It can't be that easy to think of an alternative name for these stats if even a semi-pro-statistician is taking his time...
That makes me feel a bit better! lol
Cedars
World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers
by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
La Falta Habitacion Por Sr Hor-Hey!!
Theoretical Net Reduction........ Opaque Defecit Theory.........Ambigious Differential Figure........
-
Lazarus
In business world you would speak of an "output gap" (e.g. defective goods, theft, etc.). But as we speak of people, that wouldn't fit.
Maybe you could call it "number of missing publishers".
The optimal equation would be:
2011 total new publishers - (2011 average publishers - 2010 average publishers) = number of missing publishers during 2011
But as the number of new publishers is impossible to get, the number of baptized is the next best thing you could take and perfectly sufficient for your purpose.
-
Pistoff
Are there more 'members' (publishers) from one year to the next?
If the answer is yes, there is a NET INCREASE. In this conversation, net means when all modifiers are accounted for: new publishers, publishers dying, going inactive, being df'd, etc. Do some leave, die, go inactive? YES; that is gross change.
The number of PUBLISHERS is what they report, not the number of total baptized members; it seems like the number baptized has some rough correlation to the number of publishers, but they don't seem to report it that way.
-
Pistoff
It seems like one aspect of this thread is dealing with the rate of baptisms vis à vis the reported increase in publishers, and what that decline means, and Cedars inversion of the term NET increase.
See my last post.
-
traveb
As far as I'm concerned, it's settled. As I've tried to explain, I use the term "net decrease" in its broadest possible sense, i.e.
Net = after deductions
decrease = a reduction in figures
In this case, the 'deduction' is the baptism figure, or my "growth indicator". In most countries, once this is taken from the gross increase (difference in publishers from one year to the next) you have a "net" (after deductions) "decrease" (the number goes down).
I think the above methodology is what confused most people, including myself. I visualize it like this:
Let's say you have a congregation of 100 publishers at the beginning of the service year. For simplicity's sake let's say no one dies or moves. During the year little Johnny and Susie become publishers. However, Bro. Fader becomes inactive and stops turning in time so he is no longer counted as a publisher. At the end of the service year the congregation now has 101 publishers, which is a 1% increase. It is a net increase of 1 in the number of publishers.
Now during this same service year 5 people in this congregation decide to get baptized. They are teenagers and progressive Bible studies who had become publishers in previous years. At the end of the service year the congregation still has 101 publishers, a net increase of 1, or a 1% growth rate.
However, using your methodology and terminology above you would take the 5 baptisms in the congregation and deduct it from 1, the "gross" increase in publishers, resulting in a "net" decrease of 4 for the service year. That makes no sense. How can a congregation which grew in publishers (from 100 to 101) have a net decrease in publishers?
-
cedars
Pistoff - As someone that professes to be neither a mathematician nor a statistician, I assumed that "net" (meaning after deductions) "reduction" (meaning, in this case, the number who have left) was a sufficient title. I find it hard to call it an "increase" when the results of the calculation show people leaving. Until now, nobody has given me a better title for these stats, but I'm pretty sure it isn't "net increase" as another poster has suggested. How can it be increase when the results show people leaving?
Lazarus - how about "estimated number of missing publishers" - that should work, don't you think?
Cedars
-
cedars
traveb - yes, I see what you mean. I think the confusion was caused by others having entirely different expectations of the figures than I was attempting to convey with them. I wasn't referring to the yearly average increase/decrease. I was purely referring to the estimated number of those leaving each year after certain "deductions" had been made to reach that figure.
I apologise for any confusion. I do appreciate those who have been helpful and constructive in offering alternative terminology rather than trying to dismantle the entire undertaking.
Cedars
-
sir82
I find it hard to call it an "increase" when the results of the calculation show people leaving.
Yes people are leaving, but more people are coming in.
You earn a paycheck, presumably. You have income. However, the goverment takes some of that money out your paycheck.
Yet you still have a positive net income, right? On payday, you have more money than you did before, even though you have paid some taxes.
The fact that you paid taxes does not negate the fact that your net worth increased.
Likewise, the fact that many JWs leave (or are forced out) does not negate the fact that they are experiencing a net increase in publishers.
Sorry to be so picayune, but if you are going to play with numbers, you have to get the terminology right. If your use of terms is misleading, it defeats your purpose.
-
Doubting Bro
JW facts calls it percentage that stopped publishing compared to number baptised on his page. I find the breakout by country you did interesting Cedars. Paul looked at a number of different measures on his website:
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php
It's hard to measure but the bottom line trend is not promising for the WTS. If the trend continues, they will enter into a period of net decline. The % increase in publishers is down (growth but less growth), the actual number increase in publishers is down and baptisms are down both in raw numbers as well as % of average publishers.
00DAD has some interesting questions and I'm not sure even the WTS has the answers to those, although I would think they would find it pretty helpful in their retention efforts if they did. I do recall hearing at somewhere around 50% of DF'ed eventually come back but not sure if there's any validity to that. I would say the number who DA returning are practically nil. I would also venture to guess that based on my somewhat limited experience, the ratio of DF to DA is probably like 95% DF and 5% DA. It still is news when someone around here DAs.
I also believe that the number of baptisms as a percentage of publishers took a major nose dive as a result of the 95 generation change. The effect of that on the urgency level of the rank and file JW while sublimal was important since that was the first time many started to realize that they were going to retire and likely die in "this system".