Gimli,
It’s very generous of you to enter all these data manually! For various reasons, as I mention in this thread, and as you refer to in your first post here, past polls on this topic using ranges for data entry have been rather useless.
I have a little stats knowledge, too, and in my opinion you won’t need more than about 100 subjects to draw some strong conclusions. Already, based on your preliminary analysis, it seems clear that the height-length correlation is stronger than many of us had supposed (although, as I point out with a scatterplot here, even a ~0.50 correlation is not too helpful for making predictions about an individual man).
It’s surprising that so far the girth-height correlation is much weaker than the length-height correlation. Do the factors that determine skeletal growth affect penile growth in one dimension more than the other, and if so, how? One of the guys with a medical background might provide some speculations here. Although I guess we should wait for more data to come in first :)
My only concern about the data from this poll is that a third variable — inclination to exaggerate, consciously or unconsciously — will inevitably magnify any height-length, height-girth, or, for that matter, length-girth correlations found. That is, some guys are more prone than others to self-serving exaggerations, and those who are high on this dimension are likely to report not only greater heights but also longer and thicker penises, while those who are low on this dimension are likely to report shorter heights and shorter and thinner penises, and this spurious source of systematic covariation among the variables of interest in this study could artificially increase correlation coefficients. My guess, though (and there’s no real way to address this issue except by guessing, unfortunately), is that the correlation coefficients of interest will not be affected dramatically by this problem.