
It is a real struggle for me to be able to read anything at the moment so things tend to be scrutinised in minute detail (would you believe a 1024 resolution at 400%?). Unfortunately, this claim did not need minute detail to show itself for what it was.
On the face of it - False.
A copy of a cheque was on the blog apparently, to prove payment but, because the name was blacked out, it could have been payable to anyone.
I think the arithmetic is fairly easy to follow and it is based on the numbers from the web site:-
8,306 members and $70,833 paid out.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to use these two numbers to produce a scheme of probabilities and I would hope that you will look at this and use it in future if you get offered a similar route to "easy" money. I used a fairly random weighting and calculated a best- and worst-case scenario so that I could choose a spot about midway between the two.
Well, the auditor in me looked at this and thought, "If I was proving MY income, wouldn't the cheque have my name on it? Since I am trying to convince others that I am a real person, wouldn't I want my name to show - even if only my first name.
Then I thought - maybe my 400% screen magnification is confusing me so I double checked - $70,833 has been paid out and there are 8,306 members.
This means that you got paid (whoever you are) the income of 62 members because the average pay out is only $8.53 per member. Even if I weight my calculation, to allow for the gradual increase in membership, over 7,000 members, on average, haven't yet received a bean.
If all members received an average of $528, there are only 134 members but if I assume that you are the star earner, on my weighted figures (which ignores the 7,000 who have yet to be paid), the rest averaged $53.87.
I wonder if that was profit or simply reducing the gross cost of the programme.
This has taken me the best part of 20 minutes to check what I had seen and I am grateful for the typing skills of a dear friend.
Mar 17th 2008 16:56
Just plain honestyI really didn't know where to post this but it seems to be something that should be shared.
Below is a copy of a post that I have made to another blog where the claim has been made that $528+ had been made by the anonymous writer and that it was easy. I don't expect the post to stick but it has been copied and pasted exactly as I dictated it.
It is a real struggle for me to be able to read anything at the moment so things tend to be scrutinised in minute detail (would you believe a 1024 resolution at 400%?). Unfortunately, this claim did not need minute detail to show itself for what it was.
On the face of it - False.
A copy of a cheque was on the blog apparently, to prove payment but, because the name was blacked out, it could have been payable to anyone.
I think the arithmetic is fairly easy to follow and it is based on the numbers from the web site:-
8,306 members and $70,833 paid out.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to use these two numbers to produce a scheme of probabilities and I would hope that you will look at this and use it in future if you get offered a similar route to "easy" money. I used a fairly random weighting and calculated a best- and worst-case scenario so that I could choose a spot about midway between the two.
Well, the auditor in me looked at this and thought, "If I was proving MY income, wouldn't the cheque have my name on it? Since I am trying to convince others that I am a real person, wouldn't I want my name to show - even if only my first name.
Then I thought - maybe my 400% screen magnification is confusing me so I double checked - $70,833 has been paid out and there are 8,306 members.
This means that you got paid (whoever you are) the income of 62 members because the average pay out is only $8.53 per member. Even if I weight my calculation, to allow for the gradual increase in membership, over 7,000 members, on average, haven't yet received a bean.
If all members received an average of $528, there are only 134 members but if I assume that you are the star earner, on my weighted figures (which ignores the 7,000 who have yet to be paid), the rest averaged $53.87.
I wonder if that was profit or simply reducing the gross cost of the programme.
This has taken me the best part of 20 minutes to check what I had seen and I am grateful for the typing skills of a dear friend.
Mar 17th 2008 16:56
Sponsor Ads
Comments
|
Cheryl Baumgartner
  Medical Billing/Coding/InsuranceSo many people refuse to look beyond the hype. Mar 18th 2008 10:58 |
|
David Schupbach
Arthur, I just checked out your 'earning at home site. I like it! Nice layout, great content! I wish you much success! Mar 18th 2008 19:41 |
|
Jean DAndrea
RetiredHave never taken the trouble to work out the figures, Arthur. Very interesting. Usually I just sneer "Oh yeah!" and go away. :-) They are so unbelievable, aren't they? Jean Mar 20th 2008 18:59 |
|
|
Arthur Webster
Just plain honestyHere's another one! This is from a team claim of internet success. They make all sorts of claims of early retirement and earning $100 or $930 over and over again. THEN THEY PUBLISH THESE NUMBERS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS:- 4,796 members 2,137 PRO members (44.6%) $80,983 paid out When I went to school, my elementary arithmetic skills would have told me that each PRO member has been paid an average of $37.89 - assuming the non PRO members receive nothing. So the question has to be asked - WHO is getting the $930 payments? A single payment of $930 requires the average receipts of more than 24 PRO members but only 100 PRO members receiving one payment each of $930 more than accounts for the WHOLE claimed amount paid out. Surely it should be reasonable to expect that less than half of one percent of PRO members would receive at least one top payment! It is mad enough that this company (scam?) provides these figures (WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?) but they then compound the folly by claiming that you will earn these $100s and $930s after paying only a SINGLE lifetime membership fee. Please, people, when the proof of the scam(?) is in the numbers on the sales page - DO THE MATH! (as the Americans like to say). In case you are wondering, I have placed a question mark after the word 'scam' because I have to ask, "Is it really a scam if all the information is published BEFORE A CENT IS PAID to warn would be members that they are about to be ripped off?" Now there's a neat thought for the lawyers among us! Do self inflicted wounds count? May 14th 2008 01:20 |
Arthur, my thoughts are with you, and also my tremendous admiration for your indomitable spirit!
To me you are the epitome of the 'Never Say Die' disposition that has created all of the finer things in this world.
About the check with the name blanked out, I think a lot of these marketers are looking for customers who choose to ignore their higher brain functions! It certainly is true that a lot of people will fall for a big number without thinking it through, but just as true is the certainty that less than ethical marketers sooner or later reap the rewards of their work!
Good to see your thoughts my friend, even if it were not your fingers that typed them! My thanks to your friend also, who has done us all a favor!
David
Mar 17th 2008 19:36