3 ms·

I'm pretty sure your system is useless without a statistically significant sample size.

• jerf 17y ago
  Sampling is not relevant to smanek's point, since he can look at all events. You don't need to sample when you have all the data. On the other hand, I guess this argues against smanek's points being relevant to Zed's point, since statistics aren't really involved for the same reason. You don't need stats to analyze your performance if you have all the performance data; just read it off. (Edit: I suppose his point that you shouldn't be using averages but just thresholds is still a statistical argument, against using the wrong tool like "average" on the grounds that you don't actually want the "average".)
  • lmkg 17y ago
    Even if you have all the data of your current run, that's still a sample (broadly speaking) of all the possible runs in the future. This is one of the core aspects of statistics, but it's so fundamental that it gets glossed over rather than getting drilled into people's head like they need. As a result, I have to tell people that when running a survey, total responses are more important than response rate.