On 13/02/2013 8:40 AM, Charles Geyer wrote:
Please do not change the defaults for the show.signif.stars option or for
the default.stringsAsFactors option. Backward compatibility is more
important than your convenience. The same sort of argument could be made
for changing the default of the "["
Please do not change the defaults for the show.signif.stars option or for
the default.stringsAsFactors option. Backward compatibility is more
important than your convenience. The same sort of argument could be made
for changing the default of the "[" function from drop = TRUE to drop =
FALSE. It
On 13-02-13 7:25 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 20:19 , Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I think you are misreading what Peter wrote. He wasn't defending
that point of view, he was describing it.
Yes. However, that being said, there is the point that the whole
thing has been designed t
On Feb 12, 2013, at 20:19 , Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> I think you are misreading what Peter wrote. He wasn't defending that point
> of view, he was describing it.
>
Yes. However, that being said, there is the point that the whole thing has been
designed to work within the paradigm that I descr
Hi Duncan,
On 02/12/2013 11:19 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/02/2013 1:47 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance
reasons. For large da
On 12/02/2013 1:47 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should b
On 02/12/2013 08:20 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster for
non-trivial strings.
I think not.
On Feb 12, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
> large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster
> for non-trivial strings.
>
>> fs <- c('apple','peach','watermelon','spinach','
Frank Harrell
> Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Rd] Regression stars
>
>
>
> On 12.02.2013 15:42, Frank Harrell wrote:
> > Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked
> > for such stars.
>
> Honestly: last time I have been asked las
l@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Regression stars
On 12.02.2013 15:42, Frank Harrell wrote:
> Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked
> for such stars.
Honestly: last time I have been asked last week.
And when I answered (in another case few months ago) &qu
On Feb 12, 2013, at 17:05 , Brian Lee Yung Rowe wrote:
>
> I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
> large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster
> for non-trivial strings.
I think not. Historically, it's more like "In statistic
I thought that the default was the way it was for performance reasons. For
large data.frames or repeated applications, using factors should be faster for
non-trivial strings.
> fs <- c('apple','peach','watermelon','spinach','persimmon','potato','kale')
> n <- 100
>
> a1 <- data.frame(f=samp
On 12/02/2013 10:40 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
>
> On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
>>> I'll let the people who like it d
On 12.02.2013 16:40, Ben Bolker wrote:
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Woul
On 13-02-12 09:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>
>
> On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
>>> I'll let the people who like it defend it.
>>
>>Would someone (anyone)
On 12.02.2013 15:42, Frank Harrell wrote:
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars.
Honestly: last time I have been asked last week.
And when I answered (in another case few months ago) "OK, I can add you
another 5 stars for p values smaller than 0.
:43 AM
To: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Regression stars
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars. And when a clinical researcher puts a sentence in a study protocol that
P<0.05 will be considered "significant" I get them
On 12/02/2013 9:20 AM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
>> I'll let the people who like it defend it.
>
>Would someone (anyone) like to come
Uwe I've been consulting for decades and have never once been asked for such
stars. And when a clinical researcher puts a sentence in a study protocol
that P<0.05 will be considered "significant" I get them to take it out.
Frank
Uwe Ligges-3 wrote
> On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
>> Dunca
On 12.02.2013 14:54, Ben Bolker wrote:
Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of stringsAsFactors=TRU
Duncan Murdoch gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> Regarding stringsAsFactors: I'm not going to defend keeping it as is,
> I'll let the people who like it defend it.
Would someone (anyone) like to come forward and give us a defense
of stringsAsFactors=TRUE -- even someone who doesn't personal
On 13-02-09 3:49 PM, Tim Triche, Jr. wrote:
To clarify, I favor changing the defaults for stringsAsFactors and
show.signif.stars to FALSE in R-3.0.0, and view any attempt to remove
either functionality as a seemingly simple but fundamentally misguided idea.
Both of these were discussed by R Cor
Great discussion. Tim's Sinclair quote is priceless and relates to the
non-reproducible research done in some quarters. Norm's wish to remove
stars altogether is entirely consistent with good statistical practice and
would make a statement that R base adheres to good practice. I don't think
it
I appreciate Tim's comments.
I myself have a "social science" paper coming out soon in which I felt
forced to use p-values, given their ubiquity. However, I also told
readers of the paper that confidence intervals are much more informative
and I do provide them. As I said earlier, there is no av
To clarify, I favor changing the defaults for stringsAsFactors and
show.signif.stars to FALSE in R-3.0.0, and view any attempt to remove
either functionality as a seemingly simple but fundamentally misguided idea.
This is just my opinion, of course. The change could easily be accompanied
by a sta
Changing the default for show.signif.stars should be sufficient to ensure
that, if people are going to get themselves into trouble, they will have to
do it on purpose. It's just a visual cue; removing it will not remove the
underlying issue, namely blind acceptance of unlikely null models and
dist
Thanks for bringing this up, Frank.
Since many of us are "educators," I'd like to suggest a bolder approach.
Discontinue even offering the stars as an option. Sadly, we can't stop
reporting p-values, as the world expects them, but does R need to cater
to that attitude by offering star display? F
There are only a few things in R where we override the global defaults on a departmental
level -- we really don't like to do so. But "show.signif.stars" is one of the 3.
The other 2 if you are curious: set stringsAsFactors=FALSE and make NA included by
default in the output of table. We've
FWIW, that has been my default setting for years in my .Rprofile.
If there is some agreement on this from R Core, it would seem that version
3.0.0 would be a reasonable breakpoint for this change in default behavior.
Regards,
Marc Schwartz
On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:27 AM, John Fox wrote:
> Dear F
Dear Frank,
I'd like to second your implicit motion to make
options(show.signif.stars=FALSE) the default.
Thanks for raising this point.
John
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Frank Harrell wrote:
> Today's GNU R tutorial in
> http://how-to.linuxcareer.com/a-quick-gnu-r-tutorial-to-sta
Today's GNU R tutorial in
http://how-to.linuxcareer.com/a-quick-gnu-r-tutorial-to-statistical-models-and-graphics
points out how bad statistical practice is being further perpetuated, by
virtue of "significance stars" still being the default in printed output
from lm models.
-
Frank Harrell
31 matches
Mail list logo
