= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wnoise comments on Why We Can't Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They're Unbiased) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (249)
I'm not sure there is one.
It seems to me that posterior probability density : confidence interval :: topographical map : contour . (Roughly, ignoring the important distinction between confidence intervals and credibility intervals.) They're useful summaries, but discard much information. Different choices of contours or confidence intervals may be more or less useful for particular problems.
It seems like the most useful rating system would be to show a topology, then? (which I know Amazon and NewEgg both do, but only when you've gone in to the details of a review).
For a simple one-value summary, it seems like this is probably a pretty good formula. You can, as mentioned, adjust the confidence if 95% gives you trouble with your data set.
It seems like "this is what scientific papers go with" is pretty sane as far as defaults go, and as "non-arbitrary" as a default value really could be.