Thanks for checking this post.
I work with several doubting-Thomases that I need to prove something to. They think 100% visual sorting is 100% effective. I have been taught that (and it has been my experience that) it is usually only 85 to 90% effective, making 200% visual only 97% effective. Twice I have seen training tools that prove it. One was an 8½ X 11 sheet with a matrix of "o"s on it with a few "c"s mixed in for finding. The average person in the room found 85% of the "c"s on the page. The other time I saw it it was "f"s and "t"s, I think. Does anybody have this test that can supply me for our training session?
ie:
ooooocooooooooooo
ooooocoooocoooooo
oocoooooccoooocoo
ooooooocooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
oocoooooooooocooo
oooooooocoocooooo

Here's a site (http://www.wiu.edu/users/mirac/fun_&_creative_info_2.htm) I found:

Count the F's
Objective:
To illustrate that people see what they want to see; items of prominence catch our attention while seemingly less important items may pass on by.

Procedure:
Pass out face-down copies of the following page to the group. When everyone is ready, ask them to turn the paper over and simply count how many times the letter "F" appears on their sheet. Allow only a minute, and then ask, how many of you have the sheet with the 5 F=s? (Roughly half the group can be expected to so indicate.) Then ask who has 6 F=s on their sheet?...How about7?... Does anyone have 8?@ (About 50% of the group will see only 3-4 F=s, and approximately 10% will see all 10 F's. The rest will see either 6 or 7 on the sheet.)

Alternative:
Ask those with 4, 5, or 6 F's on their sheets to raise their hands and let those with 3 F's exchange papers so they too can "see" all 10 F's. Most will still have a difficult time identifying all 10 of the F's.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why couldn't all of us initially see all 10 F's? (The F in the word "of" sounds like a "V".)

2. Have you observed situations where only the important things get attention? Who decides what's important?

3. How can we persuade people to pay more attention to detail? Is it always important?

Materials Required:
Card or sheet of paper with the statement as shown.

Approximate Time Required:
5-10 minutes

Source:
Unknown



Count the F's

____________________________________________________
OFTEN UNREALIZED, FEATURE FILMS

ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS

OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED

WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF OVER FIFTY YEARS.

Here ya go.

While I agree with what you are saying, you must be careful not to paint every situation with the same brush. There was a study showing that 100% inspection was only about 85% effective but you have to consider what was being inspected. I agree your o's and c's can yield similar results but apply the same test to finding the red refrigerators in a line-up of white refrigerators. What would be the likely result? I certainly hope it would be better than 85%.

Dave

Here ya go.

OK Carol, I'll bite.

Quickly count the number of 'F's in the following text:



FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS





Wrong, there are seven.

Where is number 7 ????

Dave

Here's a site (http://www.wiu.edu/users/mirac/fun_&_creative_info_2.htm) I found:

OFTEN UNREALIZED, FEATURE FILMS

ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS

OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED

WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF OVER FIFTY YEARS.


I counted only 9 Fs in the text, where is the 10th?

Different than the first example which I disagree with because of "in the following text"- "Count the F" 's = number 10.

OK Carol, I'll bite.

Quickly count the number of 'F's in the following text:



FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS





Wrong, there are seven.

Where is number 7 ????

Dave

Dave - to tell you the truth - I never looked at this - I found this a few years ago - I think somewhere on this site - and I never even looked at it - :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

I think my question was mis-understood.
When sorting out the cracked parts in a lot of 10,000 parts of which only 1,000 are cracked most humans are capable of only finding 850 on the first pass. Then 127 of the remaining 150 on the next pass, and only 19 of the remaining 23 on the 3rd pass, etc. Somewhere in my many training sessions it was demonstrated to we non-believers by us looking at a sheet of about a thousand "o"s. Of the 1000 there were ~80 "c"s. (We weren't told that). We were asked to count the "c"s in one pass. The average came out to about 68 with most finding at least 60 and none over 75.

I am looking for that sheet of a thousand "o"s and an official count.

I am looking for that sheet of a thousand "o"s and an official count.

See the attachment. Made in Word in about 15 seconds. 1000 characters--add your own "defects."

Yeaaaa,,,, I was hoping someone could just quickly send it on as a printable document. In the background,,, I set up a quick excel spreadsheet with a easy random number generator, a vertical table lookup, and a "c" counter,,,, and thus a defect generator/counter. This placed the defects randomly and counted them.

It is attached in case anyone wants to try it. Hit F9 to recalc and make a new one.

I also attached a pdf I will use in the training. How many do you count?

I work with several doubting-Thomases that I need to prove something to. They think 100% visual sorting is 100% effective. How effective inspection is depends on many factors, but the most important one is imo the characteristics being inspected. Some things can be seen from 100 yards away, and others are nigh on impossible to detect even with state of the art equipment. I suggest a look in this old thread where we discussed the very same subject: How effective is 100% inspection? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12652) (post 20 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=115348&postcount=20) contains a summary of the discussion).

/Claes

Thanks for the exercise:thanx:

Awareness test
Ahg6qcgoay4

That's almost as good as my moon walk. Pretty funny. Thanks for the chuckle this morning.:):)