On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murd...@stats.uwo.ca> wrote: > 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.
I think most people do read it since most posts ask in a reproducible way and the whole idea of repetition, as in advertising, is that such repetition can be effective. ______________________________________________ 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.
