This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The arithmetic in post #60 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Whatever the answer on citation sweep results turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Answering the question post #58 raises rather than the one it answers.
The version of citation sweep results that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
Narrowing post #63, because the general version has more than one answer.
Reading this citation sweep results thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Wiki hygiene point: every edit here should say what changed and why in the note, not what section it touched. "Fixed typo" and "corrected the concentration in example two" are very different entries to read back.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Post #66 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
On citation sweep results, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
One caution on citation sweep results: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
Post #73 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Building on post #73 rather than restating it.
Taking citation sweep results seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Marking my uncertainty on citation sweep results explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Post #77 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Agreed on citation sweep results, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Worth separating two things that post #80 runs together.
Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.
Post #82 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
The question underneath citation sweep results is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
Post #85 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Coming back to post #84, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
Citation sweep results is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.