--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > THEN, later, when they decided that they wanted to test for > weather effects, > > > > My gracious, how many times does this have to be > > said? The weather effects protocol was decided > > on and publicly announced *before the project > > even started*. > > Why is that so important to you.
It's important to understanding the study. It's being used as a way to suggest they changed things around after seeing the data to get a better result, which isn't what happened. And you're using it to construct all kinds of speculations about their methodology. It's just ridiculous. They may have changed *other* things around, for all any of us know, but they didn't just introduce the weather after the fact. > Regardless, can you tell me what analysis was added in the second > round of analysis (the 25% result), relative to the the first round > (the 17%) -- per LBS' post? Not a clue, sorry. <snip> > > You know, it's really, REALLY silly to make complicated > > statistical analyses of the flaws > > The above is not a critique. Its not silly. You've been making a number of criticisms, and it's silly because, as I said, you don't know what they did; you're just making it up. You can't critique a study when you haven't read it, especially at the level you're doing it. it may seem so based on > your level of knowledge of modeling, I don't know. Its a reasonable > speculation on what the study actually did, based on the sparseness > of coherent explanations. No, it's not reasonable to speculate at all about this sophisticated a level of statistical analysis. > I am trying to understand what they did. Your explanations are not > grounded in knowledge of regression and ARIMA, so it appears to be a > pretty unproductive exercise. Yes, that's what I'm saying. I can't guide you on the fine points of the statistical methodology, I can only tell you the broad outlines. So for you to then try to make fine-grained analysis on the basis of guessing is, as I said, just silly. > > in a study when you > > haven't seen it and DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID. > > And its getting clearer that you don't either. I never claimed any knowledge of the details of the statistical methodology, just the broad outlines of the study, as I said. So perhaps we should > get a copy of the study. Do you have access? Oh, please. What is your *problem*? If I did, obviously I'd have posted it here long since. That's a disingenuous question. You could get an offprint of the article from the journal, most likely. > Also you said the data set is public. Where? How is it accesssed? FBI crime stats. They may be on the Web, or you might have to go to a library or something. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
