Numbers don't lie... and these numbers are beautiful!!
by ILoveTTATT2

ILoveTTATT2
Can you imagine any other idea that is 'true' requiring that amount of time to convince just 1 person of its veracity? Or are all those 8 million odd witnesses utterly inept?
Both. 
Richard Oliver
How is my reasoning off? 250k increase would be a smaller percentage increase of 8Million than it would be of 7Million. That is a statistical fact. Is it good sense if you are talking about business? Absolutely not. But statistically it is a true thing.

WhatshallIcallmyself
Although I think it is fairly obvious what the answer is with regards to whether the witnesses are increasing at an ever quickening rate, as is often claimed in the hall...

OrphanCrow
richard: How is my reasoning off?
Because percentage increase is the only accurate way to measure increase. Not numerical like you proposed in your previous post
You said: "You cannot just look at percentage as the only number you look at."
That is wrong. Of course percentage is the only way to measure increase accurately. That is why what you said after makes no sense. None. Not in terms of measuring increase. Percentage of increase is just that  a measurement of increase

konceptual99
I get Richard's point in as much as simply comparing two years in themselves does not prove anything. For example, saying that (hypothetically) in 1965 there were 1m witnesses and they grew by 100k in a year and in 2015 there were 8m witnesses and they grew by 265k does not prove very much  the second number is a smaller percentage increase but there is no real context to provide any indication of what the difference really means.
When you look at it over a period of years, however, the changing ratio starts to tell a story. If you add to that statistic further data, for example the number of hours spent to get a ratio for hours of preaching to gain 1 conversion, or a geographical breakdown that shows the increase is virtually static in developed nations then you can start to formulate some conclusions.
Cherry picking a couple of years for comparison does prove very little and I would agree with Richard that one it's own even a reducing ratio of year on year increase does not really prove anything of significance. Regardless, when you look at numerous metrics taken together then I agree with all the posters that say the percentages give you the real story. The evidence presented by even just a few related lines of analysis is damning and is 100% the reason why the WTS concentrates on the headline numbers, the long figures that present an impressive picture until you look at the trends.

Wasanelder Once
Hey Smiddy, the love of the greater number is referring to believers. That's the official line ya know? The greater application is the convenient one of the world cooling off but its the BS explanation and not the official one.

sparrowdown
Going by the emphasis on shunning and loyalty over the past year the GB believes it's shrinking publisher stats and knows exactly the reason for them  it's members are waking up and walking/fading for some time and the effect has caused an insidious erosion of the overall number of publishers. My guess is they (GB) just don't want the numbers to fall too low before they have fully transitioned into a primarily internet based religion. 
JW GoneBad
Like all of WT's literature, The 2017 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses is a joke and it took an organization of jackasses to put it together! :)

Tenacious
In my congregation the growth is maybe 1 new member per year with many years being 0. The new ones technically were not new but rather children and people attending for years finally getting baptized.
If it wasn't for underdeveloped countries these opportunistic ballsucking weasels would have a negative growth that would not be published to avoid scrutiny and embarrassment.

steve2
If you have just 1 member and another person joins that's a 100 percent increase. It takes fewer numbers to get big percentage increases in the earlier stages  but as the overall numbers climb, it takes even more to get the same level of percentage increase.
So, from a statistical point of view, Tichardbus norvwrong  although I think he provided a needlessly complicated rationale.
Still, stagnation is stagnation and decline is decline. You cannot tart thesebup.