My friend says he has an almost 100% accuracy rate. Other people say that's impossible or he's lying. But he seems sincere.
Before you consider any number handed you in remote viewing, you need to know what form of measure the individual is using.
In some schools, should a viewer describe something that ‘seems like the target chosen’ then they are considered on-target -- 1 for 1, 100% accurate! Since it’s awfully easy to get a gestalt and be considered on-target by this measure, that’s a pretty easy one.
Some schools break down every single perception provided in a session, and then upon feedback, compare it critically to a photograph, and then they come up with accuracy %s for a long list of ‘aspects’ of the target (e.g., sound, color, concept--) and an overall average % from that. Obviously, this is drastically different than the first example, and generally a much lower number over time.
Then there are times -- modern RV in science usually works this way -- where the session data is given to another person, along with the target and four or five other photos, and the ‘judge’ doesn’t know which is which. They ‘rank order’ the photos which ‘best match’ the session data in their opinion. Depending on the data, the other photos provided, and the interpreter, results vary. This provides a different (and vastly lower) "accuracy number" than the above per-perception method most of the time, and is a universe away from the first means of measure.
There are other ways: one can attempt to break out all the data that COULD have been provided for the target, vs. how many perceptions in that list you provided, and then your accuracy would be a % of that total. You can measure what was ‘important’, or have the tasker ask for one specific piece of data and ignore everything else; there are other options. You could spend all day thinking up ways to come up with different statistics for accuracy. Visit the Laboratories for Fundamental Research website (www.lfr.org) for some official info on this sort of thing.
After you consider the means of measure, you also have to consider the conditions the viewing was done under. Is this viewing done fully double-blind, in protocol, with hard feedback? Or was it done ‘blind’ -- meaning the interviewer sitting with the viewer and asking questions knew what the target was -- and in many cases, based on targets that even if not known to the viewers, were known to be ‘possibly coming’ or in a certain genre the tasker was known for? Clearly, in the latter case, you should probably not take any number all that seriously, certainly not as much as in the first case.
Also consider that there is a number which relates to accuracy, and a number which relates to accuracy when one is clearly on-target. In other words, a person might be generally on-target 50% of the time and get a little data for each at around a 35% accuracy rate. Or, they might be on-target 60% of the time, but get a lot of data at a 90% accuracy when they are. All these things matter and make the whole numbers game meaningless, since nobody is using the same measure, and the public has no idea what they mean anyway.
Beyond that, ask yourself, how diligently were these numbers collected and for how long? If the number comes from some person who spent over 10 years working for a science lab and her work is documented with professionals under the strictest measure, this has a different meaning than a person who took a week of methods ‘training’ 3 months ago.
Disregard all numbers in this subject. They are usually used to obfuscate, not clarify.