Re: st: A gentler introduction to Statalist and Seven Deadly Sins

[Phil Schumm <pschumm@uchicago.edu>]

On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Nick Cox wrote:
> I agree with Roy that imputation of motive is tricky territory, but  
> I suggest it's better to guess at an attempt at banter rather than  
> intention to impugn or insult.

I'm just catching up on a couple weeks' worth of email, and was  
mildly amused by this thread.  For those who may not realize it,  
Statalist is far gentler than many other lists out there.  On many  
lists (and I'm talking about other technical lists used by serious  
people), inappropriate questions are either met with a public  
scolding or are simply ignored.  The former is pretty effective  
against repeat offenders, at the risk of scaring off a few people who  
might be capable of redeeming themselves.  Neither, however, gets the  
original poster any closer to having her or his question answered.   
By contrast, the advice given on Statalist -- even if it is to re-ask  
your question in a more appropriate fashion -- nearly *always* gets  
the original poster closer to having her or his question answered.   
And after all, isn't that the objective?

Someone mentioned something about cultural differences, and I think  
that's an important factor here.  In many corners of cyberspace,  
lists are about one thing: getting work done.  They are not about  
making friends, or making people feel good.  I'm not necessarily  
advocating such an approach, but those who recognize and understand  
it will have a much happier life online.  IOW, it is always dangerous  
to read a response for anything other than its technical content,  
unless you know the person personally or unless the response  
explicitly solicits some form of emotive exchange.  If not, be  
grateful when you get a helpful response, but don't take any umbrage  
if you do not.  A good rule to live by.

Finally, the Statalist FAQ is an excellent document, and we should  
consider ourselves fortunate to have it (most lists don't have such a  
document).  I'm not arguing it can't be improved, that's not my  
point.  However, please keep in mind that although many newcomers  
take the time to read this, there will always be people who don't.   
And revisions to the FAQ won't help this problem.  For those  
individuals, a one-line response along the lines of "Read the FAQ and  
repost your question accordingly" is, IMHO, completely warranted.   
After all, these people are asking for free help (often from people  
of such high caliber that they couldn't afford their time if they had  
too pay for it).


-- Phil

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/