From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-26 04:04:17
On Sunday 25 May 2003 23:18, Beman Dawes wrote:
> I think that Greg Comeau has a good point in his email below - reporting
> separate pass / warn / fail statistics in the regression summary can be
> misleading to naive readers.
> On the other hand, we certainly want to continue to report warnings in the
> tables themselves.
> So it seems to me that in the summary we should lump "pass" and "warn" from
> the tables together into a single "pass" category in the summary.
The number of warnings also provides valuable information but indeed it's
not as important as the Pass/Fail categories so this needs to be communicated
to the viewers as well. But how ?
I support the suggestion of Greg indicating something like:
Pass: 67% (3% warning) | Fail (33%)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk