[pfony1]

You are correct:

"Median" is not the same as "Mean" nor the same as "Mode".

From my (admittedly simple) example, the "median" price of all houses sold in August was $100,000 and the "median" price of all houses sold in September was $105,000.

And the "mode" for all houses sold in August was $100,000 while the "mode" for all houses sold in September was $105,000.

Given the assumptions I presented, neither of these last two statistics is very useful, IMHO.

Nevertheless...

Let's look at two months of assumed sales data in which each house (in an admittedly small sample) has a different selling price to see what can happen to the "Median", in spite of price inflation, if fewer "expensive homes" are sold in "Month 2" than "Month 1".

---

11 Sales in.........9 Sales in
Month One.........Month Two
Model..$Price.....Model..$Price

A.....100,000.....A.....105,000
B.....110,000.....B.....115,500
C.....120,000.....C.....126,000
D.....130,000.....D.....136,500
E.....140,000.....E.....147,000
F.....150,000.....F.....157,500
G.....160,000.....G.....168,000
H.....170,000.....H.....178,500
I......180,000.....I.....189,000
J......190,000
K.....200,000

Median: $150,000 $147,000

Do you agree?

BTW, I agree with you that if the number of less expensive homes sold should increase in Month 2, those sales would also cause the "Median" to decrease. As a quick example, if three Model "A" homes were sold in Month 2 instead of just one, thereby keeping the total number of homes sold at 11, the "Median" price would drop to $136,500.

So I think my point is still valid: The application of statistical analysis to diverse data populations can create useless (but "dramatic" and "newsworthy") conclusions.

[DonnDe]

So I think my point is still valid: The application of statistical analysis to diverse data populations can create useless (but "dramatic" and "newsworthy") conclusions.

I fully agree that many of these stats are misunderstood and misused by reporters. You have to be careful with your sample size, though. I'm not sure how many houses transact in a month, but let's say one-half million. Using your example and saying that transactions went from 11 to 9 would represent a fall of 100,000 homes in a month, which is not an insignificant number. I think we would agree that since so few in the media truly understand these reports, that they get dumbed-down and misinterpreted.