GoodWordEditing.com - Latest Comments in Power Blogging: What We Did

Re: Power Blogging: What We Did

Susan — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:24:04 -0000

Yes, he is right - in the "real world" of uncontrolled experimental factors (people and nature).

Sorry, I forgot you were language driven - it was an nerd joke - tell your statistician friend that I was referring r squared for predicting unknown concentrations and then he'll understand -

although, I must say the day when one of our elders stood up to present a new year's budget with a graph and a predicitive correlation of 0.79, I had to giggle.

Now, ON WITH THE STORY MAN!!!

Re: Power Blogging: What We Did

Marcus — Thu, 17 May 2007 21:38:18 -0000

Hmm. Are you accusing me of making you want to read more? Hang in there. I promise to reveal my secrets by the end.

But you can't blame me for dragging this out, right?

Susan/Halfmom, my statistician friend tells me there are no correlations as high as 0.99 in the real world. In fact, he said 0.8 was about as high as you could reasonably expect. He was surprised. Who knows if he's right or not. This is goodwordediting after all.

(Though I always tested better in math than English. Funny.)

Re: Power Blogging: What We Did

Susan — Thu, 17 May 2007 19:29:26 -0000

I'm with LL - I couldn't wait to find out what was in the 0.8 - after all, I love regressions on Excel spreadsheets - however, I really prefer the 0.99 kind - and what do I find - NOTHING more about the numbers - on with it man!

Re: Power Blogging: What We Did

L.L. Barkat — Thu, 17 May 2007 16:11:55 -0000

Oh my gosh... I thought you were sci-fi... but, no! You're cliff-hanger!!

(Gee, can't you understand we need to get our sleep tonight? How can you do this in good conscience? [did I spell that right?])