Comments on: Probability Plotting

By: aneta

aneta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:27:04 +0000

Of course there is an assumption here that you know what this Weibull paper is. I’m an astronomer and I only used log-log paper in the past. When I typically do all the operations on the computer when I work with the data. So telling me to “linearize the CDF to assess the fit” is understandable while “go use the Weibull paper” requires checking what this paper really is and does for you.

By: brianISU

brianISU — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:19:19 +0000

I agree. It seems to be less intimidating to say “plot this data on Weibull paper” than, “linearize the CDF to asses the fit”.

By: vlk

vlk — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:24:20 +0000

Ah, now I understand. This is definitely a cultural thing. I recall that we had enormous difficulty getting Stats students to make log-log plots without first taking the log of the quantities that were being plotted. We should have said, “plot it on log-log paper” and then everything would have been clear!

By: brianISU

brianISU — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:14:07 +0000

I just finished a course in which probability plotting is a strong emphasis. Sure we used computers, but every plot was called paper. eg, Weibull paper, Normal paper, logarithmic paper etc. I think it is more an example of nostalgia than anything.

By: hlee

hlee — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:07:21 +0000

I saw similar plots from old text books but never paid attention since computers do the job. I didn’t know it is called probability plotting paper. At least, probability plotting paper is not taught in regular class! It is very interesting to see other methodologies and 63.2%.