I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of R so as to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the main thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the values of commercial software and a scepticism regarding free software. In the end my experience of r help is that you get what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic responses (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply. Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult the program can be to new users. Responding that the questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar document is like answering a question for directions to one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such questioners have already tried that and are asking because that approach failed. R is a language and like all languages it is simple to those that understand it and complex to those who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain speaks Spanish, but I know from experience that for most English people it is very difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm asked a question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish or R) do I reply 'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! I can tell repondants that whilst many of my basic questions may seem simple it is not for lack of studying the very sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I suspect that the same is true of most questioners. I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher in my speciality as well as someone close to completing a masters in statistics with distinction. As such I am not a total novice and would suggest that if I'm having problems so are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as so many responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that several responses suggest that they want to discourage questions so they don't overwhelm r-help. Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only want expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case. Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not the way to do it. I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but if that is the case it would be better if they didn't reply at all. I was taught many years ago that if you can't say anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all. Something similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that some respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave these simple questions to such people. Indeed it seems surprising that some exteremely experienced R users choose to reply to these basic messages at all; and it seem it is mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it might be better for them to concentrate on complex problems more suited to their skills and interests and leave the simple questions to more sympathetic souls. Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to basic and advanced questions? Certainly if the R community is serious about appealling to users outside advanced statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the failure of management science as due to those who were 'mathematically sophisticated but conceptually naive' and much the same could be said for many in the R community. Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded helpful to my queries in the past and ask them to continue in that vein; their assistance and effort is greatly appreciated. *********************************************************************************** This email and any attachments are intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation from which it is sent. All emails may be subject to monitoring.
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 4:46 pm, Robert Brown FM CEFAS wrote:> Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than > experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only want expert > statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case. Alternatively > if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not the way to do > it.I perfectly agree with Robert Brown. Althogh I have been captivated by "R", and will keep using it, I would appreciate if "R" gurus could make this clear. Thanks James -- Dr James Foadi Structural Biology Laboratory Department of Chemistry University of York YORK YO10 5YW UK
Maybe it would be helpful to think of R-help as something more than the Oracle of Delphi. Questions, ideally, should be framed in such a way that they might lead to improvements in R: extensions of the code or, more frequently clarifications or extensions of the documentation. Indeed the R-help archive itself serves this function and could profitably be searched prior to firing off a question to R-help. As traffic on R-help increases there is a delicate balance that must be maintained in order to keep knowledgeable users interested in the list. url: www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger Roger Koenker email rkoenker at uiuc.edu Department of Economics vox: 217-333-4558 University of Illinois fax: 217-244-6678 Champaign, IL 61820 On Dec 1, 2004, at 10:56 AM, James Foadi wrote:> On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 4:46 pm, Robert Brown FM CEFAS wrote: > >> Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other >> than >> experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only want >> expert >> statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case. >> Alternatively >> if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not the way >> to do >> it. > > I perfectly agree with Robert Brown. Althogh I have been captivated by > "R", > and will keep using it, I would appreciate if "R" gurus could make > this clear. > > Thanks > > James > -- > Dr James Foadi > Structural Biology Laboratory > Department of Chemistry > University of York > YORK YO10 5YW > UK > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Although I agree that sometimes a response to a question seems rude, and some degree of arrogance asserts itself from time to time (actually appears to cycle), I don't see what in the nature of the commercial S environment rectifies this problem. I've been using S since the late 80's, R for less than a year. The only substantive difference in obtaining assistance for [statistics-related] problems, that I've perceived, would simply be the volume of questions. R has a couple of orders of magnitude on S in this respect, restricting the observation to the period since the last change in ownership of S (previously S had much more question traffic). But other than the volume, I really don't see a difference. The only circumstances for which I've noted an advantage of S over R in terms of responding to questions are concerned with programming the interface and server applications, where the problems may often require the knowledge of S development staff to resolve (or not), and they are pretty good about intercepting questions that might better have been directed to them. If one considers the number of times we see a question we feel was frivolous for lack of effort, versus the number of times we see a response we feel was unwarranted for lack of consideration, is there much difference, or are we maybe as close to the line as we could reasonably expect to be.> Mark Fowler > Marine Fish Division > Bedford Inst of Oceanography > Dept Fisheries & Oceans > Dartmouth NS Canada > fowlerm at mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca >-----Original Message----- From: Robert Brown FM CEFAS [mailto:r.g.brown at cefas.co.uk] Sent: December 1, 2004 12:46 PM To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of R so as to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the main thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the values of commercial software and a scepticism regarding free software. In the end my experience of r help is that you get what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic responses (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply. Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult the program can be to new users. Responding that the questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar document is like answering a question for directions to one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such questioners have already tried that and are asking because that approach failed. R is a language and like all languages it is simple to those that understand it and complex to those who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain speaks Spanish, but I know from experience that for most English people it is very difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm asked a question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish or R) do I reply 'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! I can tell repondants that whilst many of my basic questions may seem simple it is not for lack of studying the very sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I suspect that the same is true of most question! ers. I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher in my speciality as well as someone close to completing a masters in statistics with distinction. As such I am not a total novice and would suggest that if I'm having problems so are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as so many responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that several responses suggest that they want to discourage questions so they don't overwhelm r-help. Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only want expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case. Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not the way to do it. I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but if that is the case it would be better if they didn't reply at all. I was taught many years ago that if you can't say anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all. Something similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that some respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave these simple questions to such people. Indeed it seems surprising that some exteremely experienced R users choose to reply to these basic messages at all; and it seem it is mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it might be better for them to concentrate on complex problems more suited to their skills and interests and leave the simple questions to more sympathetic souls. Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to basic and advanced questions? Certainly if the R community is serious about appealling to users outside advanced statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the failure of management science as due to those who were 'mathematically sophisticated but conceptually naive' and much the same could be said for many in the R community. Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded helpful to my queries in the past and ask them to continue in that vein; their assistance and effort is greatly appreciated. **************************************************************************** ******* This email and any attachments are intended for the named re...{{dropped}}
I have been a member for only a few days but I find the tone of some responses are inappropriate for a list dubbing itself a "help list". I also completely understand that traffic needs to be kept at a modest level to keep advanced users interested; therefore, I suggest that a second help list be created to deal with "advanced R help". Belong to both lists if you wish and filter your email for cursory glances or a detailed reading. Users must judge themselves the level of their queries and perhaps a note saying something like "requests to the advanced list are generally made by users who already have a very good working knowledge of R" or some very rough benchmark for judging your level like 2 years. I do not know how much work this would involve or resources available for this - it is a blind proposal. I think it might deal with many of the problems both beginner and advanced users have with the present list. Daniel ________________________ Daniel E. Duplisea Fisheries and Oceans/P??ches et Oc??ans Canada Institut Maurice-Lamontagne 850 route de la mer Mont-Joli, QC Canada G5H 3Z4 tel: (418) 775-0881 fax: (418) 775-0740 duplisead at dfo-mpo.gc.ca -----Original Message----- From: roger koenker [mailto:rkoenker at uiuc.edu] Sent: 1 d??cembre 2004 12:26 To: James Foadi Cc: Robert Brown FM CEFAS; R mailing list Subject: Re: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions Maybe it would be helpful to think of R-help as something more than the Oracle of Delphi. Questions, ideally, should be framed in such a way that they might lead to improvements in R: extensions of the code or, more frequently clarifications or extensions of the documentation. Indeed the R-help archive itself serves this function and could profitably be searched prior to firing off a question to R-help. As traffic on R-help increases there is a delicate balance that must be maintained in order to keep knowledgeable users interested in the list. url: www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger Roger Koenker email rkoenker at uiuc.edu Department of Economics vox: 217-333-4558 University of Illinois fax: 217-244-6678 Champaign, IL 61820 On Dec 1, 2004, at 10:56 AM, James Foadi wrote:> On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 4:46 pm, Robert Brown FM CEFAS wrote: > >> Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other >> than >> experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only want >> expert >> statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case. >> Alternatively >> if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not the way >> to do >> it. > > I perfectly agree with Robert Brown. Althogh I have been captivated by > "R", > and will keep using it, I would appreciate if "R" gurus could make > this clear. > > Thanks > > James > -- > Dr James Foadi > Structural Biology Laboratory > Department of Chemistry > University of York > YORK YO10 5YW > UK > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html______________________________________________ R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Robert Brown FM CEFAS wrote:> I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to answer very > basic questions in a straightforward way' with interest as someone who > is also new to R and has had similar experiences. As such it with > sadness that I note that most seem to agree with the present approach to > the responses to basic questions.I think the term "basic questions" in this thread is unfortunate. Many of the questions at issue are actually quite complex and advanced, but are asked very frequently. If someone says they have read, to pick a frequent example over the past few days, FAQ 7.21, and doesn't understand it or can't work out how to apply the advice, they are likely to get a friendly and detailed answer. I wrote that FAQ answer and I know that it doesn't contain everything you might possibly need to know. On the other hand, if someone doesn't appear to have read the FAQ, I will respond "See the FAQ" or (if I remember the number "See FAQ 7.21"). Other people may respond more forcefully; they are usually people who spend more time than I do on answering questions. If someone says they can't understand a particular section of "An Introduction to R", again, they will get a much more friendly response than if they don't appear to have even looked at it. I learned S-PLUS from an earlier version of that document (as a MSc student with no statistical qualifications at all), and while it is helpful, it could certainly be expanded. Incidentally, the suggestion elsewhere in this thread that the R community should decide whether it wants new users seems to reflect a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The "R community" has no decision-making procedure and a hugely diverse range of views on almost every topic (except perhaps the relative usefulness of SPSS and R). It can't decide anything and probably couldn't agree if it tried to. My personal view is that a separate mailing list for low-level questions would probably not be useful (this issue has been raised before), but I am not stopping anyone from setting one up, and I'm sure that if one were started the CRAN maintainers would be willing to post information about subscribing, link to archives, etc. The list doesn't have to be hosted by Martin Maechler and ETH Zurich just because r-devel and r-help are. -thomas
I think that enough bandwidth has been expended on this topic. Many
people have attempted, patiently, to explain why the protocol to
which the r-help list currently adhers is necessary and close to
optimal. The thin-skinned whiners who wish to be told ``Yes, dear,
that was an ***excellent*** question'' are not going to listen to or
understand these explanations. If they wish to take their business
elsewhere, let them. They won't be missed. (It will do them less
than no good, in the long run, to do so --- but that's their lookout.)
I don't know if there is a causative relationship, but this whiny
attitude is strongly reminiscent of the philosophy which seems to
prevail in most school systems in the English speaking world whereby
teachers dare not criticize students' work for fear of damaging their
self esteem.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
rolf at math.unb.ca
P. S. And here I was, all these years, thinking that
``self esteem'' was Italian for ``sauna''.
R. T.
michael watson (IAH-C)
2004-Dec-01 18:14 UTC
[R] Re: Protocol for answering basic questions
Here here!
Getting flamed for asking dumb questions on a public mailing list is all part of
growing up and being a man/woman. We've all been there, and quite frankly,
even the most basic questions on R-Help get a decent answer from someone, and
all for free, so who cares if you get a bit of rudeness or not!
