That assumes:
* Everyone reads the mailing list before making the first posting
* Everyone reads every part of every email.
I'd argue that both assumptions are false. People are particular well
trained to skip over boilerplate text at the bottom of emails.
I'd suggest an alternative approach is for experts to remember what
it's like to be a novice, and cultivate an attitude of patience and
tolerance. That's about as likely to happen as a mass change in
behaviour in new users.
Hadley
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:48 AM, John Kane <jrkrideau at inbox.com> wrote:
I'd vote for that!
It would probably bug the blazes out of experienced users but the time savings in getting a newbie to actually supply enough information so that someone can, at least, try to answer the question would be well worth it.
John Kane
Kingston ON Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: gunter.berton at gene.com
Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:28 -0700
To: jrkrideau at inbox.com
Subject: Re: [R] On Reproducible Code
I agree and would like to see it placed at the **TOP** of every post.
-- Bert
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 7:11 AM, John Kane <jrkrideau at inbox.com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: jim at bitwrit.com.au
Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:21:36 +1000
To: dcarlson at tamu.edu
Subject: Re: [R] On Reproducible Code
On 07/26/2012 01:50 AM, David L Carlson wrote:
We often refer requesters to the Posting Guide and chide them for not
reading it.
...
I hesitate to sound too optimistic, but there might be some advantage
in
making the statement more prominent and adding a reproducible example
using
dput().
The reponses to some requests for help do seem to get a volley of the
"reproducible code" answers. Some, such as:
I can't get the answer. PLEASE HELP!!!
probably deserve it, but others appear to emerge from the overheated
brain of the frustrated noob. With a wonderfully informative name like
"dput", it is rather challenging to guess that this function is the way
to calm the affronted guru with an example of your problem. I am
particularly amused by the phrase "reproducible code", which sounds
perilously close to the definition of a virus. Perhaps the neglected
little message at the bottom of each email (which seems to reproduce
itself) might be easier for the uninitiated to understand if it read:
Please include the R code that is causing the problem _and_ enough data
(see the "dput" function) for someone else to run the code and get the
same problem.
I can remember when I didn't know that there was a "dput" function.
Jim
I can remember spending a lot of time constructing a data set to post
before someone mentioned ?dput. Ah, yes, I still have a couple of
generic ones archived.
I think your wording above makes a lot of sense.