Talk:Data-snooping bias

Consensus made on Data dredging talk page to not merge. Marking the page for cleanup. -- DSGruss 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up content. Added examples section to encompass substandard content and add additional example. Removed cleanup marker. Dhvrm 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the author of example 2 check the figures. 2% of 10,000 is 200, not 2,000. The implied 2% of non-smokers in the 1,000 sample would be 20, not 200. Perhaps something else was intended, but it is not clear to me.BenzoBuddies (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned & cleared up as requested. Dhvrm (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this page lifted from www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Data-snooping_bias ? Or was that lifted from here? Do we care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.50.219 (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Multiple Comparisons???[edit]

Isn't this page just a less detailed description of Multiple comparisons? Has anyone with some expertise in statistics looked at this page?Carl Wivagg (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen that there was already a proposal to merge this (Data-snooping bias ) with Data dredging, that seemed to receive some support. (This discussion at Talk:Data dredging seems later than that refered to immediately above.) One consideration is the categories (specifically Category:Bias, Category:Cognitive biases ) in which this article is presently placed, and it may be better to have a stand-alone article, findable via such a category, rather being part of an article with much more extensive coverage. Melcombe (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]