'You CANNOT give 110% effort – an explosion of pent up nerd rage' blog discussion 15 July 2011 at 10:07AM in Martin's blogs & appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the news 32 replies 3.6K views

Former_MSE_Helen

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "You CANNOT give 110% effort – an explosion of pent up nerd rage" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

Dave_C_2

I 99.999% agree.

Dave

lilac_lady

I always think anything over 100% is ridiculous and I'm glad that I'm not the only one.

jamesd

I agree in general, but consider some useful cases where it can be an accurate and useful measure to use more than 100%:

• The Space Shuttle main engines. Normally operated today at 104.5% of design thrust with 106% and 109% available for emergency use because the chance of failures increases above 104.5%. 100% was the design rating, the others are genuine improvements or options based on experience of what is safe that can't really replace the standard 100%.
• The Working Time Regulations and both contractual and normal working hour cap that can be exceeded. 100% remains the normal contractual working week but we wouldn't want to increase the standard beyond 100% even after a long period at 110% of contractual hours.
• Martin's work week, which must surely breach the Working Time Regulations, were he not self employed.

aliasojo

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's an expression, offered simply as a way of conveying the strength of something. Pedantry at it's best.

We all have our bugbears though, so rant away. :rotfl:

MSE_Martin

jamesd wrote: »

I agree in general, but consider some useful cases where it can be an accurate and useful measure to use more than 100%:

• The Space Shuttle main engines. Normally operated today at 104.5% of design thrust with 106% and 109% available for emergency use because the chance of failures increases above 104.5%. 100% was the design rating, the others are genuine improvements or options based on experience of what is safe that can't really replace the standard 100%.
• The Working Time Regulations and both contractual and normal working hour cap that can be exceeded. 100% remains the normal contractual working week but we wouldn't want to increase the standard beyond 100% even after a long period at 110% of contractual hours.
• Martin's work week, which must surely breach the Working Time Regulations, were he not self employed.

I agree with this but explain it in the blog.

Percentage can be used in two ways. A measure of the absolute (in which case the maximum is 100%) or a measure of increase in which case there is no maximum (e.g. turnover increased 234%). Yet as explained in the blog for effort 110% is either meaningless or not impressive depending on which you use it for.

etruscanshades

Of course you can give 110% of your previous effort. If you don't qualify the remark by adding "of my maximum" then there's nothing wrong with the phrase at all.

We should all strive to exceed our previous best effort.

I don't know why people get so upset about the phrase. Its just hyperbole.

Errata

I worry about your blood pressure sometimes
People know exactly what they mean when they say they'll give something 110% - it's no more an indication of their numeracy than them saying a cat has nine live is.

Sceptic001

If only someone had told Italy not to borrow 120% of its own GDP...

User_name_6

I've seen somewhere before an explanation of when it sometimes makes sense to not have 100% being the maximum possible, but pegged at a specific point below that.

it goes something along the following:

a jet fighter might have a maximum possible speed of say mach 2... however in normal operations will only go up to (say) 1.6 - 1.6 is used as 100%, because operating within that limit means following the standard maintenance proceedures etc.

it can go past that up to say 1.8 but after any flight at that speed would require a complete engine rebuild, hence this is considered above the normal maximum say 112.5%

past that stage up to the operational maximum possible speed of mach 2, which would only be used in extreme circumstances - at the end of the operation the engine would need to be taken out of the plane and thrown in the bin. it makes sense again that this is not normal and is above the maximum "effort" that should normally be required, say 125%.

given these different figures, it makes sense for 100% to be the maximum it can do within normal operating proceedures.

chardir

I don't get why this is so upsetting? People exaggerate all the time, why is this different?

EDIT: just noticed my unintentional pun