Bookmark and Share

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

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

Re: st: Statalist in a forum format

From   Marcello Pagano <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   Re: st: Statalist in a forum format
Date   Tue, 8 Apr 2014 08:33:13 -0400

Two things to add,

1. The market should be asked to decide. No one is stopping anyone from drifting to Stack Overflow and/or Cross Validated. We can coexist.
We can also improve.

2. Stas is an expert survey person and knows very well how to influence a sample, not, of course, that he ever would, but why is this discussion not being carried out on Is it possible that the view of new-/old-Statalist might be skewed one way or another by those still remaining on old-Statalist versus those already migrated to the forum?


On 4/8/2014 7:39 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
Stas raises many questions and makes several positive suggestions and I
won't pretend to address all, but I don't agree with his strongest
pitch. (If I had thought that people migrating to Stack Overflow or
Cross Validated was the best way to fix Statalist's slowly growing
problems, I would
have recommended that during earlier discussions.)

Stack Overflow (SO; a large forum for programming questions, which
recently passed 7 million questions (!)) and Cross Validated (CV; a
smaller forum for statistics questions, which is approaching 35,000
questions) have both in existence for a few years now. I am positive
about both and have been an active contributor to both for more than a
year. Indeed a glance at

will show that Stata questions on both lists are mostly handled by
people also active here on Statalist.

However, the picture that Stas paints is in my view rosier than the
real prospects on those sites for Stata users.

1. The two sites divide questions linked to Stata very awkwardly as
programming questions belong on SO and statistics questions belong on CV
and questions involving elements of both have to jump one way or the
other, as cross-postings are strongly discouraged. What's more,
programming questions as construed on SO don't really include
introductory or beginner questions about code, which are much more
welcome on Statalist. (Notwithstanding that, you are expected to read
the documentation here....)

So, many, perhaps most, questions on the Stata language are _not_
welcome on either  CV or SO. SO bills itself as for professional and
enthusiast programmers, and programming really does mean what it says,
not working out command syntax.

2. Much of what is valuable here falls some way -- indeed, in many
cases, a long way -- outside the style or remit of SO or CV. Examples

    - announcements of new user-written commands
    - suggestions for future Stata development
    - new Stata version announcements
    - how-to's on some topic
    - job/consulting opportunities
    - bug reports (unless somehow phrased as a question)

Losing such material would be a major blow to Statalist.

3. Stas plays much attention to what activity or activities would
promote the public
reputation of Stata outside the user community. However, I doubt that
migrating lots of questions to SO or CV is unlikely to have quite the
effect Stas desires. I am dimly aware of lots of questions on R on SO;
evidently R is used heavily, especially in universities, and many of its
users struggle with it; so what else is new? I don't think people whose
opinions you would most value count users any more than they would
assess newspapers by mass circulation. In fact, the existence of a
self-contained good quality forum with high activity is quite possibly
more likely to maintain and improve the reputation of Stata, not least
by promoting some sense of community.  I am not worried that the
community becomes too inward-looking; what I see is overwhelmingly
people using Stata and then using the results in their papers and
presentations to groups outside.

4. Broadly I would describe SO and CV as considerably more complicated
than the new Statalist forum. I don't attribute as much importance to
mechanisms such as voting, reputation and badges as Stas does. For
example, I just counted up that I have been awarded 101 badges across
SO and CV, but that doesn't amount for more than the arcana of the
games played by my 10-year-old nephew. It strikes me that people find
it easy to judge reputation just by watching Statalist briefly without
anyone needing to measure it.

Above all, no one is (I hope) insisting that there is one best forum for
all. For example, no one has mentioned in this thread,
but it's evidently congenial to many Stata users, and
offers German language support. In each case, highly competent and
experienced users handle much of the traffic. What's puzzling is that
despite their very much greater sophistication -- until just now --
neither SO nor CV has achieved lift-off compared with Statalist in terms
of frequent Stata questions. Some people evidently prefer(red)
email-based questions, but I think a major factor was people asking
questions wherever experts appeared concentrated.

[email protected]

On 7 April 2014 15:34, Stas Kolenikov <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Stataliasters,

thanks again to Marcello Pagano, Stata Corp side team and everybody
involved in setting up I however would like play a
devil's advocate and argue that we DO NOT NEED statalist in that form.
I would instead argue that we need to find ways to move the statalist
discussion to the StackExchange system (

