<p>I didn't vote to close OP's question. But I would have voted to close it in line of <em>needs more focus</em>. So, I am in agreement with the reason it was closed. What did the comment (by whuber) state? It precisely mentioned &quot;[...] to edit this post to narrow it to a specific and definite statistical question.&quot;</p>
<p>Why so? Here is my quick take on the present status of the query:</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> It is plagued with information not necessarily relevant to a possible question: we really don't need to know whether it emanated from your PhD work and it would expand vastly in the coming years and all that. One can skip the intro, which imo doesn't add anything substantial to the query.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> Then you followed with a description of your purported data and the approach you have planned to take. That's good. However, I still feel the language used is verbose: you can trim down in a shorter and more comprehensible language.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> The main meat of the post consists of the questions, which, albeit are related, are simply too many for a single post. This is not the norm here. Perhaps you can make additional posts citing them together for them to be answerable.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> Finally, the last para. It simply adds nothing to the query of the post. It involves greetings and other things like the usage of meta CV. This is simply not needed. (See this Meta <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts">post</a> for additional details.)</p>
<p>Crux of my criticism is while there is definitely a question that could be entertained by the community and provide useful advice, it is certainly camouflaged among irrelevant statements: come straight to the technical content without beating the bush. Remember any potential answerer wouldn't waste their time to read a long post to come to a conclusion. Note the length doesn't matter unless it delves into a broader confabulation.</p>
<p>I appreciate you raised it here and would be happy to vote to reopen if you carefully exclude those unrelated statements and shorten your query to one or two questions.</p>
