Xarthisius

As a general remark: numbers that Britsimon calls "max case number" or numbers at which I cut my plots are not necessarily 100% accurate. When we initially scan the CEAC database we check all the case numbers until we reach a range where there are only holes. As an example, for DV2018 we scanned up to EU42000. Last case with 'At NVC' status is 2018EU39695. It means that every case number in range 39695 < x < 42000 is a hole. However, it does not prove that there aren't any cases above 42000. There were examples of isolated, singular cases in a very high range in past DVs.

@LadyRain I think you asked me a question a couple of posts back ("автора графиков спросить?"), but google translate did a very poor job with your post. Could you try asking it in a different way?

Цитата
ВУВ пишет: Xarthisius, For numbers 1-28000 there are 7,656 processed cases. 2015 is not at all similar to 2017, much less similar to 2018. The principle, rules and approach to the processing of cases were very different. Unfortunately

That was going to be my point DV15 is more similar to DV17 in terms of processing than DV17 to DV18. That's the reason I put DV15's data on my website: to show that DV18 is so different from both DV15 and DV17 that it doesn't really make sense to compare DV18 to previous years.

Anyways, I usually try to refrain from commenting on other people's analyses. Occasionally though I see something I can't help to address. Nevertheless, the whole point of getting the data out publicly is for everybody to draw their own conclusions. Your guesses are as good as mine.