Question Stats - death

The criteria for individual missing dead event?

I ask because my stats say; 7561 dead indis (7586 drawn the 25 living) - which is correct and it says total death for events; 6610
The stats tells me - I need to find 951 death event. (7586 drawn the 6610 events)
But in my calculation I need to find 990 missing death event (difference: 39)

I know some of you just will say stats is only for fun - I still say - why having stats when it counts wrong - so please not this discuss again - but just tell me how it counts the missing death (if the criteria is 1 DEAT Y - there is an error in counting the events - if I know that - I will report it as error and know my counting is correct)

Do you perhaps have persons with just a BURI or CREM recorded? Not really sure how these would be counted: missing DEAT or not, both can be argued for.

I've looked at the source code, and the statistics page counts only the DEAT events. There's also a DataFix to add missing death events, which considers it missing when there's none of DEAT, BURI, CREM events present. I'd say it's at least confusing that these two parts of webtrees are not aligned. Maybe it's simplified in the statistics for performance reasons, who knows...

No - was a good idea but fixed that long time ago - I have my "worksheets" in three diffent ways (since wt does not have some I can use to find missing dates - beside the custom made report module - but it can not show all - only relatives to a name)
1) indi who died after the digital registration
2) indi who died abroad
3) indi who died in Denmark

All those have 1 DEAT Y and NO BURI

bertkoor wrote:

Do you perhaps have persons with just a BURI or CREM recorded? Not really sure how these would be counted: missing DEAT or not, both can be argued for.

I've looked at the source code, and the statistics page counts only the DEAT events. There's also a DataFix to add missing death events, which considers it missing when there's none of DEAT, BURI, CREM events present. I'd say it's at least confusing that these two parts of webtrees are not aligned. Maybe it's simplified in the statistics for performance reasons, who knows...

I know the DataFix - it only find my living - And to be honest - I have ticked all those 990 and looked at the 1 DEAT Y in all of them

The logic for the statistics was mostly inherited from phpGedView.

We have:

#totalDeaths# - a count of DEAT events.

#totalEventsDeath# a count of DEAT/CREM/BURI events.

Both of these count events, not individuals. Most likely, this was done for performance reasons.

I think the logic for the first one needs to change to count individuals who had any of these events.

There are similar statistics for birth, marriage and divorce. These all need the same change.

Sounds logic. Something you want to consider?
Or just removing the stat page? (I would be sad)
Nigel recoded all the stats. Dunno how. But it worked. But yes took more time to load. But the count was right numbers. He also made the ability to tick at the numbers. It gave a working (todo) tool by doing that. Just an idea 😉
But please let me know which part you will consider. Atm the numbers are wrong 😪

> Something you want to consider?

Already done. github.com/fisharebest/webtrees/issues/5109

Digging into the code, we have

#totalDeaths# - count of individuals with dated death events

There is also

#totalDeceased# - count of individuals with dated and undated death events.
#totalLiving# - count of individuals without dated or undated death events.

These two should always add up to the total number of individuals

fisharebest wrote:

> Something you want to consider?

Already done. github.com/fisharebest/webtrees/issues/5109

Wow. Thank you

fisharebest wrote:

Digging into the code, we have

#totalDeaths# - count of individuals with dated death events

There is also

#totalDeceased# - count of individuals with dated and undated death events.
#totalLiving# - count of individuals without dated or undated death events.

These two should always add up to the total number of individuals

Yes. Agree. I will take a look. If I can use it at 2.2.1

Jacoline wrote:

Yes. Agree. I will take a look. If I can use it at 2.2.1
 

I have tried the file on my 2.2.1 site and there is no issue.. I'm not sure if it does solve your issue, but the changes do work..

RickM wrote:

Jacoline wrote:

Yes. Agree. I will take a look. If I can use it at 2.2.1

 

I have tried the file on my 2.2.1 site and there is no issue.. I'm not sure if it does solve your issue, but the changes do work..

Not running at my php8.2 vs. 2.2.1 - so I will have to wait for it