tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post8332132096674599427..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Idiots look at Data, Part V: Internal standardsDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-32705650472388488762007-11-10T20:53:00.000-08:002007-11-10T20:53:00.000-08:00Larry,I'm not going into that level of detail for ...Larry,<BR/><BR/>I'm not going into that level of detail for reasons that will become clear later.<BR/><BR/>TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-49370528683140315762007-11-10T10:05:00.000-08:002007-11-10T10:05:00.000-08:00um ... I don't mean to complain, but THIS set of g...um ... I don't mean to complain, but THIS set of graphs makes me feel like I'm watching a cinescope movie from the first row.<BR/><BR/>I understand why you might want to focus on the portion of the graph between any internal standards (though I've been arguing with M that you should look at the pattern of noise across the entire spectrum), but I think it would be clearer to use the Part IV graphs and mark the internal standards with a yellow highlighter.<BR/><BR/>And if it's not too much trouble, maybe you could identify where on each graph you're finding shoulders, edges, etc. The importance of doing this identification depends on what you're ultimately trying to prove here ... but the identification of a shoulder or an edge is somewhat subjective, so it would be good to see what you've identified and if we "idiots" agree with your identifications.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.com