Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@jannes-m
Copy link
Collaborator

Reverts #356
I still have to do some updates, i.e., I haven't finished yet.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry if I jumped the gun. All the changes looked good. This PR seems to revert good changes.

@jannes-m
Copy link
Collaborator Author

that's fine, the changes will be added again when I am done adding all changes, no worries

@jannes-m
Copy link
Collaborator Author

will add all changes within the next hour and will let you know when I am done

@Robinlovelace Robinlovelace mentioned this pull request Dec 21, 2018
34 tasks
@jannes-m
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Just to explain, I stopped working on the chapter because I needed to take care of my Katharina as she is ill. Therefore, the impression arose that I might be done with the chapter when in fact I was only taking a break, sorry!

@jannes-m
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jannes-m commented Dec 21, 2018

Ok, finally I am done. Just one more thing, I also wrote it into #334:
Figure 14.2 (p. 300) is put in between a table. Can we somehow prevent Latex from doing so. Furthermore, Figure 14.2 appears "rasterized", i.e., visually unappealing. The same is true for Figure 14.5. Note that this is not the case for the online versions of the figures. Is there a way to prevent the "rasterization" in the pdf?

14-eco.Rmd Outdated
Additionally, the relationships might be highly non-linear.
In our use case, the relationship between response and predictors are pretty clear, there is only a slight amount of non-linearity and the number of observations and predictors is low.
Hence, it might be worth to try a linear model.
Hence, it might be worth it to try a linear model.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Robinlovelace Could you pls check this sentence, is it really it might be worth it?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The new version is definitely better. However, I would suggest this, which is shorter and clearer:

Hence, it might be worth trying a linear model.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perfect, thank, Robin!

@Nowosad
Copy link
Member

Nowosad commented Dec 21, 2018

s put in between a table. Can we somehow prevent Latex from doing so. Furthermore, Figure 14.2 appears "rasterized", i.e., visually unappealing. The same is true for Figure 14.5. Note that this is not the case for the online versions of the figures. Is there a way to prevent the "rasterization" in the pdf?

@jannes-m please add those kinds of issues to #334. We will need to work on them later.

14-eco.Rmd Outdated
Ordinations are a popular tool in vegetation science to extract the main information, frequently corresponding to ecological gradients, from large species-plot matrices mostly filled with 0s.
However, they are also used in remote sensing, the soil sciences, geomarketing and many other fields.
If you are unfamiliar with ordination techniques or in need of a refresher, have a look at Michael W. Palmers [webpage](http://ordination.okstate.edu/overview.htm) for a short introduction to popular ordination techniques in ecology and at @borcard_numerical_2011 for a deeper look on how to apply these techniques in R.
If you are unfamiliar with ordination techniques or in need of a refresher, have a look at Michael W. Palmer' s [web page](http://ordination.okstate.edu/overview.htm) for a short introduction to popular ordination techniques in ecology and at @borcard_numerical_2011 for a deeper look on how to apply these techniques in R.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unnecessary space?

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Collaborator

@jannes-m good to merge?

Copy link
Collaborator

@Robinlovelace Robinlovelace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm happy with these changes. We can fix minor issues, like https://github.com/Robinlovelace/geocompr/pull/357/files#r243570787 , post merge.

14-eco.Rmd Outdated
Additionally, the relationships might be highly non-linear.
In our use case, the relationship between response and predictors are pretty clear, there is only a slight amount of non-linearity and the number of observations and predictors is low.
Hence, it might be worth to try a linear model.
Hence, it might be worth it to try a linear model.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The new version is definitely better. However, I would suggest this, which is shorter and clearer:

Hence, it might be worth trying a linear model.

@jannes-m jannes-m merged commit 815d44a into master Dec 22, 2018
@jannes-m jannes-m deleted the revert-356-copyedit_c14 branch December 22, 2018 13:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants