Hot answers tagged

19

This part time cabinet maker and cross trainer will shortcut your power analysis with this one weird trick - statisticians hate him! Being provocative or controversial can garner more attention, but more attention isn't necessarily good. (Be thankful you can only see the ones that weren't deleted.) While a more controversial title may get more people to ...


9

Although I also prefer shorter titles, I am less worried about their length than @amoeba. At any rate, I agree that you should go ahead and edit the title. The title and the tags are often what people have access to when searching / perusing the site. Getting them right has an enormous influence on the organization and usability of the site. Your own ...


8

Glen_b provides a wonderful answer. To date, though, I don't see a key point expressed anywhere in this thread: A question that makes controversial or incorrect assertions is a confusing question. Basic logic--the Propositional Calculus--explains why this is problematic. When somebody makes a sequence of assertions $P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n$ that ...


7

I think in this particular case it would be a good edit, but mainly especially because the title "MLE in layman terms" is otherwise very short; there is some room to expand it. Go ahead and replace it with "Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) in layman terms", why not! But often Sometimes titles with abbreviations are quite long already, and then I would be ...


7

First of all, this is not something that we (neither the moderators, nor the community) can solve. This is how the platform is built, so if you wanted this to be changed, you should post a feature request for the whole StackExchange.com network. Regarding using the same title, as was already suggested to you, you can simply use a slightly different title. ...


7

The question's an old one with a correct, clear, accepted answer that applies to the more general case, so I think we can be bold in editing; it's got many views, & duplicates linking to it, so I think we should be.


3

I'd better explain my actions and position. I answered the OP's question in the specific (i.e with direct reference to the details of their question) I made the title more general -- changing "Linear regression with sine/cosine elements" to "Linear regression with transformed x values" and answered the more general version of the question as well. (...


2

[W]hy shouldn't the same question be asked again, with a different description? This sounds a lot like you are asking a duplicate of a closed question. If the question was closed because it's unclear, the best course of action is to have the OP refine their question sufficiently so that it may be reopened. (If the duplicate, closed question was off-topic ...


2

A search of type [edits][title] on Meta Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow Meta did not help much. My two cents. I'd say we should be cautions to edit a title to encompass (all) existing answers. The recent overfitting question asked for real world examples and it collected answers out of this scope. Not sure if the title should be edited in that occasion. ...


1

What is the proper balance between question & title specificity? In this answer, there is some guidance about writing titles. The item number 2 says: Keep the title short: it's not necessary to explain the question in the title, but what it is about without being too broad. A key part is 'the title should express what the question is about'. The ...


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