J
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
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