I must be a bit thick. I can’t make out this article on Crickey.com “The Real Olympic Medal Tally”.
Where I feel that I am missing the point is in the “citizens per medal” category. How does this differ from “medals per population” category, and how does it give such a different result? For instance, the article claims that
When we calculate how many citizens it takes to earn a gold medal, Australia rockets to the top of the standings. It’s beyond doubt: Australia converts citizens into gold medals more efficiently than any other nation in the top ten. And into that list you can add New Zealand, which takes 4,173,460 citizens to produce one gold medal. That makes Australia roughly three times more efficient at converting citizens into gold medals than our cross-Tasman rivals, and more than twice as efficient as the Brits.
But 4,173,460 is the population of New Zealand – give or take a few thousand non-naturalised residents. What do they mean that it takes “4,173,460 citizens to produce one gold medal” – didn’t New Zealand get three gold medals? What sort of maths are they using here at Crickey? And then why, if New Zealand got 1 medal per 4,173,460 citizens, didn’t it get included in the second table above in fourth place?