Abstract
The “Rule of Three” gives an approximation for an upper 95% confidence bound for a proportion in a zero-numerator problem, which occurs when the observed relative frequency is zero. We compare the results from the Rule of Three with those from a Bayesian approach with noninformative and informative priors. Informative priors are especially valuable in zero-numerator problems because they can represent the available information and because different noninformative priors can give conicting advice. Moreover, the use of upper 95% bounds and noninformative priors in an effort to be conservative may backfire when the values are used in further predictive or decision-theoretic calculations. It is better to be candid than conservative, using all of the information available in forming the prior and considering the uncertainty represented by the full posterior distribution.