[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!
murdoch at stats.uwo.ca
Sun Dec 21 14:52:41 CET 2008
On 21/12/2008 7:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Dieter Menne
> <dieter.menne at menne-biomed.de> wrote:
>> Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard <at> biostat.ku.dk> writes:
>>> Why do so many people have such trouble with the word "reproducible"? We
>>> can't reproduce that without access to weblog_by_date!
>> In a strict sense, the example is "reproducible" as opposite to "spurious".
>> Reproducible research means that you can get the same results whe you buy
>> an ultracentrifuge, high-grade chemicals, a safety lab, and a technician
>> with a golden hand .:)
> I think reproducible is the correct word and its meaning should be clear from
> both its conventional meaning, see link, and the context in which its used:
> It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a post,
I don't find it surprising. Putting together a good bug report
requires several skills that need to be learned. I suspect medical
doctors and auto mechanics also work with poor reports of what's wrong.
I do sometimes find it frustrating (as I imagine doctors and auto
mechanics do), but probably not as frustrating as the posters find it.
> clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help.
Now really, who reads repetitive stuff at the bottom of messages? The
dividing line clearly indicates that it's some formal requirement, not
meant to be read.
More information about the R-help