Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/18/2014 13:25 (04/18/2014 13:25) |
| Message-ID | <slrnll231d.dge.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (7h & 9m) > Sandman Eric Stevens (10h & 40m) > Sandman |
In article <una1l95fqodlib0kd8sbp5vn0pcd9jqtpm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Because it is only one data point. It's like I would ask you if you're feeling good and you complain about a headache and then I use this to conclude that you suffer from headaches 100% of the time.SandmanEric Stevens
Which would be statistically worthless even if we were only talking about one store, which we weren't.
Why would it be statistically worthless even for the one store at which the data was gathered?
No, it's not just a guess. It had some hard data behind it, it's just that nospam couldn't remember the actual numbers, so based on memory, he estimated them to be something close to what they were.Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
You mean, other than his explicit claim about: "I'd estimate that in somewhere around half the visits", which means that he has at least visited enough stores for a number of them being "about half", which puts it roughly in at least around ten stores (4/10 is "about half"), so he already has ten times as much statistical data than you (i.e. infintaely more, since you have none).
Do you really call an estimate "statistical data"?
Do you really think it can't be?
An estimate with some hard numbers behind it, including error data and an acceptable estimate of probability might be regarded as statistical data. Without that kind of support, it's just a guess.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
