As suggested in this thread
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
0 voters
Nine! In your face, Benford!
1, here, so that helps it out. But I would suggest also asking how many digits.
I hypothesize that if you only asked for numbers with 4 digits, you’d get a relatively even distribution from 1-7, with a sharp drop off for 8’s and 9’s.
If you asked for only numbers with 5 digits, you’d get almost all 1’s, with a very small number, if any, of 2’s. (But it would also be a smaller sample size.)
4 and 5 digit house numbers is something I only see in US TV dramas. Mine is a mighty two digits, starting with 1.
I’m 3 digits, the house I grew up in is 5 digits, the house I lived in when I was married was 4.
my four-digit house number starts with a 7.
I’ve lived in several five-digit homes that all started with 1.
Yep. And TBH if this was a mostly British board, they might be answering 8 or 9 because they lived at 8 or 9 rather than anything longer. 89 wouldn’t be unusual, but 890 would be.
Apparently only five streets in the UK go over 2000 in their numbering, and four of them in are in Birmingham. I strongly suspect there aren’t many more over 1000 but below 2000.
My house is a four-digit that starts with 4. All of the houses in my town are four-digit (2-5). I grew up in a 3-digit house beginning with 5.
My daughter’s house is a five-digit beginning with 1.
The first digit of my house number is the same as the last digit of my house number, because it’s the one same digit.
Hey! What are you doing in my house?
First digit of my current house number is “3”, which was also the first digit for my childhood home address and another residence. One appearance each for “1”, “4”, and “5”. All have been four-digit numbers with the exception of the current three-digit one. Our next-door neighbors when I was growing up in northeast Ohio had a five-digit address, as do many people in the western suburbs of Cleveland…
I assume they all started with a 1, or were there any that made it to 2?
If you polled for first digit of number of posts on SDMB, would the distribution hold? I can’t figure out whether the obvious bias toward people with a large number of posts would matter. I don’t think it would.
Right, but this shouldn’t affect the distribution. 1’s would still be more frequent among British residents.
Where I have lived before (in 3 states), a very common addressing scheme is 3 digits, evens on one side of the road odds on the other, with the first digit changing on each “block” - basically wherever another road that isn’t a cul-de-sac crosses. So first block was 1XX, second 2XX, etc- and if the road is short, there were only 1XX or 1XX and 2XX. 2 of last 3 houses started with one because of that scheme, 1 had similar scheme but had a 2 digit block to start and I lived in a 2 digit house.
Our immediate neighbors’ address began with a “2”. The Cleveland numbering system extends beyond the county line to North Ridgeville, which features five-digit addresses beginning with “3”.
As long as my wife and I have lived together, thru 3 rentals and one home we purchased, the address always added up to 9, but the last home we purchased, over 20 years ago (the one we still live in) does not have that math. However, the lot number, when added up, does equal 9. 
Hmm. There’d be more ones and more teens, and more 100s, and then fewer 200s, and even fewer 300s and above. Maybe it would even out.
If you count XXX-XX as five digits, there are lots of five digit addresses near me that start with a “2” - because the digits before the hyphen represent the cross street. So a house on 100th avenue right after 200th street would be 200-10 100 Ave. The highest numbered street is 271, so there are addresses like 271-10 80 Avenue
This is the most obscure “mining for personal data” questionnaires I’ve ever seen. 