Thread:Ozcaro/@comment-258494-20160307165624/@comment-258494-20160308145129

There are two issues here.

1. We want accuracy--"al known" is not accurate

2. We want consistency--I don't want you to waste your time re-doing everything, so let's decide first.

We cannot have this a list of "all known" cases. We could say something like "this is a list of supercentenarians (persons age 110+) who case has validated, or pending-validated, by a reliable authority such as GWR, the GRG, and/or the IDL".

The real question is what to do with unvalidated but likely-true cases. There's a big difference between someone turning 110 in Germany and someone turning 110 in Kazakhstan. The validation standard was intended, in part, to ensure data quality for scientists, but for everyday, changing stats for longevity fans and the general public, the validation process is too cumbersome to accommodate those goals.

One idea I have is the "accept unvalidated for age 110-114; if the case isn't validated by age 115, move to longevity claims (i.e., very unlikely to be true, but not impossible).

Another idea would be to accept cases as unvalidated but from nations with 100% birth registration for 100+ years, excluding immigrants. That would mean a UK-born claim to 110 would be assumed to be true, prima facie; a UK immigrant such as Nazar Singh would be assumed to be false, prima facie, because India doesn't have 100% birth registration.

A lot of that begins to bog down, however, as people argue around the margins: is Hungary advanced enough? What about countries torn by war, such as Poland? I think the solution is to apply the same rules, worldwide, to everyone. Make the cutoff at 115; if a case isn't validated after 5 years of effort (used to be 3 years), then we can assume that it's 99% chance that it's not going to be.Ryoung122 (talk) 14:51, March 8, 2016 (UTC)