Andy on Twitter

  • Would be consistent with what they’ve done around the world. And their right to do so. What the Aussie Govt is prop… ,
  • It’s interesting to me how when a company () details how it will respond to legislation it is deemed by the… ,
  • Good read on the interference of Govt in how the Internet works... Internet's founder, US officials slap down News… ,
  • OMG. So sad... ,
  • Good look at the impacts of SAH on compliance and tech... Be Prepared to Stay at Home in 2021 – even if you don’t w… ,
  • Dense Discovery is still my favourite newsletter. Look forward to it each week. Well worth supporting IMHO.… ,
  • Great read... I Feel Better Now | Jake Bittle ,
  • Another great example of cluelessness. Google has a right to exercise inordinate power over its own products. Just… ,
  • via ... is hard for us here to laugh. States now run the country abs SOMO sitting on the sidelines. ,
  • Still a bit surprising to me how often people confuse a successful company with a monopoly. And how they will compl… ,
  • And what about the rest of the Internet... they'll ask to dip their hand into the Google coffers as well... this is… ,
  • And oh, isn't Google fully within its rights to say "nah, don't think so, "we'll just stop surfacing news we have t… ,
  • Connect

Using Statistics

HBR has a nice little piece on using statitics that is very applicable to anyone undertaking measurement for communications or marketing. The central tenents are:

  1. Know what you know-and what you’re only asserting

  2. Be clear about what you want to discover

  3. Don’t take causality for granted

  4. With statistics, you can’t prove things with 100 percent certainty

  5. With statistics, you can’t prove things with 100 percent certainty

The last one is important in communicating upwards to management. Does anyone care you increased coverage 3.2%? Probably not.

Technorati :

2 Responses

  1. By Bill Paarlberg on May 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 am

    Most of what we commonly use and call statistics are meant to describe uncertainty, not certainty. They are not able or were ever supposed to “prove” anything, and definitely not “prove things with 100% certainty.”

    Most common statistical techniques are developed from the assumption that a family of data points has a certain distribution and that it is possible to calculate the probability that other data points are part of that distribution. Statistics (generally) provides a probability, and so only demonstrates that something is _not_ certain.

    From a mathematical point of view, it is the whole point of statistics that they _don’t_ prove anything. Of course, from a PR measurement point of view, the whole point of statistics is that they _do_ almost prove something.

  2. By Harry Joiner on May 26th, 2006 at 10:32 am

    Interesting post. People often forget that with statistics, there are only two outcomes in any hypothesis test:

    1. Reject
    2. FAIL to Reject

    One cannot “accept” something with statistics. The closest thing to “accepting” a hypothesis is “failing to reject” it. It’s very much the same as not finding a defendant innocent — but rather failing to find the defendant guilty in a jury trial (as in “We the jury, find the defendent ‘not guilty’ on the charge of XYZ.”).

    Make sense?

Speak Up — Add Your Thoughts

Connections

  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]