Whilst I understand why
median can be a better metric than
mean in certain circumstances (e.g. you're creating/marketing a product, you want to use the
median as it represents the biggest age group within your population and therefore real potential buyers, whereas
mean age might be a number which doesn't correspond to anybody, or a very few people) I am wondering whether
median is a good metric when it comes to measuring website performance.
Let's look at the below data representing
page load time (in sec, the smaller the better):
Sample 1 and
Sample 2 are identical, except for
C4, meaning the website is only faster for 1 person. Yet, the
median changes significantly between the 2 samples (nearly 40% improvement) whereas the
mean is much more stable (less than 10% difference).
Accordingly my take on this is that
mean is more accurate are representing the page load time.
Do you agree? / Is my observation biased because of the particular samples I have chosen or would
mean be more representative than
median no matter the samples?