Talk:Reuse and Recycling through 2005 - Revision history

Rfs: actual numbers from FGdb

2006-10-27T19:56:45Z

actual numbers from FGdb

Rfs at 19:14, 27 October 2006

2006-10-27T19:14:26Z

Shawn at 00:48, 27 October 2006

2006-10-27T00:48:47Z

New page

'''The following table makes no sense - the "years" heading has no years below it, and the "total" heading...Why would we want "totals" of both intaken stuff and outgoing stuff? That would mean things get counted twice...I don't understand... [[User:Halfasspete|Pete]]'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 27 October 2006
Line 13:		Line 13:
	: Here the total is of the first two columns. It looks like we're disposing of 2-3 times as much stuff as we actually get. Something's wrong there.		: Here the total is of the first two columns. It looks like we're disposing of 2-3 times as much stuff as we actually get. Something's wrong there.
	: [[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 12:14, 27 October 2006 (PDT)		: [[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 12:14, 27 October 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	== actual numbers from FGdb ==
		+
		+	Pulling actual number from FGdb for systems created in the DB before the beginning of this year, this is what is recorded:
		+
		+	<pre>
		+	Reused Recycled Neither Total
		+	7,284 25,949 16,553 49,786
		+	14.6% 52.1% 33.2% 100%
		+	</pre>
		+
		+	That is about 15% (a bit less) are recorded as reused (Sold, Adopted, etc). A bit more than half are recorded as recycled, and a whopping third (nearly 50,000 systems) are either here or unaccounted for. The last nose count of the computers I did showed maybe 1,000 on hand in the building. This means that over 30% of our data is untracked when it comes to systems. Either stuff that never showed up (but somehow got into the database) or never got properly marked as reused or recycled.
		+
		+	I'd estimate about 80% recycle, 20% reuse. But it's a wild ass guess.
		+
		+	[[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 12:56, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 27 October 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~'''~~The following table makes no sense - the "years" heading has no years below it, and the "total" heading...Why would we want "totals" of both intaken stuff and outgoing stuff? That would mean things get counted twice...I don't understand... [[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]]'''	+	The following table makes no sense - the "years" heading has no years below it, and the "total" heading...Why would we want "totals" of both intaken stuff and outgoing stuff? That would mean things get counted twice...I don't understand... [[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]]
		+
		+	: I think Pete's referring to in part the ''Overall Rates of Reuse and Recycling'' section, where the total doesn't make sense. A total of ''Gizmos
		+	Reused'' and ''Gizmos Recycled'' would make sense, but including ''Received'' in that does not. Of course the numbers are a bit suspicious:
		+
		+	<pre>
		+	Reused Recycled Total Received
		+	Systems 7,029 25,582 32,611 17,069
		+	Monitors 6,998 19,625 26,623 8,408
		+	Printers 3,342 11,471 14,813 8,045
		+	</pre>
		+
		+	: Here the total is of the first two columns. It looks like we're disposing of 2-3 times as much stuff as we actually get. Something's wrong there.
		+	: [[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 12:14, 27 October 2006 (PDT)