--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > It was NOT excluded from the data. The weekly AVERAGE was the > > > > weekly average with no data excluded. The SIGNIFICANCE of the > > > > outlier was dismissed because it was only one data point > > > > amongst many and wasn't repeated and in fact was reversed > > > > the next week (20 one week and 4 the next). > > > > > > See footnote 3. > > > > > > 3. After removing the outlier of June 22, Poisson regression > > > analysis indicated there was no significant difference in the > > > level of homicides in June and July 1993 from the remainder of > > > the year. > > > > Ah you're right. Interesting that something that changed the > > average so slightly over a 2-week period would have a significant > > effect. It suggests that the murder-rate trended upward slightly > > even without the outler. > > Lawson, this was a separate analysis, not the > main analysis. It was done to answer the > specific question about the nature of the murder > rate. > > And I don't understand why you say it suggests the > murder rate trended upward even without the outlier. >
If there was no significant change without excluding the outlier, they wouldn't have excluded the outlier.
