Here's how I computed the average height of a state. I represented each state as a grid of 900 points. Then, for each point, I calculated how far you could travel in a straight north-south line without leaving the state. The average height is the average of these distances.
If you look at a map, you can see that California is bent into an elbow shape. This is why Reno, Nevada is actually further west than Los Angeles. The methodology used doesn't change anything in this regard.
Vermont is already here, and I doubt you could get both Florida and Idaho on here using any sensible methodology. They both have protrusions which affect their ratio quite a lot.
It doesn't have anything to do with the Mercator projection. This is actually one of the few cases where the Mercator projection hardly changes the figures at all.
Any system for calculating the "height" and "width" of a state that leaves out California or Idaho is, to put it politely, idiotic. Why not use latitude and longitude to measure these?
For one, longitude is not the same distance at every latitude. But the bigger problem is that California is actually very wide. You probably don't have an accurate picture of it in your head.
You can stand by your chosen methodology all you want, but most people taking this quiz are going to assume--as any sane person would--that you would go by the distance from the northernmost point to the southernmost point compared to the western versus eastern in the same regard. Sorry, but California, Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin are all clearly vertical states and it's not because of some image in our heads, as you tried to tell someone. You want an accurate image, take the state off the map and look at it apart from any neighboring states, which should not affect the answer--yet that's your claim. If you're going to use this methodology, you should have explained that at the intro to the quiz, not argue about it in the comments.
I know it's been two years but the Quizmaster is correct in saying that your own methodology disagrees with you. If you used Florida's greatest northenmost to southernmost length and greatest westernmost to easternmost width you'd get about 1.2 which is much below the other states. And you can't really use the smallest widths and lengths otherwise states with tiny bits of land jutting out would probably get on the list and it'd be ridiculous.
And yes, California does look pretty wide when I look at it on a map.
Additionally, the main person "arguing in the comments" is you, as far as my knowledge of the definition of arguing goes.
Finally, so what if they're vertical states? This quiz isn't about all the vertical states. It's about the states that are the most taller than wide.
Stuff like that.
And yes, California does look pretty wide when I look at it on a map.
Additionally, the main person "arguing in the comments" is you, as far as my knowledge of the definition of arguing goes.
Finally, so what if they're vertical states? This quiz isn't about all the vertical states. It's about the states that are the most taller than wide.