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

Re: st: new problem with table display

From   Steven Joel Hirsch Samuels <>
Subject   Re: st: new problem with table display
Date   Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:22:29 -0400

I agree with Maarten on this. When I present estimated totals, I don't ordinarily use scientific notation, but I do round to the nearest 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000,... depending on the size of the standard error. I want the readers to see that the numbers are estimates.


On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Maarten buis wrote:

--- Richard Ohrvall <> wrote:
Regarding Maartens comment, well I disagree, I often have weights
calibrated to known population totals (eg. from a census). It
therefore makes sense to have the exact population total in tables
instead of a scientific notation with rounded figures. Of course
these figures are usually a bit uncertain, but they are often treated
as certain (eg. the population in the Netherlands at a certain date)
and consistency in this aspect can help to avoid confusion.
Sometimes we have to conform to the prevailing practice in our
discipline, but that does not mean we have to forget that that practice
is actually bad practice. Reporting numbers we know are nothing more
than random noise seems like bad practice to me.
Steven  Samuels
18 Cantine's Island
Saugerties, NY 12477
Phone: 845-246-0774
EFax: 208-498-7441

*   For searches and help try:

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