On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and false negatives. I can't think of a better test off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean it's defects are somehow not gross and obvious. No-one who's ever been quoted by the media could ever hear them being called a "reliable source" and keep a straight face.
- d.