Inline below: 2011/4/21 Jeremy Miles <jeremy.mi...@gmail.com> > > Just because it comes from a book does not make it true or correct.
Amen! > Books are subject to considerably less peer review than journal > articles. Yes, but ... Peer review among journals is uneven, especially for those from private for-profit publishers. And even for top flight journals, dealing with articles that contain analyses of large complex data has become a considerable challenge. See e.g. "Reproducible Research." Publishers will publish a book written by (almost) anyone - > I know this, because I've written some of them and they were > published. > > There really isn't much difference, most of the time, between > different sorts of residuals, usually they are used for eyeballing > potential problems in your data, in which case it doesn't matter which > you use. -- I believe this is a bit too facile. In GLM's and even in plain (least squares) multiple regression, different residuals can have different sd's, so that, for example, a large in magnitude residual may seem to be "unusual" when it is not. Appropriate standardization can be important even for "eyeballing". Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