Next we'll be seeing lawsuits being brought against people on R-Help for not
being polite enough. You couldn't make it up!
M
-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch on behalf of Rolf Turner
Sent: Wed 12/1/2004 5:52 PM
To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
Cc:
Subject: [R] Re: Protocol for answering basic questions
I think that enough bandwidth has been expended on this topic. Many
people have attempted, patiently, to explain why the protocol to
which the r-help list currently adhers is necessary and close to
optimal. The thin-skinned whiners who wish to be told ``Yes, dear,
that was an ***excellent*** question'' are not going to listen to or
understand these explanations. If they wish to take their business
elsewhere, let them. They won't be missed. (It will do them less
than no good, in the long run, to do so --- but that's their lookout.)
I don't know if there is a causative relationship, but this whiny
attitude is strongly reminiscent of the philosophy which seems to
prevail in most school systems in the English speaking world whereby
teachers dare not criticize students' work for fear of damaging their
self esteem.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
rolf at math.unb.ca
P. S. And here I was, all these years, thinking that
``self esteem'' was Italian for ``sauna''.
R. T.
______________________________________________
R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:46:07 -0000, "Robert Brown FM CEFAS" <r.g.brown at cefas.co.uk> wrote :> In the end my experience of r help is that you get what you pay for.I think this statement is very true, but not necessarily in the way you meant it. R and R-help are "free" in the open source sense, and "free" in that you don't need to pay money to someone to use them, but they aren't "free" in the sense of requiring no effort to use. If you don't devote effort to understanding R and to framing questions that get good responses in R-help, then you won't get nearly as much value out of them as if you did. My own experience is that effort is required with commercial software too, but I've never really taken advantage of support contracts, so maybe they really do make things effortlessly easy.>Many of the so called socratic responses (in this list and the wider academic >community) can be seen as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply.That's definitely part of it. If a short reference to an FAQ answers a question, or an RTFM message encourages someone to RTFM, then that's a good thing. I get "complete replies" when I call the support desk of my ISP, and they are almost always completely useless. I'd rather get a short response from someone knowledgeable than a long one from someone reading a script.>Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult the program can be to new users.I don't think it's valid to generalize like that. Some do, some don't.> Responding that the questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar >document is like answering a question for directions to one's house with 'Buy a map'.I think it's more like answering a question about which bus to take downtown with directions on how to get a free bus route map.>Most likely both such questioners have already tried that and are asking because that approach failed.I doubt if that's true. I think most such questioners are just used to being customers, being served by someone. R has no customers. It has a community of users and developers who help each other. One part of the help is to tell beginners where the resources are that they should learn from. Duncan Murdoch
> number.of.years.using.R * runif(1)[1] 1.064863>I waited this many hours before responding:) First, let me say thank you very much to the R team for ...the software ...the help-list ...other intangibles. I am a relatively new R user and I am struggling in my own way to learn R. I follow the list regularly for several reasons. No matter what kind of answers I see, I think the benefits of R far outweigh any irritation with any responder - this environment is an incredible gift. Bytheway - responses to my questions on this list have been completely helpful and it has been clear that the responders had taken time to respond thoughtfully and fully. Second, I know that the list(s) maintainers have a difficult job and really deserve a vote of thanks, and that the developers are really spending a huge amount of time already, but is there some possibility that an "environment" could be created so that a person such as myself could ask a discussion question without generating unnecessary email traffic for the people who should be spending their time working on developing the software? Splitting off a beginner list has been suggested before but I don't think this is the answer - of course I don't have a good answer. Also, not having 'expert review' of answers is totally unacceptable. But there is getting to be a problem with bandwidth here (which I just incremented by 1). Third, it appears to me - and I do say here that I am not necessarily qualified to judge - that there might be some inconsistency in the way responses are handled. I know this is not well phrased but there has been somewhat of an example the last few days that I am thinking about. There have been several questions asking how to construct variables named v1-v10 (for example). The very useful (I don't think rude but what do I know) replies have typically been along the lines of 'this is FAQ whatever *but this isn't a good way to do things in R*'. The first time I saw this reply it was extremely helpful to ME because of the *don't do it this way in R* part - no matter how rude it might have been perceived by the person who wrote the question. The *don't do it this way in R* part made me think about some code I was working on. Sandwiched in the middle of these excruciatingly similar questions was a question about 'how do I write a for loop to take a crosstab over v1-v10'. There was a perfectly good response with a for loop but no response about options to avoid a for loop - maybe it wasn't appropriate in the situation but what do I know - so I wrote some fake data and tried xtabs(cbind(v1,v2) ~ predictor) and it worked:) Perhaps I should have sent a question to the list about this - a year ago I would not have done so because of thin-skinnedness - but I didn't do it now because I am getting seriously concerned about bandwidth. **I would like to respectfully say that it is important to ME and to other beginners that the gurus provide the 'don't do it this way in R' pointers (please beat the SAS out of me:) After a lot of rambling, my main concerns are: * learning good R programming techniques * access to the R environment (including r-help) * bandwidth on this list I regret that I cannot be as articulate as the responses from the R team members that I have seen on this list. Thanks for R bob:) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Brown FM CEFAS [mailto:r.g.brown at cefas.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:46 AM To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of R so as to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the main thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the values of commercial software and a scepticism regarding free software. In the end my experience of r help is that you get what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic responses (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply. Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult the program can be to new users. Responding that the questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar document is like answering a question for directions to one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such questioners have already tried that and are asking because that approach failed. R is a language and like all languages it is simple to those that understand it and complex to those who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain speaks Spanish, but I know from experience that for most English people it is very difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm asked a question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish or R) do I reply 'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! I can tell repondants that whilst many of my basic questions may seem simple it is not for lack of studying the very sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I suspect that the same is true of most question! ers. I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher in my speciality as well as someone close to completing a masters in statistics with distinction. As such I am not a total novice and would suggest that if I'm having problems so are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as so many responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that several responses suggest that they want to discourage questions so they don't overwhelm r-help. Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only want expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case. Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not the way to do it. I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but if that is the case it would be better if they didn't reply at all. I was taught many years ago that if you can't say anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all. Something similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that some respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave these simple questions to such people. Indeed it seems surprising that some exteremely experienced R users choose to reply to these basic messages at all; and it seem it is mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it might be better for them to concentrate on complex problems more suited to their skills and interests and leave the simple questions to more sympathetic souls. Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to basic and advanced questions? Certainly if the R community is serious about appealling to users outside advanced statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the failure of management science as due to those who were 'mathematically sophisticated but conceptually naive' and much the same could be said for many in the R community. Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded helpful to my queries in the past and ask them to continue in that vein; their assistance and effort is greatly appreciated. **************************************************************************** ******* This email and any attachments are intended for the named re...{{dropped}}
> Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult the program can be to new users. Responding that the questioner > should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar document is like answering a question for directions to one's house with > 'Buy a map'.from the posting guide: "Good manners: Remember that customs differ. Some people are very direct. Others surround everything they say with hedges and apologies. Be tolerant. Rudeness is never warranted, but sometimes `read the manual' is the appropriate response. Don't waste time discussing such matters on the list." indeed. when in rome... robert
Well, if you do not like the way some people answer queries, why not just delete the reply without reading the response. Since we're not paying anyone for answering questions, we should be grateful to those who put their time in replying to our basic questions. And why join this community? -- if you think most are 'conceptually na??ve'! Marwan> -----Original Message----- > From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch > [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Robert > Brown FM CEFAS > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:46 PM > To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions > > I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to > answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with > interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar > experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most > seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to > basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own > questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose > replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually > rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of R so as > to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the > main thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the > values of commercial software and a scepticism regarding free > software. In the end my experience of r help is that you get > what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic responses > (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen > as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply. > > Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult > the program can be to new users. Responding that the > questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar > document is like answering a question for directions to > one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such > questioners have already tried that and are asking because > that approach failed. R is a language and like all languages > it is simple to those that understand it and complex to those > who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain speaks Spanish, but I > know from experience that for most English people it is very > difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm > asked a question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish > or R) do I reply 'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! > I can tell repondants that whilst many of my basic questions > may seem simple it is not for lack of studying the very > sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I > suspect that the same is true of most question! > ers. > > I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher > in my speciality as well as someone close to completing a > masters in statistics with distinction. As such I am not a > total novice and would suggest that if I'm having problems so > are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as so many > responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that > several responses suggest that they want to discourage > questions so they don't overwhelm r-help. Understandable but > not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than experts. > The R community needs to decide of they really only want > expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the > case. Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the > present approach is not the way to do it. > > I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but > if that is the case it would be better if they didn't reply > at all. I was taught many years ago that if you can't say > anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all. Something > similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that > some respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave > these simple questions to such people. Indeed it seems > surprising that some exteremely experienced R users choose to > reply to these basic messages at all; and it seem it is > mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it > might be better for them to concentrate on complex problems > more suited to their skills and interests and leave the > simple questions to more sympathetic souls. > > Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to > basic and advanced questions? Certainly if the R community is > serious about appealling to users outside advanced > statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r > help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the > failure of management science as due to those who were > 'mathematically sophisticated but conceptually naive' and > much the same could be said for many in the R community. > > Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded > helpful to my queries in the past and ask them to continue in > that vein; their assistance and effort is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > ********************* > This email and any attachments are intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have > received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify > the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views > and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not > necessarily reflect those of the organisation from which it > is sent. All emails may be subject to monitoring. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >
I'm also an R beginner. I have asked stupid questions, and received RTFM replies. I believe such replies are _GREAT_, as long as they include a brief reference to what to read, and where. (In some cases searches don't work unless you happen to use the 'right' keywords, and in other cases it may be relatively easy to miss a paragraph in a manual - or even FAQ.) I believe that rudeness (perceived or real) doesn't matter. It is only solving the problem that matters. In this respect, it seems to me that most (if not all) users who ask a question on R-help figure out what to do. In regards to politeness, I think that the solution - and the problem - lies almost completely in the other camp: those who ask (and not those who reply). I would recommend all R beginners to not feel easily offended, and to not be afraid to ask stupid questions. So what if you risk being perceived a lazy idiot? (As I occasionally am, and certainly will be again.) Do go ahead and ask, if you must. Do you need to solve your problem or not? Many many many thanks to all those who bother to answer questions on R-help. (I still find it hard to believe that experts such as Brian Ripley and Peter Dalgaard, to quote just two names, take the trouble to answer so many questions, including basic ones.) And, of course, thank heavens and the R Core Team that R exists. b. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Brown FM CEFAS [mailto:r.g.brown at cefas.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:46 AM To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually rude.
