Pleiades ' Dust was incredible . It ' s probably a tie between that , Full of HellThe Body ' s collab album and Stranger Head ' s Prevail for my AotY . <| sep |> My potions are the best . They ' re great . The greatest potions you ' ll find . <| sep |> The funny thing is , I did that , and got quite a few responses of It could just be random ! from fans of the person who made the video . Hence the statistical followup . Funny ! Makes sense , then . It ' s interesting that you think it could be clearer , since I received quite a few messages from people without stats backgrounds thanking me for making the post accessible . Considering the fact that the majority of my audience is people without stats backgrounds , can you give me any pointers on what could have been more concise ? Sure . I think mentioning Benford ' s Law is completely unnecessary , because it seems to only pertain to the dice example anyway . I would even have personally done away with the entire dice example . The claim It ' s the only video that fails at any level of significance 0 . 1 , 0 . 05 , or 0 . 01 , and it fails at every level of significance . seems to be false I mean , it certainly doesn ' t fail at literally every possible threshold of statistical significance ! Visualizations are very important . I don ' t know how much prior context helps here , but my initial impression upon looking at your linked tweet is that the image is just kind of a huge visual jumble . An improved version of that image would surely have been very wellreceived in your longer post . In general , the explanation of the particular statistical test you used should have been offloaded to a footnotes section . I think that this statistical method tells me the probability of observing results more extreme than the data under the null hypothesis is sufficient for most people . Offloading the technical description to a footnotes section also allows you to add more technical detail e . g . citations without fear of overwhelming the typical reader . I ' m generally against the usage of arbitrary pvalue thresholds and believe that pvalues should just be reported asis . Okay , there are contexts here where it makes sense to distinguish them with some rough labeling , like how econometrics papers have huge tables of pvalues and use variable numbers of asterisks to denote various tiers of significance , but that doesn ' t apply here . To the typical reader , those thresholds just seem arbitrary 0 . 05 ? 0 . 1 ? 0 . 01 ? And once you ' ve enumerated a couple thresholds , saying that a result falls below all of them is potentially very connotative in a bad way . I also admit the usefulness of setting arbitrary thresholds across an entire domain , e . g . using a 5 sigma standard in particle physics , but that also doesn ' t apply here there aren ' t really wellelucidated a priori reasons why we might want to use a default threshold of 0 . 05 over something else .