May I take a stab as analyzing your sup's advice?

You:

When the difference between unique observations was greater than 10% water cover, or when cover percentages did not equal 100%, points were discarded.

Him:

To reduce sampling bias, input data points were removed when variance was greater than 10% between independent observations. Input data points were also removed if the percent cover class did not equal 100%.

I believe that these changes are worth their weight. Here are a few stabs:

To reduce sampling bias (him, added)

...establishes the purpose of the action taking place in this sentence. The original sentence requires the reader to interpret the statistics purpose based on the implications of 10% water cover and not equaling 100%... not a clear connection in my mind.

"Variance... between independent observations" (him) vs. "difference between unique observations" (you)

This is an example of using well-defined terms within a given technical lexicon / knowledge domain (such as variance and independent) to serve Occam's razor: why introduce a new term to the lexicon when the existing term is just as good?

"Difference ... ... ... greater than 10% water cover" (you) vs. "variance greater than 10%" (him)

He has brought the > 10% to within one word of its modifier, whereas in yours the > 10% is four words away. I find percentages awfully ambiguous, and it is always good to fight that.

"10% water cover" (you) vs. "10%" (him)

This is your sup's bet that for the purpose of this sentence, it is not helpful to specify what the physical component is reflected by the measurement, and that it's better to focus on the statistical aspects.

"Cover percentages" (you) vs. "cover class" (him)

Using the expression X percentage of Y% includes a redundancy: "percentage" and the % sign. By introducing the word "class" your sup has improved the specificity of this value without increasing wordiness.

1 sentence (you) vs. 2 sentences (him)

Using one sentence, as you had done, for the two clauses diminishes the specificity of the mutual clause, "points were discarded". It also adds opaqueness because the reader has to interpret two cases before hearing about the action. With your sup's version, the action is paired with a case more quickly, followed by another similar case-action pair. This is easier to understand.

I hope you find this analysis useful! I certainly don't think you are wrong in your reaction, but I hope you always look for continuous improvement in your writing!

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!