Skip to content

creating an equivalent of r-help on r.stackexchange.com ? (was: Re: Should there be an R-beginners list?)

16 messages · MacQueen, Don, Bert Gunter, Clint Bowman +7 more

#
Dear Duncan,
I discovered something interesting wrt to the licensing and mirroring
of user-contributed material on StackExchange.  Please read below.


On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
It seems that StackOverflow is officially proposing user-generated
content for download/mirroring:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/01/stack-exchange-cc-data-now-hosted-by-the-internet-archive/?cb=1

"All community-contributed content on Stack Exchange is licensed under
the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. " And it is currently being
mirrored at least at the Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/details/stackexchange

So, in principle, it would be possible/desirable to:
- spin the 'r' tag from StackOverflow and propose an r.stackexchange.com at
http://area51.stackexchange.com/categories/8/technology . Such a SE
site would be similar to http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/
- involve R Core to give blessing for using the R logo, if necessary.
This would be similar to what Ubuntu does with AskUbuntu:
http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/5444/is-ask-ubuntu-official-ubuntu
- set a mirror on r-project.org for all the user content that is
produced by r.stackexchange.com , and thus allow R Core to keep the
info publicly available at all times. The mirroring on Internet
Archive would still hold.
The advantages for such a move are countless (especially wrt to
efficiently organizing R-related knowledge and directing users to
appropriate sources of info), so I won't go into that. I would only
note that most 'r-sig-*' MLs would become obsolete in such a setup,
and would be replaced by the much more efficient tagging system of the
SE Q&A web interface (for example, all posts appropriate for r-sig-gui
would simply be tagged with 'gui'; no need for duplicated efforts of
monitoring multiple mailing lists).

Opinions?

Liviu
#
Every browser-based interface I've ever seen has a number of features that
I find to be huge deterrents. To mention just two:

- They waste copious amounts of screen space on irrelevant things such as
"votes", the number of views, the elapsed time since something or other
happened, fancy web-page headers, and so on. Oh, and advertisements. The
Mathematica stackexchange example given in a link in one of the emails
below (http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/) illustrates these
shortcomings -- and it's not the worst such example.

- In most if not all cases, one has to login before posting. I have too
many usernames and passwords as it is.

Right now, at this very moment, in my email client's window I can see and
browse the subject lines of 20 threads in r-help. And that's using only
about half of my screens vertical space. In contrast, in the Mathematica
stackexchange example, I can see at most 10, and that only by using the
entire vertical space of my screen. The "From" column in my email client
shows the names of several of the people contributing to the thread, which
the browser interface does not. In the email client, I can move through
messages, and between messages in a thread using my keyboard. In a
browser, I have to do lots of mousing and clicking, which is much less
efficient.

As it is now, r-help messages come to me. I don't have to start up a
browser. So it's much easier to go take a quick look at what's new at any
time. 

True, I had to subscribe to the mailing list, which involves a username
and password. But once it's done, it's done. I don't have to login before
posting, which means I don't have to remember yet another username and
password.

What "...duplicated efforts of monitoring multiple mailing lists)"? I have
no duplicated effort...in fact, I have almost no effort at all, since the
messages come to me. There was some initial setup, i.e., to filter
different r-* messages to different mailboxes in my email client, but now
that that's done, it's as simple as clicking on the correct mailbox.

In other words, in every way that's important to me, the mailing list
approach is superior. I do not support abandoning the mailing list system
for any alternative.

-Don
#
Don:

First, I apologize if this is off topic, but I thought I should reply publicly.

I would only like to say thank you for so eloquently and elegantly
summarizing my views, also. Maybe that makes me a dinosaur. If so, I
happily accept the label.

I find SO's voting for posting business especially irritating. I wish
merely to post or to read the posts of others without being subjected
to some kind of online pseudo game and ratings competition. That alone
keeps me away. But Don said it better.

I realize that I may be out of step with the masses here, and the
masses should certainly decide. Hopefully I won't be around if/when
they decide that R-help should go.

Best,
Bert

Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics
(650) 467-7374

"Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge
is certainly not wisdom."
H. Gilbert Welch
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM, MacQueen, Don <macqueen1 at llnl.gov> wrote:
#
Don,

Thanks for the brilliant summary of my thoughts.

Clint

Clint Bowman			INTERNET:	clint at ecy.wa.gov
Air Quality Modeler		INTERNET:	clint at math.utah.edu
Department of Ecology		VOICE:		(360) 407-6815
PO Box 47600			FAX:		(360) 407-7534
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

         USPS:           PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600
         Parcels:        300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503-1274
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, MacQueen, Don wrote:

            
#
For what it's worth, I would like to say that I concur completely with 
Don and Bert.  (Also I would like second Bert's vote of thanks to Don 
for expressing the position so clearly.)

cheers,

Rolf Turner
On 04/02/14 09:56, Bert Gunter wrote:
#
Ditto. And ditto. And (by the way -- no-one seems to have mentioned it)
what are the possibilities, for mail appearing on something like Stack
Exchange, of having the mail sent to oneself so that it can be stored
locally, on one's own machine? That is the only way I would want to
work -- anything interesting is sitting in my disk, I can edit it if
I wish, I can make local copies, etc. etc. etc. etc. Anything which is
not interesting gets deleted (though I can always dig into R-help
archives if need be).

Best wishes,
Ted.
On 03-Feb-2014 21:36:21 Rolf Turner wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at wlandres.net>
Date: 03-Feb-2014  Time: 21:49:47
This message was sent by XFMail
#
Dear Don and Bert,
Allow me to address some of your concerns below.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Bert Gunter <gunter.berton at gene.com> wrote:
On SO voting is irrelevant for either posting a question or an answer.
*Anyone* (with an account) can ask a question, and *anyone* can answer
a question. Their system of privileges is explained here:
http://askubuntu.com/help/privileges . But to summarize:
- if you're interested only in giving help, then the only really
relevant threshold is 10 and 50 votes (removing some new user
restrictions and allowing you to comment on posts, respectively)
- if you're interested only in seeking  help, then all thresholds are
irrelevant really

All other thresholds are relevant only if you're interested in
contributing to the organization of information, or in moderating this
whole forum-slash-wiki thingy. And as a note, given the quality of
your answers on r-help, Bert, I have no doubt that you will clock
upwards 50 upvotes in a couple of hours or so.
The proposal is not necessarily to close down r-help. From the myriad
lists it currently has, R Core could keep only r-help and r-devel, and
encourage new users to seek help on r.stackexchange.com. The scope of
r-help could be redefined.
Well, I've seen my fair share of advertisements on Gmail, Yahoo Mail
or what have you. I know some use dedicated clients, but not all do.
(And sofar I haven't noticed one single intrusive or distracting ad on
SE.)

As for the number of votes, this is actually the most useful bit of
this Q&A interface: it allows for the best questions (or most often
asked) to stand out from all the noise. And it allows for the best
answers (or those most authoritative) to stand out, too. Accepted
answers immediately indicate to others seeking similar help what has
worked for the OP. Very useful stuff.

Voting also naturally allows to differentiate between neophytes
(<100), and professional helpers (>1k; think of Brian, David or, as it
happens, Bert). If you remember long ago someone proposed on r-help a
reputation system for our professional helpers, only to be rebuffed
essentially because it is unfeasible in a ML interface. The SE Q&A web
interface---or similar---naturally handles this.
Fair point. However SE found a neat way around this: it keeps cookies
around and whenever you close the browser and reopen SE, it identifies
the cookie and auto-logs you in.
Again, fair point, but with SE you quickly realize that this is
irrelevant. On ML, even more so on r-help, the only sane way to sort
and filter the messages is using time. If a question wasn't answered
in 24h (or, to be generous, a week), chances tend to zero that this
question will ever be addressed. On SE it is absolutely normal for a
question to be answered, with a high-quality input, 3 months or 2
years later.