DupliseaD at dfo-mpo.gc.ca wrote: I have been a member for only a few days but I find the tone of some responses are inappropriate for a list dubbing itself a "help list". We have experts giving hours of their time every day to be helpful FOR *NOTHING* (no money, no honours, just the reward of being helpful) and people want to drive them away because they are human and occasionally get fed up at being asked the same question over and over again? I'm on mailing lists for several languages and packages. There's only one that even comes close to R in volume, and a lot of that is insider chat with more flaming in a day than I've seen in this mailing list in a week. This is more help, more effective, more educational, and more timely than I've _ever_ had for _any_ software, free or commercial. I also completely understand that traffic needs to be kept at a modest level to keep advanced users interested; therefore, I suggest that a second help list be created to deal with "advanced R help". With the utmost possible respect, I've seen this kind of thing tried before, and the only time it works is if someone moderates the 'advanced' list. If someone wants to volunteer for the thankless job of moderation, well and good, but without moderation, what happens is that the clueless send their messages to both lists, and the clueful beginners lose the benefit of the experts who've been driven away from the non-advanced list. One of my earliest messages in this list got slapped down in what I _still_ think was an unkind and unwarranted way, but I wasn't so thin- skinned as to run off crying to Mother. By and large, the people who are most informative in this list are some of the very same people who worked on things like the FAQ and the Introduction and some of the tutorials and some of the books. It's not beginner status alone that makes someone say "I can't be bothered reading anything you have written to help me and made readily available I WANNA HELP NOW!" As for arbitrary thresholds like 2 years, I have been using R since 1996 or 1997, and I would still find it necessary to be on the 'nonexpert' mailing list. I beg the keepers of the flame: DON'T split the list.
I would support the notion that there is no defined point, after which you do not need to ask basic questions. I would not like the list to be split. There is no need to change anything fundamental. I do not believe that it is rude to expect people to put effort into ensuring that they are not needlessly using other people's time, because of their lack of skill. If the response's are at time's a little bit curt, it is an exceptionally small price to pay for the aid given by the list. Imho, people who follow the posting guide do not receive inappropriate replies. Tom Mulholland -----Original Message----- From: Richard A. O'Keefe [mailto:ok at cs.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 11:50 AM To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: RE: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions ... As for arbitrary thresholds like 2 years, I have been using R since 1996 or 1997, and I would still find it necessary to be on the 'nonexpert' mailing list. I beg the keepers of the flame: DON'T split the list. ______________________________________________ R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
A very interesting document which certainly makes me understand the attituides
on the r help list better. Perhaps it should be part of the protocol for
submitting questions.
Certainly I hadn't realised before that politeness and technical knowledge
were so widely accepted as mutually exclusive. Neither had I realised that
rudeness was considered such a powerful motivational force for learning. It is
very sad to realise how much of a chore politeness is viewed by some people. I
was also very naive to think that some people answered questions as a way to
return something to the community rather than purely for selfish reasons. Long
live misanthropy. At least now I will be able to approach r help and other
mailing lists with a more realistic attitude.
It is interesting to note that there is a widespread notion that many questions
result from insufficient research by the questioner. As someone with a serious
interest in R who is new to the environment I can't stress enough that I
have never seen a question that I thought was trivial and didn't deserve a
reply. Indeed in my position I often find the answers to these questions the
most useful. Often I find myself spending hours searching for a solution to a
problem that I know is simple, but which I just don't have the experience to
find (R documentation can be cryptic, assumes a lot of knowledge of programming
and is weak in addressing programming/data manipulation issues). When I do find
the answer I invariably cry 'of course' and researching such questions
independently is not a learning experience, just a pain. I know an experienced
user could answer such questions in seconds and surely r help is an appropriate
forum to address these questions.
I realise that many users are busy and don't want to be swamped with
'uninteresting' emails. However, if there are so many of these
'basic' questions that r help is in danger of being swamped then there
is clearly a need which should be addressed. If there are only a few then what
is the problem. Let those prepared to answer do so and the others can just
ignore them, but accept their utility.
-----Original Message-----
From: Greer, Braden (NIH/NCI) [mailto:greerb at mail.nih.gov]
Sent: 01 December 2004 17:05
To: Robert Brown FM CEFAS
Subject: RE: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions
Thanks for your challenge, Robert. It's a breath of fresh air.
What you've astutely observed is plaguing the online forum community at
large, unfortunately. And I believe it comes down to the original sin (of
which I too suffer) of human pride. Folks have written extensive documents
(http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html) detailing how to dance
around the egos in the online forums (while I appreciate their efforts to
write this--it's unfortunate that it had to be written). The dogma of help
forums is counterproductive and a bit childish. Perhaps your words will
make some think for a minute.
Braden Greer
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Brown FM CEFAS [mailto:r.g.brown at cefas.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:46 AM
To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions
I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to answer very basic
questions in a straightforward way' with interest as someone who is also new
to R and has had similar experiences. As such it with sadness that I note
that most seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to basic
questions. I must thank those respondants to my own questions who have been
helpful, but there are some whose replies are in my opinion not only
unhelpful but actually rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of
R so as to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the main
thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the values of commercial
software and a scepticism regarding free software. In the end my experience
of r help is that you get what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic
responses (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen as
simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply.
Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult the program can
be to new users. Responding that the questioner should read the
'Introduction to R' or a similar document is like answering a question
for
directions to one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such
questioners have already tried that and are asking because that approach
failed. R is a language and like all languages it is simple to those that
understand it and complex to those who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain
speaks Spanish, but I know from experience that for most English people it
is very difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm asked a
question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish or R) do I reply
'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! I can tell repondants that
whilst many of my basic questions may seem simple it is not for lack of
studying the very sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I
suspect that the same is true of most question! ers.
I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher in my
speciality as well as someone close to completing a masters in statistics
with distinction. As such I am not a total novice and would suggest that if
I'm having problems so are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as
so many responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that several
responses suggest that they want to discourage questions so they don't
overwhelm r-help. Understandable but not a recipe to encourage the use of R
by other than experts. The R community needs to decide of they really only
want expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the case.
Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the present approach is not
the way to do it.
I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but if that is the
case it would be better if they didn't reply at all. I was taught many years
ago that if you can't say anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all.
Something similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that some
respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave these simple
questions to such people. Indeed it seems surprising that some exteremely
experienced R users choose to reply to these basic messages at all; and it
seem it is mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it might
be better for them to concentrate on complex problems more suited to their
skills and interests and leave the simple questions to more sympathetic
souls.
Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to basic and advanced
questions? Certainly if the R community is serious about appealling to users
outside advanced statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r
help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the failure of
management science as due to those who were 'mathematically sophisticated
but conceptually naive' and much the same could be said for many in the R
community.
Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded helpful to my
queries in the past and ask them to continue in that vein; their assistance
and effort is greatly appreciated.
****************************************************************************
*******
This email and any attachments are intended for the named re...{{dropped}}
A brief note from someone who has rejoined the list after a year or so. I notice that it is more busy that it was - about 50 messages a day. This is not surprising - R has essentially taken over from many other packages for statistical computing these days and has a massive user base. It is one of the shining examples of the power of the open source development community and a great tribute to the core team. But the excessive amount of mail is a bother - much of it is quite trivial to an expert but essential to a beginner. There are three ways of tackling this as far as I see: First would be to make the list a Reply to Sender so that most of us don't see the replies. This would keep the traffic down and if any topic was of interest to another member, s/he could ask the originator whether it had been solved or the solution could also be posted as a summary. One advantage of Reply to Sender is that it is only the Sender sees the multiple messages sent saying the same thing from good souls around the world who haven't seen the N-1 other messages... Second is to split it and here, there appear to be 3 types of questions on this list: a) Installation or questions that are primarily to do with computing - such as the problem I had that was immediately answered by the ever helpful Brian Ripley; b) R-coding and programming questions, such as the one about subsetting columns in a matrix. In principle these are RTFM questions but TFM is not always explicit and may not be to hand; c) Advances statistical questions, such as the one on lmeControl. Of course, there is always a crossover, particularly between b) and c) and this could be done instead of actually splitting the list by subject line comments like INSTALL, RTFM and ADVANCED much as is done in Allstat. The third way is more formal and to have a ticket system so that the request is 'taken' by the first person who wants to help. This is much more difficult in an OS environment and would need a dynamic web site writing ... I am sure that this has all been thought about and discussed in my year's absence but sometimes people are too close and busy to have time to see. I would suggest a combination of the first two approaches would reduce the traffic to a manageable amount so that members can see the wood for the trees. Otherwise people will drop in and out as they see the need and treat it as a service facility without then contributing to the community. R is really a victim of it's own success. Best wishes John John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler" j.logsdon at quantex-research.com a.einstein at relativity.org +44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com
How will I delete the reply without reading first unless I delete all replies? I've made it quite clear that some replies are useful, but some are unhelpful. I and other would like to see an improvement in r help; to just say take it or leave it, as many infer, is conceptually naive. I joined the community because I want technical assistance and I don't question the technical skills of many of the respondants, but the wider appreciation of needs of users i.e conceptual naivety. It's clear from this string that many beginners are leaving the forum and this should be a cause for concern if we are seriously concerned with propogating knowledge. Unfortuantely this string does seem to indicate this is not a major concern and so be it. -----Original Message----- From: Marwan Khawaja [mailto:marwan.khawaja at aub.edu.lb] Sent: 01 December 2004 20:41 To: Robert Brown FM CEFAS; r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: RE: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions Well, if you do not like the way some people answer queries, why not just delete the reply without reading the response. Since we're not paying anyone for answering questions, we should be grateful to those who put their time in replying to our basic questions. And why join this community? -- if you think most are 'conceptually na??ve'! Marwan> -----Original Message----- > From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch > [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Robert > Brown FM CEFAS > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:46 PM > To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions > > I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to > answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with > interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar > experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most > seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to > basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own > questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose > replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually > rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of R so as > to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the > main thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the > values of commercial software and a scepticism regarding free > software. In the end my experience of r help is that you get > what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic responses > (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen > as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply. > > Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult > the program can be to new users. Responding that the > questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar > document is like answering a question for directions to > one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such > questioners have already tried that and are asking because > that approach failed. R is a language and like all languages > it is simple to those that understand it and complex to those > who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain speaks Spanish, but I > know from experience that for most English people it is very > difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm > asked a question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish > or R) do I reply 'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! > I can tell repondants that whilst many of my basic questions > may seem simple it is not for lack of studying the very > sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I > suspect that the same is true of most question! > ers. > > I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher > in my speciality as well as someone close to completing a > masters in statistics with distinction. As such I am not a > total novice and would suggest that if I'm having problems so > are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as so many > responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that > several responses suggest that they want to discourage > questions so they don't overwhelm r-help. Understandable but > not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than experts. > The R community needs to decide of they really only want > expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the > case. Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the > present approach is not the way to do it. > > I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but > if that is the case it would be better if they didn't reply > at all. I was taught many years ago that if you can't say > anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all. Something > similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that > some respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave > these simple questions to such people. Indeed it seems > surprising that some exteremely experienced R users choose to > reply to these basic messages at all; and it seem it is > mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it > might be better for them to concentrate on complex problems > more suited to their skills and interests and leave the > simple questions to more sympathetic souls. > > Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to > basic and advanced questions? Certainly if the R community is > serious about appealling to users outside advanced > statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r > help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the > failure of management science as due to those who were > 'mathematically sophisticated but conceptually naive' and > much the same could be said for many in the R community. > > Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded > helpful to my queries in the past and ask them to continue in > that vein; their assistance and effort is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > ********************* > This email and any attachments are intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have > received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify > the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views > and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not > necessarily reflect those of the organisation from which it > is sent. All emails may be subject to monitoring. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >
