Talk:Confidence in Page analysis

Is this the discussion page for CIP?

Sure! There is also an active discussion over in the forums marked on the first page, but feel free to comment specifically on the wiki page here. Piggy 19:19, 5 February 2008 (PST)

Would it be to much asking to reduce the graphs to a smaller size. The gist is still visible and I believe the larger graph can be attached as a link (just don't ask me how because I don't know). This Wiki page is growing quite large, and not having to scroll for each graph would help. J3L - 20 Mar 2008

Re: It appears a few of the "corrections" of the original paper book "errors" might have been just a touch over-zealous. If you're curious, the "errors" on page 86 look intentional in retrospect. [I don't see this. If somebody else figures out this reference, please elaborate here. Is this a reference to the apparent practical joke on page 45 of I4? --piggy]

He's talking about the intentional misspellings in the original paper book on png 86. The author used "your" instead of "you're", "brake" instead of "break," for example. Some of the early diffs were attributable to [**notes] pointing out these wrong word usages, and later diffs were added by rounds responding to the first notes with things like "[**intentional misspelling?]".