It is also much easier to filter questions by topics: if you're
interested in GUI or plyr related questions, just display those tags,
and then answer relevant questions. On r-help you may only  guess from
the subject line what the question could possibly be about.

The Q&A interface also allows easily to redirect users to similar
questions that were already answered (goodbye "PLEASE do read the
posting guide"), thus identifying duplicate questions. It also makes
it much easier to search for topics of interest that were already
addressed in the past; much easier than scouring the mountains of
untriaged r-help content.

And do not underestimate the soft incentives induced by the voting
system. Users seek upvotes (you can set bounties, get moderator
privileges and so on), thus making them interested in giving
high-quality answers and asking high-quality questions. Very well
thought-out stuff.
Agreed. I understand the frustration from using a different medium.
Mostly same happens with SE, the way they set it up.
Do you follow r-sig-gui or r-sig-teaching or r-sig-finance or
r-sig-robust? Does Brian follow them all? Probably not. People who are
seeking specialized help have a hugely reduced chance of getting
useful help.

On SE however, the efforts are not fragmented; all questions are asked
and answered in the same place. If a question pertains to 'plyr' and
'finance', either a finance type or a plyr enthusiast are as likely to
answer. For the r-sig-* MLs, one would need to subscribe to all MLs
and monitor them all; few do so.
I'm not an SE  evangelist, and only truly discovered it about a month
ago or so (even though it seems that I had registered more than a year
ago), and initially I was quite very skeptical of this "fancy forum".
But when I actually realized how _efficient_ this Q&A interface is, I
quickly decided that r-help and associated r-sig-* were good to go the
way of the usenet. Long story short, the Q&A interface is impressive
in terms of economic efficiency, i.e. matching up supply and demand;
the ML is quite inefficient in comparison.

Kind regards,
Liviu

  
    
  
#
Liviu,

Thanks for the excellent description of the advantages of SE.  However, 
there is a significant fraction of the population that prefers that 
information be pushed out to them rather than having to pull it to them. 
The best system is one that accommodates both equally well.

Clint

Clint Bowman			INTERNET:	clint at ecy.wa.gov
Air Quality Modeler		INTERNET:	clint at math.utah.edu
Department of Ecology		VOICE:		(360) 407-6815
PO Box 47600			FAX:		(360) 407-7534
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

         USPS:           PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600
         Parcels:        300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503-1274
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Liviu Andronic wrote:

            
#
Dear Clint,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Clint Bowman <clint at ecy.wa.gov> wrote:
It's not exactly the same as in a mail client, but you also have a
push-like interface on SE, sort of:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/r
- The 'Newest' tab displays all recent questions, sorted in
chronological order with latest on top; it gets refreshed
automatically, as in a mail client (hence, "push-like")
- The 'Active' tab displays all questions with recent activity
(question asked, answered or commented upon)
- You also have the very useful 'Unanswered' tab, which allows to
identify questions that haven't yet received useful advice

Another push-like element in SE is that once you ask a question or
answer, any subsequent comments on your post will be notified to you
either in the web interface or by email. This helps keep discussions
alive.

Regards,
Liviu

  
    
  
#
Clint and Liviu,

Stackoverflow also has rss feeds available, if you prefer being pushed the information that way.  For the R tagged questions it's here: http://stackoverflow.com/feeds/tag/r.  Since some e-mail clients double as feed readers, you may be able to read the feed from your e-mail client.  Otherwise, it does mean another application.

Regards,

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Liviu Andronic
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:24 PM
To: Clint Bowman
Cc: r-help at r-project.org; Bert Gunter
Subject: Re: [R] creating an equivalent of r-help on r.stackexchange.com ? (was: Re: Should there be an R-beginners list?)

Dear Clint,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Clint Bowman <clint at ecy.wa.gov> wrote:
It's not exactly the same as in a mail client, but you also have a push-like interface on SE, sort of:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/r
- The 'Newest' tab displays all recent questions, sorted in chronological order with latest on top; it gets refreshed automatically, as in a mail client (hence, "push-like")
- The 'Active' tab displays all questions with recent activity (question asked, answered or commented upon)
- You also have the very useful 'Unanswered' tab, which allows to identify questions that haven't yet received useful advice

Another push-like element in SE is that once you ask a question or answer, any subsequent comments on your post will be notified to you either in the web interface or by email. This helps keep discussions alive.

Regards,
Liviu
--
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

______________________________________________
R-help at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
#
Jason,

Thanks--I've found an RSS feed from EPA very useful and will check 
Stackoverflow's.

Clint

Clint Bowman			INTERNET:	clint at ecy.wa.gov
Air Quality Modeler		INTERNET:	clint at math.utah.edu
Department of Ecology		VOICE:		(360) 407-6815
PO Box 47600			FAX:		(360) 407-7534
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

         USPS:           PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600
         Parcels:        300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503-1274
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Law, Jason wrote:

            
#
Dear all,
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
As Duncan suggested earlier, tying R Core to StackExchange may or may
not be a good idea as it would make it somewhat dependent on external
corporate interests. (Personally I see both advantages and
disadvantages.)

So in the end my proposal is not necessarily for r-help to go to SE,
but more for R to have its own Q&A forum/wiki for helping R users.
This could perfectly take the form of setting up its own open-source
https://github.com/ialbert/biostar-central Q&A interface (a SE-like
web interface) on R Core's servers. In this case the website would
look like the following: http://www.biostars.org/ .

Regards,
Liviu

  
    
  
#
On 05/02/2014 1:32 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
That's not what I said.  I described the reasons *I* do not use it, I 
said nothing about R Core.
Barry's response to this request addressed it really well.  If you want 
it, go ahead and build it.

Duncan Murdoch
2 days later
#
On Tue, 04-Feb-2014 at 01:11AM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote:
|> Dear Don and Bert,
|> Allow me to address some of your concerns below.
|> 

Which you do very clearly by positioning your responses underneath
what you're commenting on.  That doesn't seem to be possible on SE.


[...]

|> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM, MacQueen, Don
|> > <macqueen1 at llnl.gov> wrote:
|> >> - They waste copious amounts of screen space on irrelevant
|> >> things such as "votes", the number of views, the elapsed time
|> >> since something or other happened, fancy web-page headers, and
|> >> so on. Oh, and advertisements. The Mathematica stackexchange
|> >> example given in a link in one of the emails below
|> >> (http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/) illustrates these
|> >> shortcomings -- and it's not the worst such example.


|> >
|> Well, I've seen my fair share of advertisements on Gmail, Yahoo Mail
|> or what have you. I know some use dedicated clients, but not all do.

Thunderbird with an IMAP setup avoids advertisements entirely even on
Gmail and Yahoo Mail (and is quicker).


|> (And sofar I haven't noticed one single intrusive or distracting ad on
|> SE.)

They do take up screen space where something more usable could use it.

[...]


|> >> Right now, at this very moment, in my email client's window I
|> >> can see and browse the subject lines of 20 threads in
|> >> r-help. And that's using only about half of my screens vertical
|> >> space. In contrast, in the Mathematica stackexchange example, I
|> >> can see at most 10, and that only by using the entire vertical
|> >> space of my screen. The "From" column in my email client shows
|> >> the names of several of the people contributing to the thread,
|> >> which the browser interface does not. In the email client, I can
|> >> move through messages, and between messages in a thread using my
|> >> keyboard. In a browser, I have to do lots of mousing and
|> >> clicking, which is much less efficient.
|> >>

|> Again, fair point, but with SE you quickly realize that this is
|> irrelevant. On ML, even more so on r-help, the only sane way to
|> sort and filter the messages is using time. ...

