--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 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.
Additional variables not anticipated at the beginning of data collection are tested post study all the time. Its not a sign of fudging. There are other signs that indicate fudging, IMO, but not testing a more comprehensive set of control variables. Your concern is misplaced. > And you're using it to construct all kinds > of speculations about their methodology. It's just > ridiculous. haha. ok . If you say so. Again, i am simply trying to understand what the study did. I am waiting for a coherent explanation. if in the absence of that, I speculate a bit, what is the problem? > > > 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. And yet thats a major part of the analysis. Which I am trying to understand. Speculation can actually be a tool here. > 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. OK, if you say so. I disagree. > > 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. if i made fine grained analysis I supposed so. I am simply trying to underststand the broad outlines of the analysis. What methods were used, what were the model specifications tested (and rejected) and "kept". This is basic, basic stuff. > > 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. jeez. it is a simple question. you might have a hard copy. You might know somone who has it. lighten up. > 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. > okie dokie ------------------------ 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/
