Timeline for Defining clearer house rules on software-related questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/ | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://gis.stackexchange.com/ with https://gis.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 8:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Migration of MSO links to MSE links | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 23:44 | comment | added | Glen_b | I would note that the line between 'programming' and 'using functions' is rather blurred. Take this from wikipedia: "A computer program ... is a sequence of instructions, written to perform a specified task with a computer.". If someone wants to combine a couple of R (say) function-calls, by that definition, they have a program, and are thereby programming. If we're just going to shift the argument to 'what really constitutes programming' I don't think we've made things clearer, but perhaps even more murky. | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 18:01 | history | edited | Gavin Simpson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 17 characters in body |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:36 | comment | added | Gavin Simpson | @GaëlLaurans As regards the use of "basic", I don't equate that term exclusively with "easy", it is more nuanced than that. Perhaps "introductory" is what I meant? | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:26 | comment | added | Gavin Simpson | @Marco Thanks. I think that adding an "in an obvious way" clarifier misses the point that a number of users have made in comments under various Meta Qs, that the OP may not appreciate the statistical issues. These may not be obvious to all, but a knowledgeable user could draw out those issues in a comment or answer. That would be a net win. I am wary of adding what you suggest as that gives an easy route to flagging or close-voting. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:24 | comment | added | Gavin Simpson | @GaëlLaurans I have now edited the proposed text to include all software-related items under a single top-level bullet. I have pulled Programming into that section as it fits better there. I see this now after reading your comment; Thanks I also added a sentence to clarify the point of the Note; it is to help with guidelines on migrating questions to Stack Overflow as there is a lot of confusion on what should be migrated. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:18 | history | edited | Gavin Simpson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | tried to indicate what was changed where; add a note to clarify position on migration in Programming bullet |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:16 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica | That seem clear enough, @GavinSimpson. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:15 | comment | added | Gavin Simpson | @gung I decide against importing the existing text - it is useless to scroll back an forth to compare and anyone can read the proposed version here side by side with the original using their window manager and browser tabs. I will make it clear that this is a proposed change though. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:12 | history | edited | Gavin Simpson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | tried to indicate what was changed where |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 13:59 | comment | added | Macro | I agree with the sub-bullet points under "software-related questions" but fear that "potentially related to the practice of statistics" is so general that it's almost meaningless. Maybe a clause along the lines of "in an obvious way" should be added. But, at that point, I think it completely overlaps in content with the third sub-bullet point, which I think gets at the heart of it: if it requires statistical reasoning, then it's on-topic. The problem is that I think this is the criteria that most close-reviewers already use, which is inherently subjective and has lead us to where we are now. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 13:47 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica | Be well, @GavinSimpson. When you're ready, here is what I would suggest: in the question, add a horizontal line & then reproduce the text under the status quo. For your answer, place the changes you would like to see, possibly with a couple of notes about where they would fit. Then add a horizontal line & you can provide discussion / arguments in favor of your suggested changes. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 13:43 | comment | added | Gavin Simpson | @gung Yes, I see that what is above could cause confusion. I genuinely wasn't sure how to best approach this - the Q&A format isn't a great fit for collaborative editing a document. I thought having an entire whole proposed text would be useful with other Answers curating specific elements that could be edit in. I have to mend a puncture just now but will edit the above to indicate where changes have been made. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 13:38 | comment | added | whuber Mod | I agree with @gung: What we really need to know are what changes are being proposed to our FAQ. We can all read the FAQ as it stands now. Producing the entire new text asks us to work much harder than necessary to identify and react to the proposed changes. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 13:23 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica | Readers should be clear that the above is not exactly what is on the on-topic page of the help center. The "Note" under the "Programming" bullet point and the final bullet pointed section "Software-related questions" are suggested changes to CV's policy. I think it would be better to have the current text reproduced & then have the suggested changes as a distinct answer to make it easier for people to evaluate the status quo & possible changes. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 6:32 | comment | added | Gala | If that's what it is, it would be better to specify that those questions are off topic in the first paragraph as well and leave it at that. (I am not convinced the language about “general” or “basic” usage is very helpful either. A function is only “basic” once you know it and use it regularly, you wouldn't ask about it if it was easy for you.) | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 6:28 | comment | added | Gala | I am afraid the part on software-related questions just adds more confusion. We have “Questions about using higher-level statistical functions or add-on packages in such languages are not considered programming” but then “General questions about using statistical functions, software or add-on packages for languages such as R, especially those concerning basic usage, are off topic.” It seems to suggest that we want to continue current practice, merely acknowledging that questions about usage aren't about programming. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 5:22 | comment | added | Matt Krause | A few concrete examples might help explain the software-related sections. For example, CV won't explain how to read your data into R or SPSS, but will explain why the dendrograms produced by each package have a different axes (or wherever the line ends up being drawn) | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 5:07 | comment | added | Gavin Simpson | The above is my view on what the house rules should be. I have however tried to incorporate the thoughts of other prominent Cross Validated users as expressed in other related threads. I appreciate that not everyone will agree with the viewpoint stated above. Rather than edit-war this Answer, let's discuss this via other Answers & comment threads and hopefully come to a consensus that is edited into this Wiki answer. | |
| S Sep 18, 2013 at 4:44 | history | answered | Gavin Simpson | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Sep 18, 2013 at 4:44 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Gavin Simpson |