[R] draft of posting guide

[Patrick Burns]

I think the idea of answering simple questions if it hasn't
been answered after 4 * runif(1) hours is a brilliant idea
(well done Tony -- I'm jealous).  However, a slight tweak
would be even better.

It should be

number of years you've used S times runif(1) hours.  

This encourages more people to start answering questions.
While there has been some disagreement about other issues,
there seems to be consensus that building a large, strong
community of R users is a good thing.  Probably the easiest
way for people to contribute -- and hence feel a part of the
community -- is to respond to R-help questions.


(By the way, I'm not at all concerned that the "checklist" is
called "common mistakes".)


Patrick Burns

Burns Statistics
patrick at burns-stat.com
+44 (0)20 8525 0696
http://www.burns-stat.com
(home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")

Tony Plate wrote:

>I do share Eryk Wolski's and Pascal Nicklaus' concerns that my revision of 
>the posting guide is somewhat unfriendly and negative.  My problem here was 
>to keep it to a reasonable length, which meant eliminating sentences whose 
>function was mainly to be positive and friendly.  Pascal put it nicely:
>
>  
>
>>- People tending not to dare to ask questions because they are intimidated by
>>some aspects of the list (and after the r-beginner discussion we now know 
>>that
>>some feel like that) would be helped by a more positive wording of the same
>>issues in posting guide. The motto should be "help to write better questions"
>>rather than "stop asking poor questions". The content is all there in the
>>draft, it is more about changing individual words. Re-posting it monthly on
>>the list is a good idea.
>>    
>>
>
>I shall reread and see if any of it can be written in a more positive 
>manner without increasing the length.  I am however reminded of Aesp's 
>fable "You can't please everyone" 
>(http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/prose/aesop63.htm).
>
>The guide does contain a lot of statements that sound like "rules".  As 
>others noted, it is just a guide.  However, it is my observation that 
>people are occasionally admonished on R-help for violations of these 
>"rules".  I think this is what is intimidating to some.  Part of my 
>intention with writing the guide was to try to make explicit and put down 
>in one accessible place what these "rules" are. This, I hope, will make it 
>easier for beginners and those reluctant to post to know what they should 
>actually do, so as to better avoid the acute embarrassment that can come 
>from public admonishments.  I also tried to merely reflect the tone of the 
>list rather than trying to set the tone.  I suspect that a concise and 
>informative guide would be less of an intimidation to posting than seeing 
>public admonishments of others and being in the dark about what is actually 
>expected of posters (and would be more likely to be read than a longer, 
>more chatty and friendly guide.)
>
>I also agree that posting questions to R-help should not be the absolute 
>last resort.  That's why I split the suggestions on research into two 
>sections: "Do your homework before posting" and "Further resources".  It 
>has been my observation that people are sometimes called to task if they 
>ask questions without obviously having done the things in the "homework" 
>section, but things in the "Further resources" sections are often mentioned 
>in responses as friendly suggestions without any implication that the 
>poster was negligent for not trying them before posting.
>
>I do like the idea of a brief introduction to the guide, to say something 
>like "This guide is intended to help you get the most out of the R mailing 
>lists, and to avoid embarrassment.  Like many responses posted on the list, 
>it is written in a concise manner.  This is not intended to be unfriendly - 
>it is more a consequence of allocating limited time and space to technical 
>issues rather than to social niceties."
>
>Both Tom Mulholland and Patrick Burns suggested a checklist section, 
>containing things to check before posting.  While I also like this idea, 
>most of the content is already there under "homework" and "common 
>mistakes". I'm not sure that changing the format will enhance the document 
>that much, but I'm perfectly willing to hear opinions.
>
>Please let me know if the following is incorrect: "For questions about 
>functions in packages distributed with R (see the FAQ 
><http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Add-on%20packages%20in%20R>Add-on 
>packages in R), ask questions on R-help. If the question relates to a 
>package that is downloaded from CRAN try contacting the package maintainers 
>first."
>
>Comments welcome, however, at this point, perhaps it would be better to 
>send comments to me privately, as most people have probably had enough of 
>this discussion.
>
>cheers,
>
>Tony Plate
>
>PS.  There is a slightly corrected and revised version at 
>http://pws.prserv.net/tap/posting-guide-draft3.html.  I think it's beyond 
>my skills to make it more "friendly" without making it longer.  If anyone 
>else wants to take a go at it, feel free!  In the absence of such attempts, 
>I'm pretty much done with it.
>
>Tony Plate   tplate at acm.org
>
>	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
>______________________________________________
>R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
>https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>
>
>  
>