0
$\begingroup$

3 months ago I asked Probability Mass Function making the Truncated Normal Discrete

I can't seem to get enough attention to get multiple attempts to answer the question probably because of my poor wording. There is no implication that it was largely ignored (it did not get ignored at all. It got enough attention to get Closed and Re-opened it de facto did not get enough attention to get multiple attempts to answer it).

I could use the distribution I asked for for a Bayesian prior but I wouldn't like the need to use Bayes' theorem to get my posterior everytime.

I'd rather assume that every random variable which is assumed to be normally distributed simply follows the generalisation (the discrete truncated normal) and then simply estimate the parametres (the Normal and Truncated Normal would be included as special cases which would mean that if the variable is trully normally or truncated normally distributed I would have no problems) I would first find out what transformations of the mean and the standard deviation the parametres (μ and σ) are, estimate the mean and the standard deviation (a, b and c should be known a priori) and then solve the equations (the transformations) to find my estimates for my parametres. And get my distribution (in the technical term) which describes the random variable (the distribution in the common, natural, colloquial term).

My question is

How could I word my main Question to attract views and answers?

$\endgroup$
11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It seems to me that you got a great deal of attention, so any implication that the question was largely ignored is incorrect (and accidentally disrespectful of the total effort). I don't have a suggestion for rewording your question on the main site, as I don't follow what you want at all. But on the Meta issue: It seems to me that you're best advised trying to rephrase it there. If the people who responded are all missing the point as far as you're concerned then you face an uphill struggle to resurrect the thread. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Apr 7 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox There was no implication that the question was ignored (largely-or at all). It didn't get ignored. It got enough attention for it to get closed and reopened. De facto it didn't get enough atention to get more than 1 attempt to answer. Advice on how to rephrase it is what I am seeking with this question. I know it is an uphill strugle. But I believe that the question got clear for it to get re-opened. Probably people don't feel there is any need for a discrete Normal and that continuous distributions are an excellent approximation for discrete situations(there is no problem with them) $\endgroup$ Apr 7 at 19:27
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "I can't seem to get enough attention" remain your words and what I was reacting to and that seemed (seems) a disappointingly negative summary given 1 answer and 45 comments. In any case, the response should be judged by quality as well as quantity given who participated. Sorry that you are disappointed with the thread. I am afraid that a high ratio of comment to answer often implies uncertainty about what the sharp question is and how best to react to it. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Apr 7 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox Not getting enough attention to get multiple attempts to answer is not the same as largely ignored. The question went throught multiple edits. The question was always clear. What was not clear was the motivation (at least that was I was told multiple times the problem was that it was not clear why I was asking not what I was asking). What got it reopened was that the motivation got clear. $\endgroup$ Apr 7 at 21:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We're at cross purposes. I did not follow the original thread and never knew, and therefore do not recollect, its troubled history. My comment was, and remains, a reaction to what you said and still say here in this Meta question. It seems unfair to me and I guess you won't get a better reaction from those who participated by downplaying how hard they tried to engage. Still, that is one thing. If this Meta question provokes either a good suggestion for rewording your question or a better response for you to your original question, then excellent, but I doubt that I can help at all there. . $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Apr 7 at 21:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this question because although asking for advice is completely in order, I can't see that this thread raises any more general issue directly or has any long-term value for the community. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Apr 14 at 11:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My standards for meta.CV are somewhat looser than my standards for the main site. It seems to me that a discussion of how to improve a (main site) question is reasonable for meta.CV. Therefore, I am voting to leave open. However, @NickCox has also raised reasonable points about the phrasing of this Q. I urge the OP to take them to heart and try to edit the Q in light of them to make it less objectionable. $\endgroup$ Apr 14 at 13:14
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox In the Help Center I don't see any need (any requirement) to raise more general issues directly or any neeed to have long-term value for the community. $\endgroup$ Apr 14 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, but "not useful" is a ground for downvoting and in my view "not useful" is also a ground for removal. Other way round, questions that are useful to at most one person, the OP, are certainly allowed, but how can they be indefinitely useful? You've asked your question here and the response is, in essence, that nobody has any detailed suggestions about rephrasing your original question on CV. Nor did the question here provoke any further contribution there on CV. So, sorry, you didn't get what you asked for, but what point is served by this remaining? $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Apr 14 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox There were comments but no answers in the meta-question. Do comments count as response (I doubt so)? But the fact that 2 people other than the OP don't have suggestions to provide nor do the viewers that didn't comment does not mean that in a couple of weeks (months, years) some viewer may have a suggestion to provide. $\endgroup$ Apr 14 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ The way I use the word "response" includes comments and also those several views of the question to date that led to people thinking that they had no suggestions to make. The probability that at some much later date someone might stumble across this and come up with an answer is not zero, but I have to guess it's utterly minute. I have voted to close and argued why, so I will leave the matter there. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Apr 14 at 14:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .