Hi Björn, On 30 January 2013 20:18, Björn Balazs <[email protected]> wrote: > You haven't: We did an expert rating (that what I wrote - and to add > some more flesh to it:) with two experts (Heiko and me) working > independently and discussing were categorization differed.
Not sure if you're saying that I haven't looked careful enough or that you haven't explained it well enough. In any case, I wasn't so much interested in the "who?" as I was in the "how?". > So yes, you are right - there are issues to the validity. Take it as > I said before: it is an indicator for the mentioned hypothesis and There are issues with the validity of your results/the methodology but you still want to use them as an indicator for something? > Nevertheless they are valid - mostly because people re-did what was > done before using (slightly) different methodology. That mostly thing is mostly the problem here: no one has tested your study with proper methodology so far. > Back to our study: all raw data is freely available. Sure. > I really hope to get some support here - we need to go ahead based on > research (as good as we can). You see in this and other threads, what > happens when we all just talk about our own preferences... Emphatically, I support what you do (I believe I wrote that before) – I just don't like this specific part of your analysis. Astron. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