Apologies to those who are tired of these rather off-topic discussions. I'll try to be brief.> From: Robert Brown FM CEFAS > > How will I delete the reply without reading first unless I > delete all replies? I've made it quite clear that some > replies are useful, but some are unhelpful. I and other would > like to see an improvement in r help; to just say take it or > leave it, as many infer, is conceptually naive.I believe what was meant is that if you find some posts rude/offensive/not-to-your-liking, just delete _all_ posts by those people w/o reading. For USENET newsgroup, some (all?) news readers allow you to create a `kill' list that automatically kill messages posted by people that annoy you. You can do that with most email clients, I believe. Of course, for those who find that unacceptable, they are free to unsubscribe.> I joined the community because I want technical assistance > and I don't question the technical skills of many of the > respondants, but the wider appreciation of needs of users i.e > conceptual naivety. It's clear from this string that many > beginners are leaving the forum and this should be a cause > for concern if we are seriously concerned with propogating > knowledge. Unfortuantely this string does seem to indicate > this is not a major concern and so be it.I will toss in my perspective, instead of speaking for others. To me, it's not how basic the questions are, but how they are being asked. It's been pointed out by several people: If you showed some effort in trying to solve the problem yourself (by describing what you have tried and how that failed), you will almost always get useful replies without being chastised. Those who received less than enthusiastic responses are generally those that do not show any apparent efforts in trying to solve the problem themselves. As been said ad nauseam before, R is a purely volunteer-based project, and people on this list help others out of their good will. It's rude and discourteous to abuse that. It's OK if you need some spoonfeeding (I need that quite often myself), but at least show how you have tried to use the spoon yourself, instead of just showing us your open mouth. For those who think commercial support is somehow `better', please have a look at a recent thread on the SUSE AMD64 mailing list on SUSE's installation support (Peter would know what I mean). BTW, that's also a prime example of how `gentle' R-help is compared to most other lists. I suspect those whose egos are buised by responses to their questions probably haven't had much experience with mailing lists. Also, I think it should be made clear that the R user community is (much?) larger than those who subscribe to R-help/R-devel/R-*/BioC lists. I know many who use R as their primary tool, yet do not subscribe to R-help. These people managed to get by just fine, either with help pages/manuals/books, or more experienced colleagues. Cheers, Andy> -----Original Message----- > From: Marwan Khawaja [mailto:marwan.khawaja at aub.edu.lb] > Sent: 01 December 2004 20:41 > To: Robert Brown FM CEFAS; r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: RE: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions > > > Well, if you do not like the way some people answer queries, > why not just delete > the reply without reading the response. > Since we're not paying anyone for answering questions, we > should be grateful to > those who put their time in replying to our basic questions. > And why join this community? -- if you think most are > 'conceptually na??ve'! > > Marwan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch > > [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Robert > > Brown FM CEFAS > > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:46 PM > > To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > > Subject: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions > > > > I have been following the discussions on 'Reasons not to > > answer very basic questions in a straightforward way' with > > interest as someone who is also new to R and has had similar > > experiences. As such it with sadness that I note that most > > seem to agree with the present approach to the responses to > > basic questions. I must thank those respondants to my own > > questions who have been helpful, but there are some whose > > replies are in my opinion not only unhelpful but actually > > rude. Indeed I've now started using Splus instead of R so as > > to have access to a 'proper' support service. Indeed, the > > main thing I've learned from R is a new respect for the > > values of commercial software and a scepticism regarding free > > software. In the end my experience of r help is that you get > > what you pay for. Many of the so called socratic responses > > (in this list and the wider academic community) can be seen > > as simply way to avoid additional work of a complete reply. > > > > Experienced R users don't seem to understand how difficult > > the program can be to new users. Responding that the > > questioner should read the 'Introduction to R' or a similar > > document is like answering a question for directions to > > one's house with 'Buy a map'. Most likely both such > > questioners have already tried that and are asking because > > that approach failed. R is a language and like all languages > > it is simple to those that understand it and complex to those > > who do not. Every schoolboy in Spain speaks Spanish, but I > > know from experience that for most English people it is very > > difficult to learn Spanish and take years of study. If I'm > > asked a question from a novice of a language (be it Spanish > > or R) do I reply 'consult the dictionary'. I would hope not! > > I can tell repondants that whilst many of my basic questions > > may seem simple it is not for lack of studying the very > > sources they refer to. If only learning was so simple. I > > suspect that the same is true of most question! > > ers. > > > > I speak as someone with a PhD and many years as a researcher > > in my speciality as well as someone close to completing a > > masters in statistics with distinction. As such I am not a > > total novice and would suggest that if I'm having problems so > > are many; and it is not a result of lack of study as so many > > responses seem to suggest. Indeed it is revealing that > > several responses suggest that they want to discourage > > questions so they don't overwhelm r-help. Understandable but > > not a recipe to encourage the use of R by other than experts. > > The R community needs to decide of they really only want > > expert statisticians users and make this clear if it is the > > case. Alternatively if they are to encourage novices the > > present approach is not the way to do it. > > > > I can appreciate that many of the respondants are busy, but > > if that is the case it would be better if they didn't reply > > at all. I was taught many years ago that if you can't say > > anything nice/useful then to say nothing at all. Something > > similar could well be applied to this list. I must say that > > some respondants are very helpful; and I thank them. Leave > > these simple questions to such people. Indeed it seems > > surprising that some exteremely experienced R users choose to > > reply to these basic messages at all; and it seem it is > > mostly these people who are rude. I would have thought it > > might be better for them to concentrate on complex problems > > more suited to their skills and interests and leave the > > simple questions to more sympathetic souls. > > > > Perhaps there is a case for two r help lists catering to > > basic and advanced questions? Certainly if the R community is > > serious about appealling to users outside advanced > > statisticians there is a need for a change of approach in r > > help and elsewhere. Russ Ackoff identified much of the > > failure of management science as due to those who were > > 'mathematically sophisticated but conceptually naive' and > > much the same could be said for many in the R community. > > > > Finally, let me once again thank those who have responded > > helpful to my queries in the past and ask them to continue in > > that vein; their assistance and effort is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > ********************* > > This email and any attachments are intended for the named > > recipient(s) only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, > > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have > > received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify > > the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views > > and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not > > necessarily reflect those of the organisation from which it > > is sent. All emails may be subject to monitoring. > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > >
Given the huge range of demands and interests of the people who
are subscribed, the list may well do about as much as can
reasonably be expected to address the needs of those starting out
with R. A fair level of discipline is necessary, else the list will
become unmanageable. Already some of my colleagues do not
subscribe because of the sheer volume. There is a fair level of
tolerance for basic questions that are clearly and succinctly posed.
