Difference between revisions of "Talk:2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | ||
I thought this comic was about ''correcting'' for any p-hacking that aimed to increase the media presence (and thus the clickbait) of the study. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.94.10|172.68.94.10]] 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC) | I thought this comic was about ''correcting'' for any p-hacking that aimed to increase the media presence (and thus the clickbait) of the study. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.94.10|172.68.94.10]] 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The explanation for null hypothesis is correct semantically, it would be accepted if there was no OR negative improvement, however, this is usually stated more succinctly as "will not improve performance" or (in keeping with the language of the comic) "does not boost performance", since that has the same meaning without the unnecessary verbosity. ---- | ||
Revision as of 18:21, 1 June 2018
I thought this comic was about correcting for any p-hacking that aimed to increase the media presence (and thus the clickbait) of the study. 172.68.94.10 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The explanation for null hypothesis is correct semantically, it would be accepted if there was no OR negative improvement, however, this is usually stated more succinctly as "will not improve performance" or (in keeping with the language of the comic) "does not boost performance", since that has the same meaning without the unnecessary verbosity. ----
