What is the methodology for estimating crowds?

Seems like it's a pretty important political question these days and I assume that CIA and other security forces use pretty sophisticated techniques. Does Seattle Police do anything like that ? Did the March organizers do anything more then yes?

I'd love to see that size of the March crowd but it would be nice to know the methodology used.

Quote: It's also the highest-drawing march outside of D.C., eclipsing even NYC, Chicago and LA.

Um, no. Los Angeles drew 750,000+ and Chicago, 250,000. Careful you don't wander into the realm of "alternate facts". Here's the Wikipedia page for the Women's March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women… But you can also check the L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune articles on their front pages. They are claiming 400,000 in NYC.

@3 I think it's satire.

:-)

Womxn?

Is that the Milennials' womyn?

I was down on Jackson in the morning on Saturday and it was an incredible sight. As depressing as Friday was , this gave me hope. Alot of work ahead of us but we will get thru this.

#3 You beat me to it! No need to exaggerate the numbers. The marches all stand together anyway.

@2: Basically you measure how much area the crowd is covering, and you take a set estimate of how much space a standing person takes up on their own (I have heard it is about the size of an unfolded newspaper), and then you just do the math.

At least, that is how they used to do it. Maybe these days they use lasers or something.

It is kind of odd how much stock people are putting into the question of crowd sizes all of a sudden, as if it is some kind of scoreboard.

@8
Thx
Well yes might not be important but since so many care it's important to understand the methodology in detail.

I love idea that crowd was 175,000 but cautious about accepting it.

bye here's a relevant link
It's a start on understanding methodology

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017…

@2 - One detail about crowd size estimation is that aerial photography is alleged the most accurate method. This option was thwarted in D.C. due to very low cloud cover (top of the Wash. Memorial was hidden in clouds), so the 500,000 number was from about 9:00 AM... suggesting that the D.C. march was much bigger, possibly topping L.A.s.

The KC "Guardian One" helicopter was above the crowd, as was at least one news chopper (I think KOMO, but could be wrong). But yes, I agree with you, it would nice to know the methodology used.

Seattle's March: KUOW reported that the front of the march had reached Seattle Center before the end had left Judkins Park.... filling the entire 3.6 mile route with humans. So on that detail alone I would say it was easily greater than the Iraq War Opposition March which topped 100,000.

@8 - It is really that odd that people are making a deal out of crowd sizes? I don't think so. Marches are tedious, inaugurations in D.C. take money & time & planning to attend. So the detail that Obama's inauguration completely swamped the Washington Memorial Mall, and Trump's couldn't fill barely a 1/5th.... yeah, that's relevant information.

That upwards of 2-4 times as many people showed up in DC for the Women's March to protest what Trump stands for and claims the privilege to do, than showed up for his swearing in... yeah, that's relevant.

The fact that people marched in other cities around the world to oppose Trump...yeah, that's relevant.

It's also relevant that Trump was "elected" by barely 1/6th of the USA.
He has tiny hands, and a tiny minority of support.

The GOP majority in Congress is largely due to gerrymandering... a sick, selfish partisan exercise in geographically lying to artificially boost one's own party. It should be done by a non-partisan group. That alone is a basic failure of democratic representation.

He/they fundamentally have no mandate to do what they're going to try to do over the next four years.