Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 453: Line 453:  
Originally, the "developed nations" took most of the medals in the Modern Olympics.  In fact, because of transportation challenges, the host country had a big advantage in the early years of the Modern Olympics.  Since that time, there has been a long-term trend of spreading the medals to countries throughout the world.  Over time, the portion of the medals going to smaller countries has increased and the number of medals going to France, UK, and Germany have declined.  So, if one had to explain a 4% decline in Olympic medals, could one look to this long-term trend rather than to the gay marriage factor? Thanks [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
 
Originally, the "developed nations" took most of the medals in the Modern Olympics.  In fact, because of transportation challenges, the host country had a big advantage in the early years of the Modern Olympics.  Since that time, there has been a long-term trend of spreading the medals to countries throughout the world.  Over time, the portion of the medals going to smaller countries has increased and the number of medals going to France, UK, and Germany have declined.  So, if one had to explain a 4% decline in Olympic medals, could one look to this long-term trend rather than to the gay marriage factor? Thanks [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
 
: 4% isn't a significant difference anyway, unless it continues. One sample showing a 4% change doesn't really prove anything by itself. You could be right, but we'd have to analyze it long-term, rather than just one year, given the small change. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:14, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
 
: 4% isn't a significant difference anyway, unless it continues. One sample showing a 4% change doesn't really prove anything by itself. You could be right, but we'd have to analyze it long-term, rather than just one year, given the small change. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:14, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
 +
: Assuming GregG calculated the p-value correctly, he is correct in that there is no statistical significance just from this one test. Generally, you would need a p value of 0.05 or less for it to be significant (or by stricter standards, 0.01). 0.73 is nowhere near that. I'm not going to verify the calculations, but it seems right. And assuming it's right, GregG is correct that it is not significant. However, if repeated tests showed a 4% decrease, that would be significant. We can run it again in 2014 and 2016, and beyond. And possibly we would have more nations to work with in those years. Keep in mind that the Winter Olympics (2014) have fewer total medals, so a 4% drop would be less significant, by itself. But if demonstrated, it could show significance of the trend. Something inonsistent with the 4% decrease, such as a small increase, would indicate no correlation. Bottom line is that this one sample test can't disprove the correlation by itself, but it doesn't prove it either. I'm an actuarial science major at school, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. A repeated 4% decrease would be significant. But for the moment, it's not. I'm going to retroactively analyze the 2008 medal data, although we'll have fewer countries. When I'm done, I'll post the results.  [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
    
== Medal weighting ==
 
== Medal weighting ==
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
752

edits

Navigation menu