After I aggregate to 2 or 3 digit NAICS, the totals change. What do I need to do to fix this? Thanks
Was this post helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful

Comments

28 comments

  • I played with the aggregation schemes in V3 and the totals results were consistent in the reports I looked at. If you are exporting to Excel, then the issue is with the export routine - see the last couple of posts in this thread: [url=http://implan.com/v3/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=152&func=view&catid=85&id=5166]link[/url].
    0
  • I played with the aggregation schemes in V3 and the totals results were consistent in the reports I looked at. If you are exporting to Excel, then the issue is with the export routine - see the last couple of posts in this thread: [url=http://implan.com/v3/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=152&func=view&catid=85&id=5166]link[/url].
    0
  • Thanks for the headsup on Excel exporting. My problem is before I even export to Excel --- the values within v3 are changing when I aggregate my study area data. Thoughts? Thanks
    0
  • Thanks for the headsup on Excel exporting. My problem is before I even export to Excel --- the values within v3 are changing when I aggregate my study area data. Thoughts? Thanks
    0
  • I had aggregated the reports and not the underlying data. This is related to 4 byte real - when you manipulate the data (which you do when you aggregate), the 4 byte real carries 7 significant digits. For example, the total output for the state of MS is 206,284,647,455 unaggregated. Aggregated to 2 digits NAICs it becomes 206,284,648,008 - it differs starting with the 9th significant digit.
    0
  • I had aggregated the reports and not the underlying data. This is related to 4 byte real - when you manipulate the data (which you do when you aggregate), the 4 byte real carries 7 significant digits. For example, the total output for the state of MS is 206,284,647,455 unaggregated. Aggregated to 2 digits NAICs it becomes 206,284,648,008 - it differs starting with the 9th significant digit.
    0
  • I'm having the same problem. I have a large study area. When I explore the study area data in an unaggregated manner, the total is approximately 1.8 trillion. When I aggregate it (within V3) on the "default scheme" the total is the same. However, if I define a "user scheme" through the aggregation dialog (under Options) and apply that user scheme to my study area data, the totals get WILDLY off. The user scheme I used was the "2 Digit NAICS for IMPLAN 440". And the total output becomes $2.9 trillion. This is more than a simple rounding error and suggests that things are getting double-counted. Is there a workaround or a reasoning for this? I tried running the same aggregation in Version 2.0 of implan and it works fine (I get the $1.8 trillion)... which suggests that this may be a V3 bug. [file name=Screenshots.doc size=2963456]http://implan.us/v3/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/Screenshots.doc[/file]
    0
  • I'm having the same problem. I have a large study area. When I explore the study area data in an unaggregated manner, the total is approximately 1.8 trillion. When I aggregate it (within V3) on the "default scheme" the total is the same. However, if I define a "user scheme" through the aggregation dialog (under Options) and apply that user scheme to my study area data, the totals get WILDLY off. The user scheme I used was the "2 Digit NAICS for IMPLAN 440". And the total output becomes $2.9 trillion. This is more than a simple rounding error and suggests that things are getting double-counted. Is there a workaround or a reasoning for this? I tried running the same aggregation in Version 2.0 of implan and it works fine (I get the $1.8 trillion)... which suggests that this may be a V3 bug. [file name=Screenshots.doc size=2963456]http://implan.us/v3/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/Screenshots.doc[/file]
    0
  • Actually, your problem is not quite the same, in the previous posts the differences were small. I can not recreate the problem you are having. Check you version number (Help>About...). I am using version 3.0.2.1 (12/10/2009). If you are using an earlier version, update and try again. If you still have the problem, let me know.
    0
  • Actually, your problem is not quite the same, in the previous posts the differences were small. I can not recreate the problem you are having. Check you version number (Help>About...). I am using version 3.0.2.1 (12/10/2009). If you are using an earlier version, update and try again. If you still have the problem, let me know.
    0
  • Yep. I'm running the latest version (see screenshot below). Try building a model from 2008 data for the California counties: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, and Los Angeles. [file name=screenshot-706862403699ab3d127b93487fdb5521.doc size=411648]http://implan.com/v3/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/screenshot-706862403699ab3d127b93487fdb5521.doc[/file]
    0
  • Yep. I'm running the latest version (see screenshot below). Try building a model from 2008 data for the California counties: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, and Los Angeles. [file name=screenshot-706862403699ab3d127b93487fdb5521.doc size=411648]http://implan.com/v3/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/screenshot-706862403699ab3d127b93487fdb5521.doc[/file]
