Alright, so I've been reduced from triplicate to just the one fuzzy bureaucrat. But I was puzzled about the impact of merging these figures, so I left a message on the Total Politics blog.
And almost immediately, I got an answer by e-mail...
Mark,
In answer to your question, that is in principle what should happen. The 42/49 thing was a duplication when typing the list, rather than in the spreadsheet. The score from 92 (totalling 8) was added to the one from 42, but as there was a difference of more than 8 points between 41 and 42, it didn't change the ranking.
Caroline Crampton
So, a tantalising hint as to the scores required at two different points on the Top 100, but not enough to actually indicate what the scores are for the most part. Although, if you're around 90th, you might guess how many points you scored...
I should also thank Caroline for responding so quickly - I imagine that she's pretty busy, what with Conference season coming up fast. And talking of Conference...
2 comments:
Surely it is as has been for years 10 for a ranking of 1 down to 1 for a ranking on 10 on someone's list.
Stephen,
Well, yes, I understood that :)
But it was the aggregate score required to reach a particular spot on the list that intrigued me. And as the data has been withheld for whatever reason, we've never really known.
It's something that troubles Tim Ireland and vaguely intrigues me, although not to the point of being fussed if I find out.
Post a Comment