On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Steve Sidney <sbsid...@mweb.co.za>
wrote:
Oh dear oh dear!!! another arrogant statistician/scientist
One asks for help and instead one gets an ear full!!!
we're statisticians. we love data. we hate seeing it go to waste.
every zero, every one, every NA value is dear to our hearts. Bert was
showing the same concern that a mother does for her children. Don't
hate him for that.
Nominated for fortune-ization in some form or another.
--
David.
Knowing you have 100 values with about 5-10% 0/1 values is half the
story we need - if the remaining 90-95% are in the thousands then
clearly these low ones are failures, and everyone on this list will
say "treat as missing values, do X = X[X>1] and carry on". However if
the real values are in the tens and units then maybe something is
going on. You did say removing them hasn't affected previous analyses,
but some more data would help - we just love data...
Barry
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
