I think the idea of answering simple questions if it hasn't been answered after 4 * runif(1) hours is a brilliant idea (well done Tony -- I'm jealous). However, a slight tweak would be even better.
It should be
number of years you've used S times runif(1) hours.
This encourages more people to start answering questions. While there has been some disagreement about other issues, there seems to be consensus that building a large, strong community of R users is a good thing. Probably the easiest way for people to contribute -- and hence feel a part of the community -- is to respond to R-help questions.
(By the way, I'm not at all concerned that the "checklist" is called "common mistakes".)
Patrick Burns
Burns Statistics [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 (0)20 8525 0696 http://www.burns-stat.com (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")
Tony Plate wrote:
I do share Eryk Wolski's and Pascal Nicklaus' concerns that my revision of the posting guide is somewhat unfriendly and negative. My problem here was to keep it to a reasonable length, which meant eliminating sentences whose function was mainly to be positive and friendly. Pascal put it nicely:
- People tending not to dare to ask questions because they are intimidated by
some aspects of the list (and after the r-beginner discussion we now know that
some feel like that) would be helped by a more positive wording of the same
issues in posting guide. The motto should be "help to write better questions"
rather than "stop asking poor questions". The content is all there in the
draft, it is more about changing individual words. Re-posting it monthly on
the list is a good idea.
I shall reread and see if any of it can be written in a more positive manner without increasing the length. I am however reminded of Aesp's fable "You can't please everyone" (http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/prose/aesop63.htm).
The guide does contain a lot of statements that sound like "rules". As others noted, it is just a guide. However, it is my observation that people are occasionally admonished on R-help for violations of these "rules". I think this is what is intimidating to some. Part of my intention with writing the guide was to try to make explicit and put down in one accessible place what these "rules" are. This, I hope, will make it easier for beginners and those reluctant to post to know what they should actually do, so as to better avoid the acute embarrassment that can come from public admonishments. I also tried to merely reflect the tone of the list rather than trying to set the tone. I suspect that a concise and informative guide would be less of an intimidation to posting than seeing public admonishments of others and being in the dark about what is actually expected of posters (and would be more likely to be read than a longer, more chatty and friendly guide.)
I also agree that posting questions to R-help should not be the absolute last resort. That's why I split the suggestions on research into two sections: "Do your homework before posting" and "Further resources". It has been my observation that people are sometimes called to task if they ask questions without obviously having done the things in the "homework" section, but things in the "Further resources" sections are often mentioned in responses as friendly suggestions without any implication that the poster was negligent for not trying them before posting.
I do like the idea of a brief introduction to the guide, to say something like "This guide is intended to help you get the most out of the R mailing lists, and to avoid embarrassment. Like many responses posted on the list, it is written in a concise manner. This is not intended to be unfriendly - it is more a consequence of allocating limited time and space to technical issues rather than to social niceties."
Both Tom Mulholland and Patrick Burns suggested a checklist section, containing things to check before posting. While I also like this idea, most of the content is already there under "homework" and "common mistakes". I'm not sure that changing the format will enhance the document that much, but I'm perfectly willing to hear opinions.
Please let me know if the following is incorrect: "For questions about functions in packages distributed with R (see the FAQ <http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Add-on%20packages%20in%20R>Add-on packages in R), ask questions on R-help. If the question relates to a package that is downloaded from CRAN try contacting the package maintainers first."
Comments welcome, however, at this point, perhaps it would be better to send comments to me privately, as most people have probably had enough of this discussion.
cheers,
Tony Plate
PS. There is a slightly corrected and revised version at http://pws.prserv.net/tap/posting-guide-draft3.html. I think it's beyond my skills to make it more "friendly" without making it longer. If anyone else wants to take a go at it, feel free! In the absence of such attempts, I'm pretty much done with it.
Tony Plate [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