Call me insane but I find sorting by thread within subject far more
useful.  Seeing who else has already commented on the subject helps to
give me a good idea whether it's a subject I'm interested in.  If not
I delete the whole thread and leave space on my screen where I can see
75 subject lines without scrolling.  If it's an interesting thread, I
save it to an appropriate folder on my disk.  A browser interface
can't come close to that usability.  Many people have never seen mail
displayed in threads and so have little idea what I'm referring to.

[...]

|> It is also much easier to filter questions by topics: if you're
|> interested in GUI or plyr related questions, just display those
|> tags, and then answer relevant questions. On r-help you may only
|> guess from the subject line what the question could possibly be
|> about.

My mail client allows me to filter by any string in the body of the
message.  It's rather useful.


<rant> I'm evidently in a decreasing minority group who learnt to use
computers with punch cards (and patch panels for differential
equations) which probably colours my view.  The fact that simpler
effective means of communications are being taken over by whizz-bang
complicated inefficient ones is a cause for concern.  I belong to a
group (as distinct from the aforementioned minority group) which has
never known the delights of an efficient mailing list and flounders
around trying to communicate via Facebook.  The level of communication
is appalling: nobody ever knows what's going on. We might as well be
using punch cards.</rant>


best
#
For those defending mailing lists over StackOverflow, can you merge
these threads so later readers do not have to move between multiple
conversations?

  1. Re: Should there be an R-beginners list?

  2. Re: [R] creating an equivalent of r-help on r.stackexchange.com ?
(was: Re: Should there be an R-beginners list?)

  3. Re: creating an equivalent of r-help on r.stackexchange.com ?


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Patrick Connolly
<p_connolly at slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
Sometimes "hijacking" in the middle of a thread like this is bad,
because the discussion quickly diverges and we do not remember what
previous hijackers said after a few rounds of replies (you just see
[...], <snip>, > >>, >|, ||, > >|>, ...). For example, what did Liviu
say?
Seriously, do you have an ad "Windows 7 inside" or "Intel inside" or
an Apple icon on your laptop?... Personally I rarely notice the ads on
StackOverflow. You are free to hate ads as I do, but you are also free
to ignore them. Someone picked up Mathematica SE as an example, but
has anyone really gone to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/r
and checked if there are ads?
I'm hijacking here not to say anything but just to prove my first point.
and here. Can you see me?
Sorry, I do not mean to offend anyone (if you notice anything odd). I
just want to support Barry's opinion: mailing lists are good for
discussions, and SO/SE is good for Q&A's. Nothing is good for
everything.

Regards,
Yihui
--
Yihui Xie <xieyihui at gmail.com>
Web: http://yihui.name
#
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Patrick Connolly
<p_connolly at slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
In addition to Yihui's remarks (including "mailing lists are good for
discussions, and SO/SE is good for Q&A's"), I would only add that on
SE commenting inline is a non-existent problem.

On the Q&A site all communication is restricted to three types,
clearly separate forms of interaction: Question, Answer, or Comment.
The user may ask only one clearly defined question, well, per
Question. And each proposed Answer is supposed to answer that very
specific clearly described question. Everything else, going from rants
to requests for clarifications go (mostly) in comments (and are mostly
ignored). If the question is vague, the OP doesn't need to sift
through ML-like threads and comment inline, but simply edits the
original Question and adds the required information to make it clear.
Same mechanism works nicely for Answers.

This means that when dealing with a complex situation what you do is
break down the problem in clearly identifiable parts; then in the
Question you explain the background and ask a simple question; then in
a 2nd Question you re-explain the background (or link to the 1st
Question), and ask a second simple question; and so on. This requires
a self-discipline that helps the help-providers in understanding where
the issue lies, and how it could be addressed.

So while on a ML a discussion can quickly digress from a clearly
defined question to something extremely more diffuse, threads or no
threads (as Yihui mentioned, What was my original question?; and What
are we discussing right now?), on a Q&A web interface moderators (and
the community) systematically force the users to stay on topic. And
personally I find that useful: no more "I stop monitoring a thread
because I can't follow it anymore" (anyone?).

Regards,
Liviu