Questioning Article Numbers
Discussions center on skepticism toward the accuracy, reliability, and sourcing of numerical claims in the linked article, often describing them as misleading estimates, unaudited figures, or fabrications rather than precise counts.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
The numbers are obviously not accurate.
Sorry, yes, my meaning was that it seems as though the number OP used to arrive at the conclusion is incorrect, either because OP made an error, or because of some reason that leads folks to under-report (as you suggest above), or because the data is wrong for some other reason.
This kind of numbers are not auditted. Might as well a journalist fake the numbers while in washing room cubicle (happened before). So just take this reading litely.
Rereading the article, which throws out a lot of misleading numbers, it sounds like their estimate was actually pretty close. So yeah I guess that seems reasonable
Its the key point, the title is misleading - they are not counting, they are guessing.
See the comments for the article. The numbers used are so far off that they are meaningless.
I wouldn't put too much stock on those numbers. They are probably statistical estimates, not actual counts.
This would be easier to believe if their display numbers weren't always larger than the real numbers
What makes you say this? Ie that they have been misrepresenting the number.
Because the linked article clearly states why the official numbers are not accurate in the authors opinions.Also "These numbers are just false" is not a valid argument.