17

Questions about notation have been traditionally considered within our scope, provided the notation is ultimately about statistics / machine learning. In addition, the question of why the exponential is used seems to be a meaningful ML question. I don't see that it needs to be closed. I just reopened it.


13

The reason given by the majority of the close voters was that it was unclear; I will let them explain that reasoning if they choose to. Speaking for myself, I don't think the central problem is lack of clarity - the question is clear enough that one could close it for a better reason. I would vote to close it - without hesitation - because it's not ...


12

I reopened and unlocked the question. The basis for this action is explained in a comment to the question, which points out the (many) statistical issues that need to be addressed. Nevertheless, I think the community acted consistently and reasonably in closing the question, because it is framed in a way that requires detailed knowledge of a particular ...


12

I can answer 20% of why this question was closed, being one of the five close voters. The question has been edited since, and may well be edited again, so I won't make a running commentary on whether I think the current state of the question deserves to be reopened. Here is my general thought process about question clarity, which I ran through when looking ...


11

The moderator gave you the opportunity to clarify your question, so that it would be more likely to be understood by the community. This serves two purposes. First, it helps you personally, because it makes it more likely that you'll receive a useful answer. Second, it serves the community at large, because questions and answers should be useful to a wider ...


10

Yes: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/review/reopen. It can be reached through the 'Review Queues' icon on the top bar (which looks like a horizontal bar chart with a tick in the bottom-right corner).


10

I voted to close as unclear when the original question was, in its entirety Can be a human be intellectual property ? I think and i am obtain in data MEta thought or is it Meta learning? Think about it one person thoughts being shared in as an open book, real-time feed. which is difficult to understand. It is ungrammatical, and the parts which I ...


9

All this question needed was a reopen vote. That would have kicked this question back into the reopen queue. There was one reopen vote cast after Vass's edit, but it was cast while the first reopen review was still happening. So when the verdict of that review turned out to be "Leave Closed", that reopen vote's power to kick questions up to the queue was ...


9

I think it was perhaps a mistake to close it in the first place—in any case I re-opened it after your edit & before I saw this. Sorry for any inconvenience—fortunately it was only closed a for couple of hours.


9

Contrary to your comment, questions that are only about how to use R (e.g., ggplot2) are off topic here, whether for visualization or analysis or other purposes, and are regularly closed as such. The same is true for questions that are only about how to use Python (e.g., seaborn, matplotlib, etc.), Stata, Minitab, SAS, etc. A question such as, 'should I ...


8

This is not an answer - but it's too big for a comment. Your writing is simply unreadable. It might be salvageable if you used good practices for scientific writing. Here are the specific complaints. Your question is not written in complete sentences. Remarks like this are meaningless: Given performance in columns, what is a predictor for which?... ...


8

I think you are being too cautious here. We close a lot of questions and some of the decisions are inevitably wrong or at least not optimal. If you see a question that was closed but you think it should be re-opened, then vote to re-open! To increase the chances of reopening, you can do two things: Post a comment explaining why you think this question ...


7

I know nothing about GAMs, but to me this Q looks clearly on-topic; I am surprised to see that there is so much controversy about it. The question did not simply ask about the meaning of te() and ti(); OP wrote that they are aware of the difference but expect them to coincide in this particular case for this particular reason; however they observe slight ...


7

This result is certainly inconsistent. But no system works perfectly. The migrated question definitely looks like an SO coding question to me. Even with the comments it is a little ambiguous that the real problem is the OP doesn't properly understand the concepts rather than the code. I can understand how it was migrated. Actually, the closed-as-...


7

The general issue - Why questions that aren't really clear should be on hold: Questions that are not clear are supposed to be put on hold so that they can be made clear before people start posting answers that misunderstand the question, causing problems for the asker as well as later readers (who are the actual target of a good answer under the Stack ...


7

The question you linked seems to be primarily about Coding and not about statistics. You focus too much on the python/SVC code. If you want this question to be reopened you should make clear why your question relates primarily to the computation of the kernel and not to the python code.


7

Minimal changes to the question In this meta post you suggest re-opening the question because now you have an answer to it. But to re-open questions you should change the question itself; closing a question is about the question (and re-opening should also be about the question, not about the fact that you now have an answer). Now you changed your ...


7

I think you're right that the question at the bottom of your post ("What should be the conclusion regarding the effect of b on value?") is OK. In light of that, I'm willing to reopen (and answer) it. For future reference, that question doesn't match the question in the title of your post very well ("why is a variable not significant on its own, but ...


6

At the moment this question appeared, I asked the OP to indicate how it was related to statistics but got no response. The thread is indeed interesting and many can see implicitly its potential applications to statistics, but on the face of this evidence it was correctly closed. Note that this thread is still available, still searchable, and people can ...


6

(Making my comment into an official answer.) @StephanKolassa commented here explaining his concern with your question. The close reason is "In the meantime, I am voting to close as unclear". Three subsequent users have voted to close for the same reason, two of whom before you added the code, and one of whom after. I don't see that Stephan has revisited ...


6

The topic of whether variance (which is square by definition) is a good measure of dispersion or deviation is not without merit and is being discussed a lot. Your question, however, is very unclear. That is why it is closed. See the text that explains the reason for closing "Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight ...


6

You seem to be part-way through developing a heuristic method for prediction using implicit assumptions based on your knowledge of what the data represent & how they've been collected, & on patterns observed over the hundreds of data sets; & to be asking either how the method can be refined, or what other method might be appropriate. It sounds ...


6

Ideally the main issues should be addressed when it is first closed (I often comment when voting to close for one reason with a brief mention that a post would close for other reasons as well -- something like "not only is this unclear, it appears to be overly broad..." etc), so that the OP is aware of the main problems to address. My preference as a ...


5

Methodological questions concerning crowdsourcing and machine learning are on-topic on Cross Validated SE, but they can't be: duplicate unclear. too broad. primarily opinion-based. Questions which ask for references are not off-topic, but depending on how it is asked some users can consider it 'too broad'. So, always try to be the most specific as ...


5

I agree with @Glen_b there. But you've written a great answer on a rather neglected topic & I hope you've not been put off adding to it as promised. It's up to you of course, but if I were you I'd probably ask a new question on non-Bayesian predictive inference & put my answer there.† Some other references (just in case you haven't already ...


5

I voted to close as "Unclear what you're asking" because I genuinely could not follow the question. The main statement of the problem is: My big question is how do I handle one test feature where part of it has not been trained? ...which I didn't really understand till I read your answer just now. And an apparent secondary problem was: The issue ...


4

I think both threads should be re-opened and I have voted for that. Real life examples is one thing, simple examples is another thing, and a question clarifying some technical confusion about one particular case is yet another thing. They are all sufficiently different to remain non-duplicate. There is probably a good case for making the real-life and the ...


4

[Trying to rectify my frequent mistake of posting comments instead of answers] I think it's both an interesting topic of discussion and completely unsuitable for CV, unfortunately. How one ought to deal with this would differ not just by field, but also by type of study (experiment/observation), possibility and cost of obtaining new data, nature & ...


4

The thread is now reopened. As nobody explained here why this should be a duplicate and as I could not see it myself, I voted to reopen. Unfortunately, this suggestion only got three upvotes and died out (even though I edited this thread at certain moment to push this Q again to the top of the Meta). So I raised a flag for moderator attention and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible