Talk:Blocking (statistics)

Statistics High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with example in article

The example of shoes designed to last longer, with random assignment and blocking using left and right shoes is not a better design. If the two assignments interact with each other, then both the blocking and the overall experiment fail to achieve their purpose. Suppose having one worn out shoe and one shoe that has little if any wear were to cause discomfort, strain, injury, or aesthetic displeasure. Factors such as these might cause a person to walk less, thereby confounding the experiment. Experiments don't always need "more" blocking, or blocking at lower units of analysis - they need the right level of blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbbozzz (talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Completely randomized design?

What does he mean by completely randomized design? The assignment to one group or the other wasn't done randomly, it was done evenly between the two groups... (Also, is there such a thing as completely randomized designs?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.254.194.238 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what she (the Wikipedia page) means. It does seem as though there is something that is called completely randomized design. Klbrain (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes stratification, not blocking!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Specimen3a (talk • contribs) 02:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Main text off-topic and too many sections in Randomized Block Design

After the first paragraph the main intro-text seems to focus mainly on the 'blocks method' and its relevance wrt solving limit theorems, which it supports using in-text references for some strange reason (also why capitalize Probability Theory). I can only think that this is an unfortunate result of merging Randomized Block Design and Blocking or something.

As you read on there seem to be more sections than subjects. As an example: do we really need 2 separate headings for nuisance factors and blocking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.90.41.64 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the opening paragraph?

The opening paragraph states: In the statistical theory of the design of experiments, blocking is the arranging of experimental units in groups (blocks) that are similar to one another.

This says that the groups are similar to one another, which is not so.

I believe the statement should instead read something like this: In the statistical theory of the design of experiments, blocking is the arranging of experimental units that are similar to one another in groups (blocks).

I will make this change. Johsebb (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]