    0
  • Sorry, I can't recreate the problem. Couple of things, I noticed that in the screen shot with the problem that there is no agriculture and there should be. There may be a problem with the Access data base on that one. Have you tried it on a new compilation? On the model overview screen, make sure you have the correct 6 counties. If it works correctly on a new one, run a checkdisk on your hard drive to make sure there are no bad sectors.
    0
  • Sorry, I can't recreate the problem. Couple of things, I noticed that in the screen shot with the problem that there is no agriculture and there should be. There may be a problem with the Access data base on that one. Have you tried it on a new compilation? On the model overview screen, make sure you have the correct 6 counties. If it works correctly on a new one, run a checkdisk on your hard drive to make sure there are no bad sectors.
    0
  • I tried running it over again, and I get the same result. In fact, I tried running all the counties separately, just to see if there was a bad county in the mix, and they all end up being wildly higher when I aggregate them by 440 sectors. The strange thing is, I was able to aggregate them properly using Version 2.0. Could it be that my aggregation library is bad? Until this is fixed, we're stuck using Version 2.0 with 2008 data. Would a resend of the county data be in order? EDIT: On a whim, I tried making my own aggregation scheme. One included all sectors 1-200, the other from 201-440. That had similar results, in that the first aggregation (1-200) was blank and the second (201-440) was not the correct total. Also, the same problem occurs when aggregating 2007 data in Version 3.
    0
  • I tried running it over again, and I get the same result. In fact, I tried running all the counties separately, just to see if there was a bad county in the mix, and they all end up being wildly higher when I aggregate them by 440 sectors. The strange thing is, I was able to aggregate them properly using Version 2.0. Could it be that my aggregation library is bad? Until this is fixed, we're stuck using Version 2.0 with 2008 data. Would a resend of the county data be in order? EDIT: On a whim, I tried making my own aggregation scheme. One included all sectors 1-200, the other from 201-440. That had similar results, in that the first aggregation (1-200) was blank and the second (201-440) was not the correct total. Also, the same problem occurs when aggregating 2007 data in Version 3.
    0
  • Ok, when I aggregated, I aggregated the model (under aggregate) and not just the study area report. Now I can recreate the bug. Any time you aggregate a report it only affects the display and not the underlying data. You can use version 3 with this data(and use version 2 for just the aggregated report). I'll let Scott know about this and we can get it fixed in the next update. Thanks for your persistance.
    0
  • Ok, when I aggregated, I aggregated the model (under aggregate) and not just the study area report. Now I can recreate the bug. Any time you aggregate a report it only affects the display and not the underlying data. You can use version 3 with this data(and use version 2 for just the aggregated report). I'll let Scott know about this and we can get it fixed in the next update. Thanks for your persistance.
    0
  • I see that there was an update made and there is a new file to download. Great! I can't seem to figure out where to copy it, however. The instructions say to place it in the "Implan System Data" folder on my appliance. It seems that I don't have that folder...(see screenshot) Where should I copy it? [file name=screenshot-78dde6ff6e19736775badd0e72bf09d5.doc size=1868800]http://implan.com/v3/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/screenshot-78dde6ff6e19736775badd0e72bf09d5.doc[/file]
    0
  • I see that there was an update made and there is a new file to download. Great! I can't seem to figure out where to copy it, however. The instructions say to place it in the "Implan System Data" folder on my appliance. It seems that I don't have that folder...(see screenshot) Where should I copy it? [file name=screenshot-78dde6ff6e19736775badd0e72bf09d5.doc size=1868800]http://implan.com/v3/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/screenshot-78dde6ff6e19736775badd0e72bf09d5.doc[/file]
    0
  • That is curious, can you create a new model? Search the drive for the file "IMPLANStructuralMatrices2007.mdb". I suspect that you "IMPLAN System Data" folder was accidentally dragged into another folder.
    0
  • That is curious, can you create a new model? Search the drive for the file "IMPLANStructuralMatrices2007.mdb". I suspect that you "IMPLAN System Data" folder was accidentally dragged into another folder.
    0
  • Its a hidden folder. In Windows Explorer, go to Tools Options View and click View Hidden Folders.
    0
  • Its a hidden folder. In Windows Explorer, go to Tools Options View and click View Hidden Folders.
    0
  • Hidden folder! That's it! Working perfectly now!:laugh:
    0
  • Hidden folder! That's it! Working perfectly now!:laugh:
    0
  • We had some users deleting needed folders like the trade flows data so we hide them.
    0
  • We had some users deleting needed folders like the trade flows data so we hide them.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.