Timeline for Why is the intercept negative, and what does my regression show?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2023 at 4:27 | answer | added | user20885351 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 4, 2023 at 16:48 | history | edited | Sycorax♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 19 characters in body; edited title |
| Jan 4, 2023 at 16:28 | answer | added | tom k | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 22, 2021 at 14:54 | comment | added | Amanda | I had the same problem (negative intercept) but I realized I had my X and Y backwards and it solved my problem :) | |
| Feb 25, 2016 at 4:36 | answer | added | user95572 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 25, 2016 at 4:14 | answer | added | Dr. Ramnath Takiar | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 3, 2014 at 20:14 | comment | added | Umair Aslam | Hi, I did not get any helpful reply on the same question in the thread mentioned. Sorry, but really needed help | |
| Oct 2, 2014 at 13:06 | comment | added | Nick Cox | You asked essentially the same question before at stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117102/… This one is getting further, so I expect that the other will be put on hold, but in general please don't ask the same question twice. | |
| Oct 2, 2014 at 6:20 | comment | added | Umair Aslam | Thank you. I just started studying the Simpson's paradox in detail just now | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 23:59 | comment | added | Glen_b | That's estimated to be 24.4 more units of revenue per subscriber, as I already briefly outlined in comments on your earlier version of this question (and at the top in my answer here) ... but don't imagine that it's a causal relationship (i.e. that adding a 1000 subscribers will lead to about 24,400 more units of revenue; there are many reasons why using relations fitted to observational data to drive policy can go wildly astray when you assume they work like that -- not least, missing variables mean effects like Simpson's paradox can even flip the direction of a relationship.) | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 11:18 | comment | added | Umair Aslam | naah, wanted to see the growth in revenue with every increasing subscriber | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 22:20 | answer | added | Glen_b | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 22:03 | comment | added | Glen_b | Is this for some subject? It sounds like you're trying to answer a question you've been set. | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 21:04 | answer | added | Peter Flom | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 21:03 | comment | added | Umair Aslam | so it should be significant | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 21:03 | comment | added | Umair Aslam | the p value is 0.00000000000000000138574 | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 21:00 | comment | added | Umair Aslam | i don't have any negative value. Rather all values are pretty high. Also because it is a companies number. at 0 it wont be negative, revenue figures cant be negative. | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 20:58 | comment | added | Andy | Is the intercept also significant? | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 20:55 | history | asked | Umair Aslam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |