RE: Good, Bad and Ugly - Statistics. How not to do it?
Hi, @alexs1320. Thanks for sharing this. This was a mixed bag for me and I had a hard time understanding some of the analysis. I was surprised to read that your team was "accused." I am not sure but I believe that the DaVinci team don't mean it that way. I appreciate that you have given a thorough analysis of how the scores are being distributed even though some of the charts and tables are quite unclear to me.
While going through the tables, and, the chart, I had noticed that you included users or moderators that has nothing to do with the DaVinci or translation moderation team which makes me wonder how you have collected your data.
With that said, I'd like to invite you to join moderator's private call on Utopian server where we can discuss this issues at length and try to figure out together how we could improve the moderation process in the team.
Please note that this post is not scored based on the questionnaire. #iamutopian post have there own metric, and that will be the case until we go live with the new guidelines and new questionnaire, which will be comprehensive enough to reflect these types of posts.
Your contribution has been evaluated according to Utopian policies and guidelines, as well as a predefined set of questions pertaining to the category.
To view those questions and the relevant answers related to your post, click here.
Need help? Chat with us on Discord.
Hello!
There were a few minor sparks, so I wanted to clarify everything using proper statistical methods and demonstrable facts. Problem without a problem...
Data were collected from the official DaVinci Sheet, for the period: September 2018 - February 2019. The idea was to cover the "old rules" (as control) and cross-compare with the "new rules" (about 350 contributions). I can send you corresponding Excel file.
What I see as the problem is the strange rule, which is a sophism:
Thank you for your review, @knowledges! Keep up the good work!