[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: Incomplete references are not acceptable

From   n j cox <>
Subject   st: Incomplete references are not acceptable
Date   Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:43:37 +0100

Despite many requests and a detailed exhortation in the
FAQ, postings with incomplete references (name(s) and date only or
even names alone) persist. It should be self-evident that incomplete references are obscure to very many; only complete references are helpful. Also, the implication that you care only about people in your own sub-discipline who may know the answer is insensitive, if not mildly offensive.

I invite Statalist members to refuse to answer postings with
incomplete references and to complain personally to
people who insist on ignoring good practice.

People who want to participate in an alternative list based
on different principles should feel free to set it up and
run it their way. Otherwise, expect the disapproval of those who have
worked hard to set high standards on this list and to
maintain them. Statalist is free and there is no charge
for the quick, correct and helpful answers likely if you ask
clear questions, but there is not a free ride for people who
won't even think carefully about their postings.


Erasmo Giambona wrote

... Stock-Yogo ... Stock-Wright (2000)

Mahabir Priydarshini wrote

Eaton's and Tamura's (1994)

* For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index