Question Compare the statistical significance of the difference between two polynomial regressions in R is an obvious duplicate of question Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R (which is an exact duplicate of Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R). Now, as the new question is a duplicate of the other two, one should not answer it, right?
However, the user who posted the new question says that the two old questions have answers that are incomplete or unclear for him, given his level of knowledge of statistics. Question Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R effectively only has an answer which explains why not to use anova
in this case (or better, not to naively use anova
), but doesn't explain what to do (it suggests AIC, but I agree with the commenter to the answer that that's not the right thing to do). Question Comparing difference between two polynomial regression models in R has a first comment by user @Roland which in my opinion is great and answers the question correctly. However, it's a comment instead than an answer, and it would seem that the user who posted the new question doesn't understand it. I asked him what he doesn't understand exactly. What would be the right procedure to follow here? Flag the new question as a duplicate and add a more detailed answer, following @Roland's comment? Just flag the new question as a duplicate? Do something else?