bane Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 On 1/29/2020 at 10:50 PM, RedRaven said: Confession time: I always liked David Lynch's Dune movie and still rewatch it to this day so maybe I am deeply flawed. Fantastic soundtrack by Toto, I have a soft spot for Dune as well. Larryw7 and RedRaven 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 14 hours ago, mattn792 said: You have a funny way of spelling agonizing. The Emperor has turned you. Goooooooood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 3 hours ago, bane said: Fantastic soundtrack by Toto, I have a soft spot for Dune as well. I hear you can get pills for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 With the domestic box office, still -16.9% compared to TLJ at the same point in time (Day 41). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Return of the 86% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Bosco685 said: Return of the 86% Your scale for the first graph is 0% to 100% and your scale for the second graph is 50% to 60%. In WWII, that was called "propaganda". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, valiantman said: Your scale for the first graph is 0% to 100% and your scale for the second graph is 50% to 60%. In WWII, that was called "propaganda". Actually, my fellow statistician, it is adjusting for the central range associated with the data sampled. The highest the critic range was 58%. Why would I have up to a 100% scale when that was the top rating? 100% 58% - I got something to present to you finally down here where the real action is taking place so that Valiantman doesn't think there is additional data manipulation going on - but all that buffer above was to make you feel better\ 50% - Hey there and welcome to the close to bottom of the central tendencies range the critics scored this film at - it is super to see you today 0% - Oh yeah, this is the bottom of the scale but it is much closer to where the range centralized Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Here. I'll shorten the range for the Audience Score too. Oh my goodness! It's 86% across the board. But now it is centered more. So it is a central 86% range. Much better now! And remember kids... Edited January 31, 2020 by Bosco685 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 18 minutes ago, Bosco685 said: Actually, my fellow statistician, it is adjusting for the central range associated with the data sampled. The highest the critic range was 58%. Why would I have up to a 100% scale when that was the top rating? "Fellow statistician" implies we're colleagues. I can see my Ph.D. on the wall behind me. I can't see yours from here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph Quote A truncated graph (also known as a torn graph) has a y axis that does not start at 0. These graphs can create the impression of important change where there is relatively little change. Furthermore, you are comparing the first 296 through 471 data points of one type to the first 7,500 through 87,500 data points of another type. I am confident that the first 296 through 471st reactions on IMDB were not a "stable 86%" and I am confident that the 7,500 through 87,500 reactions on Rotten Tomatoes would be quite stable by comparison, if such a thing existed. That you failed your audience on the y-axis was obvious. That you also failed on the x-axis was more subtle. Hence, propaganda. That you tried to make me look bad with your reply... diploma time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, valiantman said: "Fellow statistician" implies we're colleagues. I can see my Ph.D. on the wall behind me. I can't see yours from here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph Furthermore, you are comparing the first 296 through 471 data points of one type to the first 7,500 through 87,500 data points of another type. I am confident that the first 296 through 471st reactions on IMDB were not a "stable 86%" and I am confident that the 7,500 through 87,500 reactions on Rotten Tomatoes would be quite stable by comparison, if such a thing existed. That you failed your audience on the y-axis was obvious. That you also failed on the x-axis was more subtle. Hence, propaganda. That you tried to make me look bad with your reply... diploma time. I get it you needed to boost your ego with a comment about a diploma. Way to shine, diamond! Attempting to then act like the analysis was flawed through some statements is further diamondry. But if that works for you, shine on further. Meanwhile, I am comfortable with what I posted as the 86% consistent over 41 days across 96,408 contributors is far from statistically sound. To state you believe it to be true based on the differences in survey ranges used by IMDb versus Rotten Tomatoes when the normality of the data can be validated is just noise. As a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt working with data scientists and data analysts, the last thing I need to do when engaging with them on assessments to determine business activities is turn to my diploma and say "Hey, look it there. I got that. I'm good - right?" Your ego check was fun. The ignorant approach,not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 16 minutes ago, Bosco685 said: Here. I'll shorten the range for the Audience Score too. Oh my goodness! It's 86% across the board. But now it is centered more. So it is a central 86% range. Much better now! And remember kids... Propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Bosco685 said: 17 minutes ago, valiantman said: "Fellow statistician" implies we're colleagues. I can see my Ph.D. on the wall behind me. I can't see yours from here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph Furthermore, you are comparing the first 296 through 471 data points of one type to the first 7,500 through 87,500 data points of another type. I am confident that the first 296 through 471st reactions on IMDB were not a "stable 86%" and I am confident that the 7,500 through 87,500 reactions on Rotten Tomatoes would be quite stable by comparison, if such a thing existed. That you failed your audience on the y-axis was obvious. That you also failed on the x-axis was more subtle. Hence, propaganda. That you tried to make me look bad with your reply... diploma time. I get it you needed to boost your ego with a comment about a diploma. Way to shine, diamond! Attempting to then act like the analysis was flawed through some statements is further diamondry. But if that works for you, shine on further. Meanwhile, I am comfortable with what I posted as the 86% consistent over 41 days across 96,408 contributors is far from statistically sound. To state you believe it to be true based on the differences in survey ranges used by IMDb versus Rotten Tomatoes when the normality of the data can be validated is just noise. As a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt working with data scientists and data analysts, the last thing I need to do when engaging with them on assessments to determine business activities is turn to my diploma and say "Hey, look it there. I got that. I'm good - right?" Your ego check was fun. The ignorant approach,not so much. You definitely started it. I ended it. Your postscript is amusing. The propaganda of your analysis, notsomuch. Yaintgotnuttin. Edited January 31, 2020 by valiantman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 19 minutes ago, valiantman said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph Quote A truncated graph (also known as a torn graph) has a y axis that does not start at 0. These graphs can create the impression of important change where there is relatively little change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, valiantman said: You definitely started it. I ended it. Your postscript is amusing. The propaganda of your analysis, notsomuch. Yaintgotebro. I went along with your little barb to have fun with you. Then calling out 'I got a Ph. D.' like I even thought you didn't know anything about data (we've engaged for years and I have been impressed with all the comic book analysis) was just an ego blast. Is your ego that weak you needed to post that? Like it added to the conversation? Like someone without a Ph. D. is below you in working with business statistics? Think how impressive it reads. Then read it again. Then think about stating I am manipulating data as propaganda when the results are the results, day-in and day out. 86% no matter what data comes in? Think about that statistical soundness, Ph. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bosco685 said: 6 minutes ago, valiantman said: You definitely started it. I ended it. Your postscript is amusing. The propaganda of your analysis, notsomuch. Yaintgotebro. I went along with your little barb to have fun with you. Then calling out 'I got a Ph. D.' like I even thought you didn't know anything about data (we've engaged for years and I have been impressed with all the comic book analysis) was just an ego blast. Is your ego that weak you needed to post that? Like it added to the conversation? Like someone without a Ph. D. is below you in working with business statistics? Think how impressive it reads. Then read it again. Then think about stating I am manipulating data as propaganda when the results are the results, day-in and day out. 86% no matter what data comes in? Think about that statistical soundness, Ph. D. Your ridiculous use of these... followed by with only the goal of making me look like I was wrong set me off. That you would do so and ALSO imply we're on equal footing is also wrong. That you don't like my credentials being called into a true disagreement about a topic we both "claim to know" is on you. We've already discussed this topic, the 86% the difference between Approve/Disapprove, the 10-point scale, etc., and you continue to do things that are the very definition of "misleading graph" on Wikipedia (I didn't write that!) are what is being discussed. That you also want to throw in a dozen emojis of whistling like I'm the one who's nuts, then criticize me for proving I'm not nuts... is kinda nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, valiantman said: Your ridiculous use of these... followed by with only the goal of making me look like I was wrong set me off. That you would do so and ALSO imply we're on equal footing is also wrong. That you don't like my credentials being called into a true disagreement about a topic we both "claim to know" is on you. We've already discussed this topic, the 86% the difference between Approve/Disapprove, the 10-point scale, etc., and you continue to do things that are the very definition of "misleading graph" on Wikipedia (I didn't write that!) are what is being discussed. That you also want to throw in a dozen emojis of whistling like I'm the one who's nuts, then criticize me for proving I'm not nuts... is kinda nuts. You implying I am manipulating data when the graph is set to a range has no basis in fact, Ph. D. Audience Score results at a steady 86% whether it is here... ...or here... ...is still trending at a steady and never deviating 86% in an unrealistic statistical-manipulated way. What, telling someone presenting data they are just performing propaganda was a great way to start out? Yeah, that always implies trust and respect. Edited January 31, 2020 by Bosco685 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
media_junkie Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 35 minutes ago, Bosco685 said: And remember kids... Damn Bosco!!! I know that is stupid, but that legit cracked me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, media_junkie said: Damn Bosco!!! I know that is stupid, but that legit cracked me up! Shhhhh. The propaganda campaign is on. The Resistance will win again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, valiantman said: You definitely started it. I ended it. Your postscript is amusing. The propaganda of your analysis, notsomuch. Yaintgotnuttin. 47 minutes ago, valiantman said: "Fellow statistician" implies we're colleagues. I can see my Ph.D. on the wall behind me. I can't see yours from here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph Furthermore, you are comparing the first 296 through 471 data points of one type to the first 7,500 through 87,500 data points of another type. I am confident that the first 296 through 471st reactions on IMDB were not a "stable 86%" and I am confident that the 7,500 through 87,500 reactions on Rotten Tomatoes would be quite stable by comparison, if such a thing existed. That you failed your audience on the y-axis was obvious. That you also failed on the x-axis was more subtle. Hence, propaganda. That you tried to make me look bad with your reply... diploma time. Oh yeah. This only reinforces what you started to begin with, Ph. D. You implied first I was performing propaganda by manipulating charts. And then with this post you confirm that is exactly how you were starting out. You meant to detract from and belittle what I had posted, as if I was performing some data manipulation behind the scenes to trick people into believing the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score results were not right. Yet guess what? All I am doing is taking snapshots every time to prove out what I present is the actual data presented by Rotten Tomatoes. All they are doing is what has been caught in the film industry before of counter-marketing the critics responses so as to ensure any potential movie-goers don't assume the picture is not worth seeing. I've posted about studios getting caught at this before. Disney just have more influence because the Fandango CEO is a long-time Disney executive with very close ties to a studio that brings Fandango revenue as a minimum through ticket sales. Propaganda, huh? You may want to rethink that. And it continues today. Edited January 31, 2020 by Bosco685 devilsrain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) You have chosen to compare (without bias, according to you): a) The first 500 votes of one type to the full 96,000 votes of another type: Not valid. b) The percentage change between the 250th vote of one type and the 471st vote of another TO the percentage change between the 7,500th vote of one type to the 96,000th vote of another type: Not valid. c) You have actually created two charts which show these difference as equal widths (x-axis) although they represent under 500 of one and over 96,000 of the other: Not valid. d) To set the two graphs to equal heights (y-axis) with different starting and ending points: Not valid. e) To compare one type of measure (percent approval) to another type of measure (percentage of users rating 3.5 or higher): Not valid. So, it's wrong to compare the quantity, delta, x-axis, y-axis, and unit of measure, yet, you've done all 5. ...and you've said I'm wrong: 1st - for pointing out these problems. 2nd - for implying they're "propaganda" (which is defined as: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.) 3rd - for mentioning my credentials in the proof of my assertions. 4th - for also posting a link to Wikipedia for "misleading graphs" which further supports this proof. Arguing against the bias of the media interpretation with bias of your own is not correcting anything. Arguing against my methods of proving your errors is not proving I've made any errors. Is it still Friday? Edited January 31, 2020 by valiantman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
