QTRA - I'm sorry i don't agree with it!

[Albedo]

Let me google that for you

 

 

That's really cool... how did you do that?

 

I've just been on the QTRA website forum. One or two people have dared to question the validity of QTRA in the way that Rob has, but were given short thrift...no straight answers.

 

The plot thickens:sneaky2:

[Amelanchier]

Dared to question? Drama queen.

 

Lets see the links. I suspect they all get answered fairly.

[Paul Barton]

This thread is exactly why I don't like QTRA (ok, the main reason is I am not intelligent enough to fully understand it).

 

Discussions about QTRA invariably wind up batting around probability questions and attempts to define levels of risk which in my opinion can't often be quantified. I used to follow the QTRA forum on their website but got bored of people asking about complex calculations to work out the footfall on a golfing green or the probability of a coconut falling without warning.

 

This not to say that risk cannot be assessed - I just prefer to describe it with words that are easily understood by my clients rather than attempt to impress them (but actually confuse them) with long numbers.

[Albedo]

Dared to question? Drama queen.

 

Lets see the links. I suspect they all get answered fairly.

 

Not heard of Google Tony?

 

Now I'm a predictable drama queen but can't resist...you're wide open mate:001_smile:

[Amelanchier]

That's really cool... how did you do that?

 

Ah that'd be telling...

[Amelanchier]

Not heard of Google Tony?

 

Now I'm a predictable drama queen but can't resist...you're wide open mate:001_smile:

 

True, but I just read all the threads on the QTRA forum and wanted you to find one that supported your point because as far as I can see - there isn't one!

[Albedo]

True, but I just read all the threads on the QTRA forum and wanted you to find one that supported your point because as far as I can see - there isn't one!

 

I don't really want to go there again now as I was really bored when I was there...and found it difficult to navigate.

 

I may give it a go later out of sheer bloody mindedness.

 

I agree with Paul Barton too and haven't understood a word of you and HCR's conversation.

 

You've always been the math's man of the forum but even you seem to be floundering.

 

Can we not go back to red and orange and builders chin scratching:001_smile:

[Amelanchier]

This thread is exactly why I don't like QTRA (ok, the main reason is I am not intelligent enough to fully understand it).

 

Discussions about QTRA invariably wind up batting around probability questions and attempts to define levels of risk which in my opinion can't often be quantified. I used to follow the QTRA forum on their website but got bored of people asking about complex calculations to work out the footfall on a golfing green or the probability of a coconut falling without warning.

 

This not to say that risk cannot be assessed - I just prefer to describe it with words that are easily understood by my clients rather than attempt to impress them (but actually confuse them) with long numbers.

 

Ouch. So how do you describe the risk with words? High, medium, low?

[Amelanchier]

You've always been the math's man of the forum but even you seem to be floundering.

 

Well cheers for the title but I can't agree there either. Maths isn't a strong point.

 

As far as I see, not understanding something isn't an excuse to dismiss or demonise it.

 

I'm happy to move on to colour spectrums They are more interesting.

[Ian Flatters]

I dont use QTRA myself but i do quantify in risk as we all do whether it be 1 in 10.000 , high medium and low or even traffic light systems. Some areas contain higher risk ie high volume of traffic, woodland edges, marsh land. I did look into it a while back and may still do i just prefer to write about it so the client can google "fell to ground level". But i understand its place in much larger surveys. I think some systems work for some sites and some on others.

 

Just my pennies worth on what i think.