The end of the family photos

[indigo_rose99]

2722 scans done over 52 days.  Estimated 95.5 hours spent actually scanning. 

I'm gonna sing the "Done" song now.

Estimated hours spent actually scanning based on a random sample.  "Random sample" is defined as a sample in which any photo scan has an equal chance of being selected.  I randomly chose 10 days out of the 52 using a random number generator.  I randomly chose a point in that day (random generator again) of scanning to start my recording of the times of 5 consecutive scans.  Calculated the time difference between those 50 scans and came up with a median of 2 minutes, mean of 2.075 minutes.  Thus, picture scans took 2 minutes in my estimate.  Negative scans (based on timing with a stopwatch) took approximately 2 minutes 45 seconds per scan. 

See?  No one ever wants the gritty details of my estimates.

Comments

[reedrover]

Done done done duh-done done done!

Or you could scream "I am INVINCIBLE" at the top of your lungs. That works too.

[tiger-stripes.livejournal.com]

oh wow.. and I thought I over-analyzed everything :P

I can't wait to see waht you have done for my reduction surgery :)

[indigo-rose99.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you can laugh at my *ahem* attention to detail. T just rolls his eyes.

[livingdeb.livejournal.com]

Did you also graph time per scan against days from start so you could see if you were getting quicker, slower, quicker then slower, or something else?

Ahem, I mean, congratulations!

[indigo-rose99.livejournal.com]

Such a graph would be cool, but is not necessary to my personal goal (estimating time spent). And making the graph would require a LOT more samples. I had to type in the data by hand to get this data. Ah, if only I had picture-of-text to text converter... But I don't.

*grin* I know you are teasing me. Thanks.