I agree with Tony's observation that well thought out questions are more likely to receive an answer than something that is long, rambling, and poorly focused. Many questions take more time to read than I have available, so I don't bother. I like questions that include toy examples in a few lines of code that I can copy from an email into R and test ideas. Careful formatting that looks pretty in an email is an obstacle for me, because it increases the work required to get it into R. Many questioners could answer their own problems in the process of generating such a toy example. When they can't, that exercise helps them focus the question, which makes it easier for potential respondents to understand the problem and reply. Without that, I must either generate a toy example myself (which I've done many times) or respond with untested code and risk looking stupid when my untested suggestion doesn't work.

hope this helps. spencer graves

A.J. Rossini wrote:

"Pascal A. Niklaus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



- In my experience even *very* basic questions *relating to the R
language* do get answered on r-help. I'm impressed by how much time
some members of the R core team spend answering relatively basic
questions, and by how elaborate their answers generally are. So I
cannot see much need for a new R mailing list. There are these
excellent mailing list archives, so why "fragment" this list?



To follow up, well-thought through basic questions do get answered; in
particular, they can be useful for those of us writing packages,
documentation, etc.


I have a sense that it is the quality of the question (details of what
is intended to do, or not known, signs of using other sources of
materials which folks have spent years on, no signs that this is a "do
my work for me" question) rather than the level of the question, that
is an issue.

best,
-tony




______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help

Reply via email to