Good point. My preference for CBC data would be to publish only one or
two significant digits, e.g., 3.4 x 10e5. I doubt that the additional
digits have any meaning whatsoever.

Gene Hunn.

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Herb Curl wrote:

> I know many people take pride in coming up with an absolute number but . . .
> how accurate are those numbers or how important? You're only counting what
> you can see and part of the local flock may be just over the hill or passed
> by two minutes ago. My practice has been to count individuals up to ten,
> then use 10 plus, 15 plus or minus, 25 plus or minus, 50 plus or minus,
> 100 plus or minus, 500 plus or minus, 1000 plus or minus, etc. My thought
> is, the larger the number the less important it is to be precise. So I use
> the density method and note 15 Bushtits without counting every one. Of
> course if I saw 16 Bramblings I'd count them all! Give me 10 lashes (plus
> or minus) with binocular strap if I'm missing something (other than 1000
> Snow Geese.)
>
> Herb Curl
>
> h.curl at hazmat.noaa.gov "You may be only young once but you can be
> Hazmat/NOAA, 7600 Sand Pt. Wy., NE immature the rest of your life."
> Seattle, WA 98115-0070
> (206) 526-6272
>
>