Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
hank_denver said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultshank_denver said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
hank_denver said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.