Talk:Search odds condensed (results)

Search Odds Results

I don't have opinions one way or the other about Tables versus Lists, but I do have strong opinions about Data: Please stop removing Search Data from the wiki. You appear to have deleted all of the search data without posting aggregate totals. It is helpful to have you collate the data, but only if you return the collated results to the wiki! You can post summarized lists, or post a table, or cut/paste from Excel, or upload an XML or Excel file, or even leave the raw data in its original list form -- As long as the numerical totals stay. The orange/brown pictures are great and give an overall sense of successes, but they don't provide sufficient data for ANOVA or Chi-Square or all the other exciting statistical tests we have planned. I apologize if I missed a Search Odds Results Archive page. Thanks for your consideration. --Tycho44 18:15, 27 April 2006 (BST) Your Search Odds Condensed (data) page is exactly what I was hoping for. I apologize for my disproportionately rude remarks above. --Tycho44 00:56, 29 April 2006 (BST)

whoa.

1. data / results
   1. my bad about removing the old data, if you wanted it you only had to look in the history. The wiki (as far as i know) keeps it for quite a while and I commented at the points when the data was taken and collated. Regardless, I have created another page Search Odds Condensed (data) for you, I really had no idea there was interest in it, instead of getting all bold fonted and pissy about it you could have just asked.
   2. are there any other results data you want me to fix or make public? I generally feel like I am wasting my time if multiple people are doing the same thing, so ask as I may have it already.
2. as for the more advanced statistics you and whomever else you imply with "we" are planning.. In my opinion, it is hardly possible to gleen anything valuable from even the basic stats I have done with the limited amounts of data. I agree that those things should be done, it was my original plan, but to do it now with the number of degrees of freedom and under 100 data points is in my mind ludicrous. It seems you are volunteering to do it, so I leave it to you then and look forward to your results. I do really hope you can find something meaningful, that would be great.
3. now, as to playing nicely in the sandbox.. maybe it is just me, but you seem to not understand wiki etiquette
   1. for your infomation, I am automatically reading in the data and collating it (cludged together with excel mind you, there simply hasn't been enough interest to database it and develop it further). So for example, if you want to change the table, it effects things. Does it effect things in a big way? no. Nonetheless, it would be imfho that you should ask me about it, as a simple skim of the page or its history would indicate that I seem to be the one working on it. I would consider this the minimum of: common. fucking. courtesy.
   2. I have left everything I have posted open for discussion. I have asked for input on the table or data analysis neither you nor anyone else has written anything, nor asked for info until today.. if you would like to continue with this project on your own or work out your own stats without my involvment, please feel free to take it over, but please let me know. I didn't set out to do this and will not do this as some kind of pissing contest. The nature of a wiki is that it is an open community effort, where we all can work openly together and we all win. asshat desensitised manners will get you .. well.. asshattedness. *shrug*

-- fitzcarraldo|^T 00:09, 28 April 2006 (BST)

My intention was to contribute rather than to damage the work that you've done. I appreciate the work you've put into this, and I'll put future format change proposals here first to avoid breaking automated data reading. I have no interest in pissing contests; I'll see what I can do to add more search data. --Tycho44 00:56, 29 April 2006 (BST)

My meaning is NOT to push anyone away, but to open dialogue; as stated in [1] this project could use your and anyone else's help with adding data, and collation. I just don't see the point in multiple people doing the same things, particularly since my time (and I assume yours as well) is limited; working together we can probably take things further and make them better! :D -- fitzcarraldo|^T 02:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)

future

The more I think about this project with the expansion of the data the more I feel queasy about finding the time for the combinatory and advanced analyses. I honestly did not expect the breadth and depth of changes in game to happen as quickly nor as broadly. With that in mind I would like to pass on some of the responsibility and perhaps restrict the results while maybe employing more statistical work on the front end to gleen the results people want. The goals for collation, which could certainly be misguided, were operating on the premise that most players really just want to know:

1. where does one go to get the best chance to find a certain thing, and conversely
2. what chance is there of finding something in a certain place.

Adding a need for users to cross reference class, and skills I think makes for a large and complicated table or tables. Basically, with that in mind, it will be difficult to meet the premise I have set out with at this point and I am open to suggestions. I include a few ideas below. -- fitzcarraldo|^T 02:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)

1. databasing? the amount of data needed to cover the different eventualities and to gain accuracy while more players help out could raise exponentially the amount of data to be collated, which means the system needs to be ultimately quite scaleable. The current system is using excel which has finite limits (250 rows for example), and has trouble with many combinations .. a true database I think would be great! which one? -- fitzcarraldo|^T 02:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)
2. designed experiments (DOE)? We would setup an experment before taking data, then do a limited set of sampling as defined by the method based on the hypotheses. The results would indicate effects and potentially how significant their effects; although this would not necessarily allow one to be able then to pinpoint percentages.. would it be valuable without actual numbers? If so, then we could concentrate the bulk of the data only on the basic statistics; which begs the next question.. -- fitzcarraldo|^T 02:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)
3. what are the basic stats that people really want to know? are there any corners that can be cut? -- fitzcarraldo|^T 02:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)
4. how many samples are required to yield significant results .. mind you, no one has reported having found a heavy sword at this point so it feels we have a long way to go, but I think there must be some strange mechanism that effects its probablity of being found; nonetheless, my gut says 1000 samples would be a good number giving quite repeatable results. -- fitzcarraldo|^T 02:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)