On 11 Mar 2002 07:13:03 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. MacG. Dawson) wrote: [ snip ] > > My first reaction is that these data are a hopelessly oversimplified > summary of a very complicated data set. The full data set is a set of > proportional time-series, probably highly autocorrelated and > cross-correlated. Without knowing how much vacancy rates fluctuate over > time, you cannot say which of these differences are significant. You > would also need to know market size (as a time series) for each region,
- "probably" autocorrelated? Quarterly numbers for occupancy (play-on-words noted), with leases that surely run a *minimum* of a year? I figure, also, there is just about no practical reason that anyone should want to test that overall *past* for "statistical significance". Is someone asserting that - (a) there are no *trends across time* that are interesting? (b) there has been no building/ development of relevance in *any* of the neighborhoods over the decade? -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
