Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker (was Re: monotonous posting)
On 20 Oct 2008, at 02:05, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > Or, and this is my preference, just drop it. You are completely > wrong; the > numbers don't lie. Of course you prefer not be shown to be wrong. I think it's very clear to any reasonable person that I am right. Your blustering and posturing isn't going to convince anyone otherwise. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker (was Re: monotonous posting)
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2008, at 22:48, Nick Arnett wrote: > > During the weeks following my post, we had abnormally high activity > > -- more > > than two standard deviations from the mean. One of those weeks, we > > were at > > more than five standard deviations above the mean. > > Obviously controversy always causes a flurry of postings. For a true > picture one must wait until the list quiesces again. How... convenient for you to imagine that the data isn't meaningful when it contradicts you. Running for office, are you? Anybody else think that explains six weeks of high posting activity followed by two weeks of normal activity, very little of which had anything to do with the post William would have us believe discouraged activity? William, you actually haven't documented a statistically significant decrease in postings (because there isn't one). Maybe it's time for a review of basic statistics? The reason that the last two weeks' posting level doesn't represent a significant drop is that 90 percent of values in a normal distribution fall within one standard deviation of the mean. The "decline," in terms of statistical significance, is a pink unicorn. Shoo it away. I have started two companies and have four patents for this kind of analysis and eight years of experience doing it. My patents were bought by Nielsen/BuzzMetrics and my second startup was acquired by one of the biggest social media agencies in the world. So, what do you have to back up your analysis? Like, you know, numbers and stuff? Or, and this is my preference, just drop it. You are completely wrong; the numbers don't lie. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker (was Re: monotonous posting)
On 19 Oct 2008, at 22:48, Nick Arnett wrote: > During the weeks following my post, we had abnormally high activity > -- more > than two standard deviations from the mean. One of those weeks, we > were at > more than five standard deviations above the mean. Obviously controversy always causes a flurry of postings. For a true picture one must wait until the list quiesces again. > Even during the last two > weeks, which have been lower than the previous six, we were still > less than > one standard deviation below the mean, One standard deviation below eh? > which means that the activity level > since my post has only been unusually high, not at any time > unusually low. > That's a whole lot of spin :-) QED Maru "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - Albert Einstein -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker (was Re: monotonous posting)
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Indicating that my fears that Nick's threats of censorship would > discourage posting were fully justified. There's a lot I'd LIKE to say in response, but I'll just let the cold, hard facts -- the numbers -- tell the story. The average number of posts per week in the six weeks preceding my posting was 86. The average in the six weeks following? It was 255! If there is causality at work (not just correlation), then we could say that my posting increased activity by 194 percent. Increased. As Jon Lovitz said in "A League of Their Own," this would be more. During the weeks following my post, we had abnormally high activity -- more than two standard deviations from the mean. One of those weeks, we were at more than five standard deviations above the mean. Even during the last two weeks, which have been lower than the previous six, we were still less than one standard deviation below the mean, which means that the activity level since my post has only been unusually high, not at any time unusually low. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
