The numbers in this blog make no sense. It says the rarest types are 10 to 12%, with more common ones being "a bit higher". First, that last bit sounds a lot like there's no difference statistically among the types. But secondly, think about what the null hypothesis would be: there are 9 types, and if all were equally represented, each would be present in exactly 11.11111...% of the population. So how can the majority of types have representations "a bit higher" than 10 to 12%? That would end up totalling more than 100%!
NancyN (not verified)says...
The numbers in this blog make no sense. It says the rarest types are 10 to 12%, with more common ones being "a bit higher". First, that last bit sounds a lot like there's no difference statistically among the types. But secondly, think about what the null hypothesis would be: there are 9 types, and if all were equally represented, each would be present in exactly 11.11111...% of the population. So how can the majority of types have representations "a bit higher" than 10 to 12%? That would end up totalling more than 100%!