Difference between revisions of "Talk:2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value"
(Please sign your comments. It seems to be very hard...) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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. ---- {{unsigned ip|162.158.186.42}} | 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. ---- {{unsigned ip|162.158.186.42}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | I can't believe I clicked on this [[Special:Contributions/172.68.86.46|172.68.86.46]] 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:28, 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. ---- 162.158.186.42 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I can't believe I clicked on this 172.68.86.46 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
