PeptidePedia The community reference

Talk:Blind sampling / Archive 1

Archived discussion·2 closed threads

This is an archive of past discussion on Blind sampling. Do not edit it. To revive a question, open a new section on the current talk page and link back to the thread here.

Is "almost no" defensible without a count?Resolved

The lead says almost no independent testing here is blind. I believe it, and "almost no" without a denominator is the kind of phrasing we tag on other articles. — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The honest form is a statement about our own file rather than about the world: none of the reports submitted to this wiki arose from a documented sampling procedure. That is checkable and it is stronger than a hedge. — TallySheetTad (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, and it should sit in the citation as well as the body, so a reader who checks the reference sees the scope of the claim. — ChainCustodyChad (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewritten to the file-scoped form, in the body and in the reference. ✓ Resolved — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.

Selection on the outcome is a third failure, not a footnoteDone

The numbered list originally had two failure modes, with submission bias mentioned afterwards. It is the one that actually shapes every published tally on this wiki and it should be numbered with the others. — TallySheetTad (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is also the only one blinding does not fix, which is worth saying immediately after the list rather than leaving a reader to infer. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. That sentence is the justification for the no-ranking rule, so it should be findable from here. ✓ Done — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.