[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!

Duncan Murdoch 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:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
> 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.

Duncan Murdoch

More information about the R-help mailing list