Let me describe the system in bold strokes. (Disclaimer: I am closely
familiar only with the statistics website on StackExchange family,, although I keep an eye on another five
or so sites, such as latex, math, biking, and board games, out of 100+
for all walks of life). On each of the sites, users ask questions and
seek inputs from other participants. Other users can answer these
questions. (So far, that's trivial, and every forum does that. The
crucial differences begin at this point.) The quality of different
answers can be compared by upvotes or downvotes that registered users
can cast. Answers can be improved by editing. In fact, questions can
be edited, as well (so at the very least, one could edit a novice's
question to incorporate the code formatting and tag the topic(s) that
the question raise(s)... and NJC can edit Stas Kolenikov's questions
for silly grammar :) ). Besides full answers, users can also provide
smaller-scale comments. Duplicate questions are being identified,
flagged, and closed, with links to what they are duplicating. A user's
contribution to the site is measured by their "reputation" that is
accumulated through good questions and answers, and by badges (asking
questions roles, answering question roles, editing roles, flagging
roles, etc.). Thus there is a variety of feedback mechanisms that help
improving the quality of questions and answers, and motivate the users
to participate. Thematic sites provide special formatting and/or
syntax highlighting, like Latex-type MathJAX formatting on math or
statistics sites (implemented on, as well); code
formatting on programming and statistics sites (partially implemented
on, requires some cleanup, as far as I understand; on, R code is provided with simple syntax
highlighting, too); chess board rendering on the chess site; card
rendering on the poker website; etc. There's a sophisticated system of
tags that have mini-wikies (available on mouse-over) and full wikies
(available on clicks); users accumulate their reputation both overall
and within tags. Moderators play a major role in keeping the site
running, as it is the moderators who take actions on low quality
questions and answers (close duplicates, migrate questions to more
appropriate sites, etc.)

The biggest difference between a typical forum format (including
statalist) and StackExchange is the conceptual vision of the mission
they have in mind. Historically, plain-email-text statalist has been
aimed at "User 1 posts their current problem" - "User 2 posts a
solution to that specific problem" - "User 3 refines, if there's room"
- and everybody forgets about the whole thing a month later (although
in the case of statalist, we often see referrals to statalist
archives). StackExchange works on generating knowledge about the
universe (in this case, this would be Stata universe) that is supposed
to stay for prosperity, so that website users and the Internet at
large could benefit from the previously generated answers. The
ultimate goal is that StackExchange posts show up on the first page of
Google when you search something like "fixed effects model with
heteroskedastic panels". In some of my Google queries, I do indeed get
SE posts, so somehow the mechanism of StackExchange I described above
does work.

I am not quite sure how to better describe my next point, but I think
that creating compartmentalizes Stata as an obscure
software. While those in the academic ivory towers can enjoy their
academic freedom, others in industry and government have to fight this
impression at their workplaces ("How is it called again? Why are you
not happy with some alternative software that we have a license
for?"). This is a tiring uphill battle. (Literally today, I had to
convert some SAS code to Stata and back, and StackOverflow, the
programming branch of StackExchange, offered some good pointers...
which I got from the first Google search page!) The statistics branch
of StackExchange, CrossValidated (, is
heavily entrenched in R, and the popular claims regarding popularity
of R are based on the counts of posts on StackExchange
( Moving to
rather than to would help strengthening the argument
that Stata is a proper, kosher, mainstream statistical package. A
fivefold or tenfold increase in the volume of Stata questions that
could happen once hsphsun2 closes would make a good splash in Stata
reputation in the big world outside statalist walls.

Toning this down a little bit, I think the best of two worlds can be
combined on if the major components of the StackExchange
system are utilized. The unique features that Stata Corp can donate to
the system to make it superior over the limitations of the format and
capabilities of StackExchange would be syntax highlighting similar to
that of the Do-Editor, and automatic links to the online help files
( that are added once a Stata
command is being identified in the code section. A more prominent use
of tags is a must for the forum to be usable as a reference, rather
than a hit-and-run (ask-and-wait) system that it has historically
been. Stata commands may act as tags (based on either what user enters
as a special tag if that's something user-contributed, like -outreg-
or -ivreg2-, or what is being recognized automatically, which I
suggested above). Users should be required to use tags, or at least
asked to confirm when they are submitting a question with no tags. (7
tags on 78 "General" forum questions, and two more from "Using the
forum"??? I'd say it is not working yet.) For tags to work well,
though, other users should be able to edit tags in the original posts.
Adding any of that functionality would require serious work on the
forum engine. How much the engine can be expanded, I have no idea; I
am not a website programmer. If this equates to just reproducing
StackExchange engine, it is obviously a futile exercise.

Joining StackExchange system as a separate site may or may not work
out (see -- there should be a
critical mass of users, questions and topics, and so far, I am aware
of about five or so statalist people who are active on CrossValidated,
which won't create a critical mass). R questions are split between the
statistics website and the programming website, depending on whether
it is more of "why doesn't lmer produce a standard error for variance
components" (statistics) or "how do I tweak ggplot2 to produce
transparent graphs" (programming). I imagine Stata questions could
work pretty much the same way, too. At the moment, there is about 1
question a day on Stata on statistics website, and may be two
questions a day on programming website... compared to 10+ new
questions on statalist... on a slow day.

-- Stas Kolenikov, PhD, PStat (ASA, SSC)
-- Principal Survey Scientist, Abt SRBI
-- Opinions stated in this email are mine only, and do not reflect the
position of my employer
*   For searches and help try:
*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

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