Talk:Bradford Factor

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Bradford Factor is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ref Edit 16 Oct 2014

To be exact, the information on wikipedia was an extract from the site bradfordfactorcalculator.com. The cut and paste job was from the site as a resource, at some point someone removed that URL as the reference.

The supporting information, absence management forms and other material are not published on wikipedia. Wikipedia summarises the topic, it does not provide free strategic and operational information and management forms and tools which support the effective implementation and use of the Bradford factor. I suggest you review the resource properly and do your homework before removing useful assets which add value for individuals looking to use the Bradford Index in a practical manner in their workplaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.57.159 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish the Wikipedia article is sourced from citations the website is if anything just a poor crib as any person familiar with the subject can see. Move on please. Tmol42 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certification

I have again reverted an edit that has qualified that the BF only applies to uncertificated absenses and has also added a non encyclopaedic edit to this effect in brackets. This is incorrect as the formula to work it needs to measure all absences regardless of status. So far there has been no explanation offered so once again I have reverted and suggested editor comes her to discuss. Tmol42 (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The help message for the user in question which you have entered would be a good start for him to understand WP. As I personally feel he is not aware of the basic editing policies of WP. I had done a revert for the conversational kind of text he had put on the same page. Amit (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the formula is correct, the examples are wrong

I'm new to the Bradford factor topic, but here is something wrong. Given, the formula (S × S × D) is correct, then all examples, but the first and the last in this article are miscalculated up to now. It should be:

″For example, this is how 10 days absence could be shown: One instance of absence with a duration of ten days (1 × 1 × 10) = 10 points (OK), Two instances of absence, each of five days (2 × 2 × 5) = 20 points (corrected), Five instances of absence, each of two days (5 × 5 × 2) = 50 points (corrected), Ten instances of absence, each of one day (10 × 10 × 1) = 100 points (corrected), For comparison, a single instance of absence with a duration of one working year (~240 days) is 240 points (1 × 1 × 240) (corrected)″

The above mentioned source of this Wikipedia article (https://www.bradfordfactorcalculator.com/) also seems to contain miscalculated Bradford Factor examples in their heatmap section ... not a good source to be based upon.

Who's more familiar with the topic, should please correct the topic accordingly, if I was right. Dimidechemist (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]