Timeline for Was the math/statistics application in this article correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 14:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 7, 2014 at 2:36 | comment | added | guy | It's awkward to truncate at the top 100 from a statistical perspective; one can't just make more top 100 movies with female leads. If we just naively think of the "top 100 movies" as being 100 independent replicates which are then ordered, however, there isn't any substantial evidence in the data that movies with a female lead do better or worse than movies with a male lead (simple Wilcoxon test gives a p-value of around .75). From an economic perspective, if the movie studios are rational we might conjecture the average returns to be the same, and there isn't evidence here that they aren't. | |
| Mar 23, 2014 at 22:59 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackStats/status/447870209937145856 | ||
| Mar 22, 2014 at 2:50 | answer | added | Underminer | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 21, 2014 at 20:43 | history | edited | Nick Stauner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
capitalization, punctuation, consolidation, reorganization, blockquote and bulleted list formatting, \$
|
| Mar 21, 2014 at 20:39 | comment | added | Old Pro | Actually it's not unreasonable that movies with numbers in the title do betters than movies without, because numbers are generally indicative of sequels to successful movies with pre-existing fan bases compared to movies that have to find a new audience from scratch with an unproven concept. | |
| Mar 21, 2014 at 20:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 21, 2014 at 20:43 | |||||
| Mar 21, 2014 at 20:17 | history | asked | AdriMagnon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |