I don’t fault you for not having known all of this, but this information was a few Google searches away. Your advice is clearly inapplicable in this case.
You have, as has been pointed out, failed to understand the purpose of my comment. You will notice I never stated anything about this paper merely some basic guidelines to follow for determining if the paper is worth the effort to read, if one doesn’t have significant knowledge of the field within which the paper was written.
I apologize if my purpose was not clear, but your comment is completely irrelevant and misguided.
Apologies for being blunt, but your comment is nigh on useless: Andrew Gelman is a stats professor at Columbia who co-authored a book on Bayesian statistics (incidentally, he was also interviewed a while back by Eliezer on BHTV), while Cosma Shalizi is a stats professor at Carnegie Mellon who is somewhat well-known for his excellent Notebooks.
I don’t fault you for not having known all of this, but this information was a few Google searches away. Your advice is clearly inapplicable in this case.
You’re missing the point, which was not to evaluate that specific paper, but to provide some general heuristics for quickly evaluating a paper.
You have, as has been pointed out, failed to understand the purpose of my comment. You will notice I never stated anything about this paper merely some basic guidelines to follow for determining if the paper is worth the effort to read, if one doesn’t have significant knowledge of the field within which the paper was written.
I apologize if my purpose was not clear, but your comment is completely irrelevant and misguided.