Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23b4d2e8ad1994c

Jump to content

Talk:Acceptable quality limit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Melcombe in topic alpha and beta errors

Acceptance vice Acceptable:

[edit]

I think the quote from ANSI/ASQ... provides a subtle but important insight into the meaning and intent of the standard. Please include the distinction in any future article.

One way would be to retitle the article to the current specified terminology and put a historical note regarding the old phrase. If the article continues to be titled by the old phrase, at least retain a statement noting it is replaced in the ANSI/ASQ standard.

Thanks --KitemanSA (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The "acceptable" form appears in 3 different stats dictionaries, but none have "acceptance". If the alternative is to appear at all, then there should be better details for the citation ... publisher/date/ISBN or whatever is needed to provide a means of finding it (worldwide not just USA). I didn't find it online, but it may well not be as a lot of money is made by selling hard copies of standards. The websites I found having apparently the same name did seem to be using "acceptable" so obviously they haven't taken the point on board. Have you found anyone else who uses "acceptance" or is it just a single mistaken misuse of English? Melcombe (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the phrase does sound like a case of poor English, but the current definition of AQL (per ANSI) is "Acceptance Quality Limit." The earlier definition was "Acceptable Quality Level." Here's a link that mentions the change, which occurred in the 2003 version: AQL Inspectors Rule--Koppas (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have put a paragraph in for this information ...see if it is OK or change accordingly. Melcombe (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

alpha and beta errors

[edit]

I don't have the time to add this info now, but here is a link to a book which explains the link of AQL and RQL to alpha and beta errors in accepting and rejecting based on a quality test: Hughes, Charles C. (2005). State construction quality assurance programs. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board. ISBN 0-309-09749-5.

Another interesting link: Pyzdek, Thomas (1989). What every engineer should know about quality control. New York: M. Dekker. ISBN 0-8247-7966-5.

(Slashme 16:28, 8 March 2010)

I have added these refs to the main articleunder "further reading" for now. Melcombe (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply