Christos Hatzis wrote:
Bioconductor already provides download stats for all packages...
http://bioconductor.org/packages/stats/bioc/affy.html
Maybe if we asked the Bioconductor people _really_ nicely
Jim
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
h
Ave
Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-686-1578
Email: s...@xlsolutions-corp.com
web: www.xlsolutions-corp.com
--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Spencer Graves wrote:
From: Spencer Graves
Subject: Re: [R] popular R packages
To: "Wacek Kusnierczyk"
Cc: r-help@r-project.org, "Jer
10, 2009 12:25 PM
> To: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] popular R packages
>
> If is easy to get the download numbers, we should do it and
> deal with the interpretation issues. I'd like to know the
> numbers so I can understand which (of my) packages have the
>
Pricing each download at 99 cents ( the same as a song from I Tunes) can
measure users more accurately.
Thats my 2 cents anyways.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Max Kuhn wrote:
> If is easy to get the download numbers, we should do it and deal with
> the interpretation issues. I'd like to know
On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Jim Lemon wrote:
> >> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >>> R-Forge already has this but I don't think its used much. R-Forge
> >>> does allow authors to opt out which seems sensible les
If is easy to get the download numbers, we should do it and deal with
the interpretation issues. I'd like to know the numbers so I can
understand which (of my) packages have the most usage.
One other compication about # downloads: I suspect that a package
being on teh depends/suggests/imports list
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Jim Lemon wrote:
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
R-Forge already has this but I don't think its used much. R-Forge
does allow authors to opt out which seems sensible lest it deter
potential authors from submitting packages.
I think objecti
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Jim Lemon wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>>
>> R-Forge already has this but I don't think its used much. R-Forge
>> does allow authors to opt out which seems sensible lest it deter
>> potential authors from submitting packages.
>>
>> I think objective quality
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
R-Forge already has this but I don't think its used much. R-Forge
does allow authors to opt out which seems sensible lest it deter
potential authors from submitting packages.
I think objective quality metrics are better than ratings, e.g. does package
have a vignette,
R-Forge already has this but I don't think its used much. R-Forge
does allow authors to opt out which seems sensible lest it deter
potential authors from submitting packages.
I think objective quality metrics are better than ratings, e.g. does package
have a vignette, has package had a release wi
> There was a discussion on this a while back in which Bill Venables
> said: "To me a much more urgent initiative [than rating responders on
> R listserves] is some kind of user online review system for packages,
> even something as simple as that used by Amazon.com has for customer
> review of boo
Hi all,
Put me in the camp that says more information is better than less
information - even if imperfect. Interpretation can be left to those
using the data.
Also, "popular" can mean many things. An alternative to number of
times a package is downloaded would be a ratings system, where R users
c
On 10-Mar-09 01:07:54, David Duffy wrote:
> Given we are talking about statistical software, one bibliometric
> measure of relative package popularity is scientific citations.
> Web of Science is not too useful where the citation has been to a
> website or computer package, but Google Scholar for "
Given we are talking about statistical software, one bibliometric measure
of relative package popularity is scientific citations. Web of Science is
not too useful where the citation has been to a website or computer
package, but Google Scholar for "lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using
S4 cl
>> I question 1) the usefulness of the effort necessary to get the data ;
>> and 2) the very concept of data mining, which seems to be the rationale
>> for this proposed effort.
>>
>> Furthermore (but this is seriously off-topic), I seriously despise the
>> very idea of "popularity" in scientific d
2009/3/8 Emmanuel Charpentier :
> I question 1) the usefulness of the effort necessary to get the data ;
> and 2) the very concept of data mining, which seems to be the rationale
> for this proposed effort.
>
> Furthermore (but this is seriously off-topic), I seriously despise the
> very idea of "
On 8 March 2009 at 23:45, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
| Le dimanche 08 mars 2009 13:22 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel a crit :
| > Once you have data, you have an option of using or discarding it. But if you
| > have no data, you have no option. How is that better?
|
| I question 1) the usefulness
Le dimanche 08 mars 2009 à 13:22 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
> On 8 March 2009 at 13:27, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> | But we don't even have that data, since CRAN is distributed across lots
> | of mirrors.
>
> On 8 March 2009 at 19:01, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> | As far as I can see (but
On 08-Mar-09 20:06:21, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 9/03/2009, at 4:14 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
>> ... analyzing bad data will just give bad conclusions.
>
> Fortune?
>
> cheers,
>
> Rolf Turner
Maybe ... ! (I have sometimes got very good answers from bad data,
precisely by a
On 9/03/2009, at 10:23 AM, John Fox wrote:
Dear Rolf,
Tukey put it nicely: "The combination of some data and an aching
desire for
an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted
from a
given body of data." Inasmuch as there are no current fortunes from
Tukey, I
nomin
-Original Message-
> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rolf Turner
> Sent: March-08-09 4:06 PM
> To: R help
> Cc: Duncan Murdoch
> Subject: Re: [R] popular R packages
>
>
> On 9/03/2009, at 4:14 AM, Duncan Murdoch w
Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> On 9/03/2009, at 4:14 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
>> ... analyzing bad data will just give bad conclusions.
>
> Fortune?
>
looking for fortunes? got one for you:
"A key reason that R is a good thing is because it is a language"
who/where is left as an (easy) exercise.
On 9/03/2009, at 4:14 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
... analyzing bad data will just give bad conclusions.
Fortune?
cheers,
Rolf Turner
##
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dr
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 8 March 2009 at 13:27, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| But we don't even have that data, since CRAN is distributed across lots
| of mirrors.
On 8 March 2009 at 19:01, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
| As far as I can see (but I might be nearsighted), I see no model linking
| pa
On 8 March 2009 at 13:27, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
| But we don't even have that data, since CRAN is distributed across lots
| of mirrors.
On 8 March 2009 at 19:01, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
| As far as I can see (but I might be nearsighted), I see no model linking
| package download to package u
Dear Barry,
As far as I understand, you're telling us that having a bit of data
mining does not harm whatever the data. Your example of pop music charts
might support your point (although my ears disagree ...) but I think it
is bad policy to indulge in white-noise analysis without a well-reasoned
On 08/03/2009 12:08 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
I think the situation is worse than messy. If a client comes in with data
that doesn't address the question they're interested in, I think they are
better served to be told that, than to be given an answer that is not
actually valid. They should a
Is this another discussion of what data might be collected and
analyzed, and what could and could not be said if we only had such data?
Has anyone but me produced any actual data? If so, I missed it.
Hadly mentioned the 'fortunes' package. My earlier methodology,
"RSiteSearch('lib
Hi Ted,
Coming to think about your direction - another idea came to mind:
The next time a major release is made (there is one scheduled quite soon
actually), the core team could add a "survey" on the downloading page of the
R base package asking for just one question
"please click here if this is
On 08-Mar-09 15:14:03, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 08/03/2009 10:49 AM, hadley wickham wrote:
>>> More seriously : I don't think relative numbers of package downloads
>>> can be interpreted in any reasonable way, because reasons for
>>> package download have a very wide range from curiosity ("what's
> I think the situation is worse than messy. If a client comes in with data
> that doesn't address the question they're interested in, I think they are
> better served to be told that, than to be given an answer that is not
> actually valid. They should also be told how to design a study that
> a
On 08/03/2009 10:49 AM, hadley wickham wrote:
More seriously : I don't think relative numbers of package downloads can
be interpreted in any reasonable way, because reasons for package
download have a very wide range from curiosity ("what's this ?"), fun
(think "fortunes"...), to vital need tthin
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM, hadley wickham wrote:
>> More seriously : I don't think relative numbers of package downloads can
>> be interpreted in any reasonable way, because reasons for package
>> download have a very wide range from curiosity ("what's this ?"), fun
>> (think "fortunes"...),
> More seriously : I don't think relative numbers of package downloads can
> be interpreted in any reasonable way, because reasons for package
> download have a very wide range from curiosity ("what's this ?"), fun
> (think "fortunes"...), to vital need tthink lme4 if/when a consensus on
> denomina
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:04:24 -0500, David Winsemius wrote :
[ Snip ... ]
> Nonetheless, I do think the relative numbers of package downloads might
> be interpretable, or at the very least, the basis for discussions over
> beer.
*Anything* might be the basis for discussions over beer (obvious
cor
Hi all,
I'm kind of amazed at the answers suggested for the relatively simple
question, "How many times has each R package been downloaded?". Some
have veered off in another direction, like working out how many packages
a package depends upon, or whether someone downloads more than one copy.
T
XLSolutions Corporation
North American Division
1700 7th Ave
Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-686-1578
Email: s...@xlsolutions-corp.com
web: www.xlsolutions-corp.com
--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Spencer Graves wrote:
> From: Spencer Graves
> Subject: Re: [R] popular R package
I just did RSiteSearch("library(xxx)") with xxx = the names of 6
packages familiar to me, with the following numbers of hits:
hits package
169 lme4
165 nlme
6 fda
4 maps
2 FinTS
2 DierckxSpline
Software could be written to (1) extract the names of current
packages fro
i have kept r installed on more than ten computers during the past few
years, some of them running win + more than one linux distro, all of
them having r, most often installed from a separate download.
i know of many cases where students download r for the purpose of a
course in statistics -- ofte
>
> I agree with Thomas, over the years I have installed R on at least 5
> computers.
>
I don't see why per-marchine statistics would not be useful. When you
installed a package on five machines, you probably use it a lot, and it is
more important to you than packages that you only installed once.
Quite so. It certainly is the case that Dirk Eddelbuettel suggested
would be very desirable and I think Dirk's track record speaks for
itself. I never said (and I am sure Dirk never intended) that one
could take the raw numbers as a basis for blandly asserting that
copies of package are c
I agree with Thomas, over the years I have installed R on at least 5
computers.
BTW: does any one knows how the website statistics of r-project are
being analyzed?
Since I can't see any "google analytics" or other tracking code in the main
website, I am guessing someone might be running some log-f
I don't think "At least one of the participants in the 2004 thread
suggested that it would be a "good thing" to track the numbers of
downloads by package." is reasonable because I download R packages for 2
home computers (laptop & desktop) and 2 at work (1 Linux & 1 Mac). There
must be many suc
When the question arises "How many R-users there are?", the consensus
seems to be that there is no valid method to address the question. The
thread "R-business case" from 2004 can be found here:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2004-March/047606.html
I did not see any material revision t
This function will show which other packages depend on a particular
package:
> dep <- function(pkg, AP = available.packages()) {
+pkg <- paste("\\b", pkg, "\\b", sep = "")
+cat("Depends:", rownames(AP)[grep(pkg, AP[, "Depends"])], "\n")
+cat("Suggests:", rownames(AP)[grep(pkg, AP[, "Su
I would like to get some idea of which R-packages are popular, and what R is
used for in general. Are there any statistics available on which R packages
are downloaded often, or is there something like a package-survey? Something
similar to http://popcon.debian.org/ maybe? Any tips are welcome!
46 matches
Mail list logo
