Daniel, I recall you asking in a recent post about whether we are using the same data that Ludescher et. al. But I can't seem to find that message. Well, whether you asked it, or I imagined that you asked it, it's an important question which shouldn't get lost in the shuffle -- especially if we are to make claims about weaknesses of their method.

Since I wasn't actively involved in the analysis, I can only relate in a very qualitative way what I saw as an observer here.

There was something wrong with their notation for the running means, which Nad picked up on. She wrote to the authors to ask about this, but they didn't respond. Graham ended up making an assumption about what they actually meant. On that basis, he closely replicated their results. Then he simplified their measures, and still obtained similar results.

Graham and John, can you say how much of these issues have a significant bearing on the comparison between our data and theirs. And how much of it limits our ability to make a deeper critique of their methodology.

I had posted a draft of a letter to Ludescher et al to address some of these questions, and discussed it on the forum [here](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1412/letter-to-ludescher-et-al/).

John if you haven't done so already, I suggest that you write this letter, because you are going to know how to put the question most clearly and in a professional academic way.