Re: a couple of questions

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

On Oct 20, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> > Hmmm .... so here is my summary table so far.  The results don't  
> > necessarily
> > look right here for some of the districts.  Can you look at these  
> > and see
> > what you think?  The numbers in the columns are the results of your  
> > script
> > ... the last column is total number of gigabytes.
>
> Your numbers look right to me. It's important to note that the % here
> is the % of cases, whereas my 25% number is a % of data. It seems the
> majority of cases in PACER are old cases for which they've only
> digitized the dockets and not the documents, so they make up a large
> percentage of the number of cases, but very little of the actual data.
>
> So, for example, mad has 100,000 dockets but Justia reports that only
> 14K of them have real data
> (http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-massachusetts/court-madce/).

oy ... ok.  i give up.  :)  Arizona has 400,000 valid docket numbers  
going up.  I wanted to come up with some indicator of how much of each  
of the districts we have already and how much remains to be done.

The only way to do this is to have all the data, then count.

That's OK, I'll have some interesting metrics like number of privacy  
violations as a percentage of total number of docs by circuit, a graph  
of violations by date filed (I have the header for each of my audited  
files), and a few other interesting ones.  I might even be able to get  
a top offender list using the initials in the case number.

Carl