|
|
|
|
|
by aoki
3030 days ago
|
|
my only goal in mentioning the statistics sequence at all was to give a familiar example where the standard sequences vary in depth depending on audience. a trivial point, yes, but i wanted to be concrete because it's the internet. apparently that was a terrible choice, as it was far too close to the topic at hand; my apologies for making you search so hard for a connection. i made my request because it's jarring for me as a reader when you punctuate your (often delightful) expository writing with conclusions about entire fields and large organizations that seem (on the face of it) to be justified by old and/or very limited data. but that's a selfish request, and you are of course free to tell me to get lost and post whatever you want (and i'll still read it); i'm certainly not going to pursue this further, aside from the apology and clarifying comment above. |
|
If they are going to plagiarize, even just teach, regression analysis, then at least they shouldn't make a mess out of it, and a mess is what they made. Google should "get that MESS OFF the Internet".
Students should be told the truth: Regression is powerful stuff. Sometimes the results can be valuable. The Google OP is an introduction to regression and does have some value. But the Google material is a MESS, and students should be informed that they are getting really low quality material and should see some references to some beautifully polished material.
So, I helped any students who would be the target audience for the Google OP.
You should know this; I believe you do.
I'm offended by the mess and passing that out to students trying to learn. You should also be offended.