NA, where no NA should (could!) be!
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at 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.menne at 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.