Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: editing


From   "Lachenbruch, Peter" <[email protected]>
To   "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject   st: editing
Date   Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:59:47 +0000

In recent days there's been  a lot on automated editing.  I just got a large (for me) data set with 20,000 observations and 270 variables.  It's in rotten shape - the people who prepared the data made many errors such as giving codes that were impossible - a dichotomous variable had 7 redponse codes, etc.  Many string variables which were clearly the same name had multiple spellings, etc.  
This to me is a failure of initial editing.  I will go through the data and note errors to some extent, but I am unwilling to take on the role of data editor and cleaner.  Since this is a pro bono task, someone must do more thinking.  I don't see how an automated editing procedure could help with the extremely large number of ways things can get screwed up...


Peter A. Lachenbruch,
Professor (retired)
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index