That appears to be an epistemic error. Some people, and I would agree it seems like an increasing number of people, clearly don't read the posting guide. However, it is impossible for anyone to know how many people do read it, do thoroughly read it and, therefore, don't ever need to post to r-help. Those people would be missing from the statistical sample of people who do post. In fact it would be very surprising indeed, assuming it is true that R is getting more popular, to not see the numbers of non-compliant posters increase.
I dont believe in basing decisions upon poorly applied statistics. Especially ones that go from correlation to causation so casually. "Gabor Grothendieck" <ggrothendi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:971536df1003050433i7f104bd4l1e1421fab0d3...@mail.gmail.com... I don't think we should be expanding the posting guide. Its already so long that no one reads it. We should be thinking of ways to cut it down to a smaller size instead. On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Matthew Dowle <mdo...@mdowle.plus.com> wrote: > Under the "further resources" section I'd like to suggest the following > addition : > > * http://crantastic.org/ lists popular packages according to other users > votes. Consider briefly reviewing the top 30 packages before posting to > r-help since someone may have already released a package that solves your > problem. > > Thats just a straw man idea so I hope there will be answer, or discussion, > either way. > > Matthew > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
