On 21/12/2008 7:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Dieter Menne
<dieter.me...@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
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