Submissions of the type "I am a total beginner - how do I start"
really do require rather prompt redirection to the FAQ and to the
official and contributed documentation.
The posting guide is already rather full. But maybe a link could
be added to a page of the ilk: "I am new to R, where do I start?"
John Fox has I think occasionally posted responses that could
be used as a basis for such a page. It should probably be in two
parts:
a) I am new to R and have limited statistical knowledge.
b) I am new to R, but with (I think) some reasonable level of
statistical knowledge.
If this is thought a useful idea and there is not already such a
document, I am happy to help with it.
The discussion has ranged over a large number of issues, which
I think need to be separated:
1) There is a "getting started in R issue".
2) There are issues that relate to gaining the statistical knowledge
that will allow effective use of R.
3) There are issues of good statistical practice -- how can the
standard of use of statistical methods in application areas be
improved?
4) There are quirky points that cannot easily (or at all) be gleaned
from the documentation, and where a hint from others will be a
huge help both the questioner and almost certainly to others on
the list. ("I am glad that you asked that.")
5) There are issues that are slowly being addressed, as part of
the ongoing development of R -- in the improvement of
documentation and in mechanisms that may make R easier and
slicker for everyone, novices and experts, to use.
Items 4 and 5 are well handled by this list, or by r-devel. It can
and should make some contribution to 3. There is a nether-nether
land between 1-2 and 4-5 where it can be useful. Apart from
these contributions at the margin, 1-3 are really statistical and
R training issues, that are not well handled by this list, and
probably not by any list.
The most useful response to issues 1-2 (and, often 3) is to
direct inquirers to suitable training resources. What is "suitable"
will however depend on personal circumstances and
geographical location. So what do we say? That it is good that
that this question has been asked, and that good answers are
sure to emerge slowly over the course of time?
John Maindonald.
On 3 Dec 2004, at 11:19 PM, r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch wrote:
> From: "Robert Brown FM CEFAS" <r.g.brown at cefas.co.uk>
> Date: 3 December 2004 7:07:51 PM
> To: <r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> Subject: RE: [R] Protocol for answering basic questions
>
> . . . .
>
> I joined the community because I want technical assistance and I don't
> question the technical skills of many of the respondants, but the
> wider appreciation of needs of users i.e conceptual naivety. It's
> clear from this string that many beginners are leaving the forum and
> this should be a cause for concern if we are seriously concerned with
> propogating knowledge. Unfortuantely this string does seem to
> indicate this is not a major concern and so be it.
>
John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au
phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549
Centre for Bioinformation Science, Room 1194,
John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
I'm a recent subscriber to the list. I was very impressed by the quality of people subscribing to the list, including the authors of all the books on R thateither I own or are present in my local uni library. However, I was astonished by the volume of messages. I have set up a folder for R messages, route the messages there automatically, and browse it at times of low panic levels. Personally, I think this list would be much better served by a standard bulletin board. The list could be broken down into a number of topics (e.g. Newbie questions, etc. etc.), the messages would be stored under threads so that people could choose to read or not read based on the topic. 'Sticky' threads could be left at the top so that new subscriberts would see them, and people who only want to follow a very few threads could tick the box for email alerts. Finally, there could be a search box enabling people to search out past answers (I know that this is possible now). An example board is: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/index.php Comments? Cheers, Ross-c
I'll really be brief this time...> From: Tony Plate[snip]> Also, I think that John Maindonald's idea of a "I am new to > R, where do I > start?" page, with a link from the posting guide, is an > excellent idea.Someone mentioned a tip shown at R startup (a la S-PLUS for Windows, I guess). I guess someone (hint, hint) could collect a set of tips, perhaps using Paul Johnson's page as a starting point, and make it into a contrib package similar to the `fortune' package. Those who likes it can have a random one displayed at startup. Those who don't need not bother. [snip]> [Attribution > to Andy Liaw, or remain anonymous?]Umm... I did say that out in the public, so I guess not much point in hiding now... Best, Andy> As some feel that sufficient time and bandwidth has already > been spent on > this issue, if anyone has any comments on this particular > matter of an > addition to the posting guide (or FAQ), feel free to choose > to respond to > me privately, and I will summarize as appropriate. > > -- Tony Plate > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > >