4 ms·
No Torn, you're still not using the correct statistic. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STANDARD DEVIATION. Also, how can you say that the article isn't "honest,"
by smartbear 17y ago
No Torn, you're still not using the correct statistic.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STANDARD DEVIATION.
Also, how can you say that the article isn't "honest," especially given the complete, precise explanation for the stats at the end.
- Torn 17y agoSeems I'm haemorrhaging karma over this. I misjudged the method used (Pearson's Chi Square, as pointed out by hn user pibefision). Fine, that'll teach me to skim read and comment. My point above was that the author could have come out and labelled it as such in the article.