Talk:Free statistical software/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Gene Shackman (asking someone to link to my review) |
imported>Chris Day (→call for comments: new section) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Would anyone be willing to add a couple of sentences to my review of free statistical software? http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/soft.html This could be added into the main article section on reviews, perhaps saying something like what I wrote on my webpage "Basically, for correlation and simple regression, all gave the same results. Some also had the same results for forward stepwise." I only ask because I've searched the web and can't find any other review showing that the packages get the same results and so should be statistically equivalent. This seems like it would be useful information to have. Thanks [[User:Gene Shackman|Gene Shackman]] 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) | Would anyone be willing to add a couple of sentences to my review of free statistical software? http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/soft.html This could be added into the main article section on reviews, perhaps saying something like what I wrote on my webpage "Basically, for correlation and simple regression, all gave the same results. Some also had the same results for forward stepwise." I only ask because I've searched the web and can't find any other review showing that the packages get the same results and so should be statistically equivalent. This seems like it would be useful information to have. Thanks [[User:Gene Shackman|Gene Shackman]] 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
== call for comments == | |||
Hi Gene, I saw your note on the forum so just popped into check it out. Its an interesting article and certainly good information. I do not know anything about statistical software so cannot really comment on the topic at hand. Should there may be be a little more of a historical perspective? At present it reads like a "current" review that might become dated quite rapidly. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:48, 22 March 2009
Just starting this article, feel free to jump in and help or give advice. Gene Shackman 04:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
add link to my review?
Would anyone be willing to add a couple of sentences to my review of free statistical software? http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/soft.html This could be added into the main article section on reviews, perhaps saying something like what I wrote on my webpage "Basically, for correlation and simple regression, all gave the same results. Some also had the same results for forward stepwise." I only ask because I've searched the web and can't find any other review showing that the packages get the same results and so should be statistically equivalent. This seems like it would be useful information to have. Thanks Gene Shackman 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
call for comments
Hi Gene, I saw your note on the forum so just popped into check it out. Its an interesting article and certainly good information. I do not know anything about statistical software so cannot really comment on the topic at hand. Should there may be be a little more of a historical perspective? At present it reads like a "current" review that might become dated quite rapidly. Chris Day 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)