O'Reilly Forums: Reader Feedback - O'Reilly Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Reader Feedback Comments on HF Data Analysis

#1 User is offline   guyrichard 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 12-February 10

Posted 15 February 2010 - 09:28 AM

I'm surprised that there's no activity here. I'm working through this book and I think it's great. I've just finished the hypothesis testing chapter. There must be other readers out there. Just sending out a trial balloon.
0

#2 User is offline   michaelmilton 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: O'Reilly Author
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 17-March 09

Posted 15 February 2010 - 09:15 PM

QUOTE (guyrichard @ Feb 15 2010, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm surprised that there's no activity here. I'm working through this book and I think it's great. I've just finished the hypothesis testing chapter. There must be other readers out there. Just sending out a trial balloon.


Hi Guy!

I wrote the book and am delighted to hear that you're enjoying it. It was a labor of love and it means everything to me that people are learning from it and having fun with it. And thank you for kicking off discussion in the forum! It only went live a couple of weeks ago, and I'd been meaning to post something but haven't had time, since I'm finishing up Head First Excel. :-)

MM
0

#3 User is offline   guyrichard 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 12-February 10

Posted 18 February 2010 - 07:29 PM

QUOTE (michaelmilton @ Feb 15 2010, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hi Guy!

I wrote the book and am delighted to hear that you're enjoying it. It was a labor of love and it means everything to me that people are learning from it and having fun with it. And thank you for kicking off discussion in the forum! It only went live a couple of weeks ago, and I'd been meaning to post something but haven't had time, since I'm finishing up Head First Excel. :-)

MM


Michael,
I am learning tons. I worked through the Bayesian stats chapter. I've studied this topic once or twice before. Typically it's presented in a table format and it sort of makes sense and doesn't make sense. I think the graphic on p 181 showing all the possibilities is a very clear way to show this concept.

By the way, I think I found some typos. Do you want me to post them here or in another topic?

I'm glad to hear you're working on an Excel book.

Guy


0

#4 User is offline   michaelmilton 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: O'Reilly Author
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 17-March 09

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:57 PM

QUOTE (guyrichard @ Feb 18 2010, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Michael,
I am learning tons. I worked through the Bayesian stats chapter. I've studied this topic once or twice before. Typically it's presented in a table format and it sort of makes sense and doesn't make sense. I think the graphic on p 181 showing all the possibilities is a very clear way to show this concept.

By the way, I think I found some typos. Do you want me to post them here or in another topic?

I'm glad to hear you're working on an Excel book.

Guy


I'm glad your enjoying the teaching on Bayesian stats. I was inspired to write it that way after reading a paper by Gerd Gigerenzer, a psychologist who has written a bunch of popular and scholarly stuff that you'd probably enjoy if you liked HFDA.

HFDA's web page on the O'Reilly website has a link you can click to submit errata, and you're by all means welcome to do so. It may be that others have already found the typos you've found, though. There are a couple in the Bayes chapter that drive me nuts! But as I understand the print runs are very short and errata are corrected quickly. Thank you!

MM
0

#5 User is offline   guyrichard 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 12-February 10

Posted 24 February 2010 - 06:54 PM

On errors,

Yes, there's quite a few in that chapter. I will submit my findings as you suggest. What I found interesting was that judgment was spelled judgment and sometime judgement, sometimes in the same paragraph. I checked my Webster's and it allowed judgement as an alternative spelling.

Regards,

Guy
0

#6 User is offline   normandevalliere 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 27-February 10

Posted 27 February 2010 - 10:00 AM

Nothing earth shaking to report, just that I am enjoying the book. What I am learning is immediately applicable in my work and personal life.

I watched the webinar you did a while ago, and quite liked it.
0

#7 User is offline   nickbowling 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 06-April 10

Posted 06 April 2010 - 12:06 PM

Hi there,
I have to admit I have found this book an absolute joy. I have been in data analysis for years and I have not, until now, found a good text that deals with the "frame of mind" bit. Most texts do the technical stuff well but this one does the mental gymnastics too.

One thing though - I am looking at chapter 6 page 180. The numbers substituted into the equation don't match with the values in the tree diagram. Have I missed something?

On page 182 the more formal equation which gives the same result is for P(L|+) which is what I expect.

Would really like to see a Heads Up R book.

Cheers

Nick
0

#8 User is offline   Nehal Patel 

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 17-April 10

Posted 17 April 2010 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE (nickbowling @ Apr 6 2010, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One thing though - I am looking at chapter 6 page 180. The numbers substituted into the equation don't match with the values in the tree diagram. Have I missed something?

On page 182 the more formal equation which gives the same result is for P(L|+) which is what I expect.


Hi Nick,

I've noticed the same questions:

p174 - isn't 9% of 90 more like 8 people?
p180 - The arrow pointing to "The number of people who have it" blank should really say something like "90% of people who actually have the flu test positive for it", and then on the "The number of people who don't have it", the arrow there should say something like "9% of people who don't have it, test positive for it". I think in the equation, we need to substitute 'positive' for 'negative', since we are looking for P(L|+)

...but I'm not a data analyst, so some confirmation would be appreciated :-)

-Nehal
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users