User talk:The Jedi Math Squirrel/sandbox

Hi there Jedi Math Squirrel!

I added some sections to the fine work that you had done. I didn't delete anything, so we may want to combine and consolidate some of our paragraphs. Michael W. Morrison

Randy's Peer Review
(Randy.l.goodrich (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC))

Gavin's Peer Review
What's good? I think that your draft has a really strong lead section with a really intuitive example. This is going to be the only part of the page that the majority of visitors read so I think this is good. I also like that throughout the article there are numerous links to other related concepts. This is something I want to add to my teams article. I think the page has just about the appropriate amount of content as well. Doesn't seem to be overly explanatory.The article also appears to be neutral in tone which is another positive. I think you guys did a good job of including a diverse set of appropriate sources.

Minor suggested edits below.

There is a grey bar in between the section leads that needs to be removed.

-> One way to describe coverage error is by using an example from Twitter. -> Perhaps just change this to: For example. For conciseness.

-> taken by that nation's current President -> perhaps change this to just: their president

-> The Census Bureau has reported some success fitting such models to Zero Inflated Negative Binomial or Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) distributions. -> Would be nice to link to each of these concepts wiki page

--DecisionTheory (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gavin
Hi Gavin,

Thanks for your review. I made the changes you suggested. Thanks for helping us improve the article. Any other input is welcomed.

Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike's Edits
''Seems like there are some major edits. Not the impression I had as to what needed to be done through email exchanges. I think the joinwork sandbox is what should be published (minor edits are fine) as this work captures both of our voices. Please do not write in any other sandbox of mine except this one.'' The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel IN THE FIRST SUBHEADING (COVERAGE ERROR)

Added a link to the Non-sampling error Wikipedia article. Removed a The (This is strictly stylistic) Spruced-up the Twitter example. I have never used Twitter, so I don't actually know how one would use Twitter to perform a survey. ''I am not ok with the edits you made to the Twitter example. I no longer see by intentionality or structure, or hear my voice. Please do not make live the edits you have made. The edits make this Mike's work instead of Mike and Marie's work.Our peer reviews actual said our 2 examples were strengths and we should listen to that review.'' The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel IN THE SUBHEADING "WAYS TO QUANTIFY COVERAGE ERROR" I changed mark-recapture to coverage-recapture so that there was parallelism between this instance and other instances of the term.

I can't seem to get the link to "Paradata" to work. If neither of us can get this to work, perhaps we should not bother with a link. It works fine for me. The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel At the bottom of the page, I removed a redundant link to "Sampling error," and a redundant instance of the subheading, "See Also"

QUESTIONS:

I have never used Twitter, so I have no idea how a Twitter survey would work. Does Twitter include some sort of Twitter Survey Monkey? ''Read my reference book on big data. In our social media world, the old way of doing things is changing.'' The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel IN "WAYS TO QUANTIFY COVERAGE ERROR"

Do you have any examples, or more specific methods from mathematical statistics? Do you have any more information about how evaluation studies relate, or differ from capture-recapture methods?

IN "WAYS TO REDUCE COVERAGE ERROR"

This is a good addition to the article. Do you have more specific information, or a name, or a link, for the method of assigning a score to a phone number? Did I not include a reference for this?The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel Thanks,

Mike Michael W. Morrison (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark Recapture Section
Mike, I seem to remember you asking a question about the mark recapture section. I am not finding it so it might be in an email, but I am pressed for time so I just wanted to get these comments down. In my original article, I mention an evaluation study. This was specifically with a census in mind. In a census, an evaluation study is similar but not the same a what is typically done in a mark recapture in biology. In biology, you are not trying to count the entire population, but estimate the entire population. In a census, you are trying to count the entire population. In a census, you would count a block, then randomly select that block to count again after you have already counted it to see if the numbers match up. In my research, I also saw this named a postenumeration study.

I think in your original article, you were referencing Schaffer. I have a copy of his book. I believe the example the author gives is of a concert. You give random people a hat (the mark). Then you try to capture those hats (the capture). And then try to estimate the population.

Both of our trains of thoughts are accurate, but maybe there needs to be some more fleshing out in this section.

The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel