I joked last night with a provider who was affected positively by this snafu. I told her that maybe TER's decided to screw the math and simply rank providers as they SHOULD be rated. I'm just kidding; of course, it's not fair to the providers who got moved down on the list by this mix-up.
After all the threads on Provider Math I now find they must have learned from TER.
Just finished looking at the ratings of the now top 25 providers and find that the ratings of at least 8 of the top 25 are incorrect and in many cases the average falls outside of the two numbers being averaged.
I will assume that TER will soon have this corrected but some at least for a short time can enjoy or detest their new rankings.
LOL.
I joked last night with a provider who was affected positively by this snafu. I told her that maybe TER's decided to screw the math and simply rank providers as they SHOULD be rated. I'm just kidding; of course, it's not fair to the providers who got moved down on the list by this mix-up.
With all the things being changed and added, the formula used to calculate the average may be pulling in some other values that are unseen elsewhere.
-- Modified on 3/26/2017 8:56:03 PM
These are the averages that fall outside of the two numbers being average.
Rating 9.43 (Looks 9.36 / Performance 9)
Rating 8.76 (Looks 8.09 / Performance 8.36)
Rating 8.54 (Looks 7.55 / Performance 8.27)
Rating 8.36 (Looks 7.56 / Performance 8.33)
Rating 8.3 (Looks 7.4 / Performance 7.76)
I did not look to discover how many averages with the two bounds are wrong.
I assume you reported this.
Maybe the system has not caught up to that new score?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_R2Nwb9fhg
-- Modified on 3/25/2017 7:57:21 PM
time with my review numbers. ... Ha. But you would think it wouldn't be too tough to write a formula to average two numbers. Or is that not how they do it?