[R] Nonparametric generalization of ANOVA

Robert A LaBudde ral at lcfltd.com
Fri Mar 5 20:59:02 CET 2010

A search on "bluesky315 at gmail.com" shows the user is in Norfolk, VA, USA.

At 01:26 PM 3/5/2010, John Sorkin wrote:
>The sad part of this interchanges is that Blue Sky does not seem to 
>be amiable to suggestion. He, or she, has not taken note, or 
>responded to the fact that a number of people believe it is good 
>manners to give a real name and affiliation. My mother taught me 
>that when two people tell you that you are drunk you should lie down 
>until the inebriation goes away. Blue Sky, several people have noted 
>that you would do well to give us your name and affiliation. Is this 
>too much to ask given that people are good enough to help you?
>John David Sorkin M.D., Ph.D.
>Chief, Biostatistics and Informatics
>University of Maryland School of Medicine Division of Gerontology
>Baltimore VA Medical Center
>10 North Greene Street
>Baltimore, MD 21201-1524
>(Phone) 410-605-7119
>(Fax) 410-605-7913 (Please call phone number above prior to 
>faxing)>>> "Matthew Dowle" <mdowle at mdowle.plus.com> 3/5/2010 12:58 PM >>>
>Frank, I respect your views but I agree with Gabor.  The posting guide does
>not support your views.
>It is not any of our views that are important but we are following the
>posting guide.  It covers affiliation. It says only that "some" consider it
>"good manners to include a concise signature specifying affiliation". It
>does not agree that it is bad manners not to.  It is therefore going too far
>to urge R-gurus, whoever they might be, to ignore such postings on that
>basis alone.  It is up to responders (I think that is the better word which
>is the one used by the posting guide) whether they reply.  Missing
>affiliation is ok by the posting guide.  Users shouldn't be put off from
>posting because of that alone.
>Sending from an anonymous email address such as "BioStudent" is also fine by
>the posting guide as far as my eyes read it. It says only that the email
>address should work. I would also answer such anonymous posts, providing
>they demonstrate they made best efforts to follow the posting guide, as
>usual for all requests for help.  Its so easy to send from a false, but
>apparently real name, why worry about that?
>If you disagree with the posting guide then you could make a suggestion to
>get the posting guide changed with respect to these points.  But, currently,
>good and practice is defined by the posting guide, and I can't see that your
>view is backed up by it.  In fact it seems to me that these points were
>carefully considered, and the wording is careful on these points.
>As far as I know you are wrong that there is no moderator.  There are in
>fact an uncountable number of people who are empowered to moderate i.e. all
>of us. In other words its up to the responders to moderate.  The posting
>guide is our guide.  As a last resort we can alert the list administrator
>(which I believe is the correct name for him in that role), who has powers
>to remove an email address from the list if he thinks that is appropriate,
>or act otherwise, or not at all.  It is actually up to responders (i.e. all
>of us) to ensure the posting guide is followed.
>My view is that the problems started with some responders on some occasions.
>They sometimes forgot, a little bit, to encourage and remind posters to
>follow the posting guide when it was not followed. This then may have
>encouraged more posters to think it was ok not to follow the posting guide.
>That is my own personal view,  not a statistical one backed up by any
>"Frank E Harrell Jr" <f.harrell at vanderbilt.edu> wrote in message
>news:4B913880.9020701 at vanderbilt.edu...
> > Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >> I am happy to answer posts to r-help regardless of the name and email
> >> address of the poster but would draw the line at someone excessively
> >> posting without a reasonable effort to find the answer first or using
> >> it for homework since such requests could flood the list making it
> >> useless for everyone.
> >
> > Gabor I respectfully disagree.  It is bad practice to allow anonymous
> > postings.  We need to see real names and real affiliations.
> >
> > r-help is starting to border on uselessness because of the age old problem
> > of the same question being asked every two days, a high frequency of
> > specialty questions, and answers given with the best of intentions in
> > incremental or contradictory e-mail pieces (as opposed to a cumulative
> > wiki or hierarchically designed discussion web forum), as there is no
> > moderator for the list.  We don't need even more traffic from anonymous
> > postings.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Ravi Varadhan <rvaradhan at jhmi.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>> David,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your sentiments.  I also think that it is bad posting
> >>> etiquette not to sign one's genuine name and affiliation when asking for
> >>> help, which "blue sky" seems to do a lot.  Bert Gunter has already
> >>> raised this issue, and I completely agree with him. I would also like to
> >>> urge the R-gurus to ignore such postings.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Ravi.
> >>> ____________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> Ravi Varadhan, Ph.D.
> >>> Assistant Professor,
> >>> Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology
> >>> School of Medicine
> >>> Johns Hopkins University
> >>>
> >>> Ph. (410) 502-2619
> >>> email: rvaradhan at jhmi.edu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: David Winsemius <dwinsemius at comcast.net>
> >>> Date: Friday, March 5, 2010 9:25 am
> >>> Subject: Re: [R] Nonparametric generalization of ANOVA
> >>> To: blue sky <bluesky315 at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>  On Mar 5, 2010, at 8:19 AM, blue sky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>  > My interpretation of the relation between 1-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon's
> >>>>  > test (wilcox.test() in R) is the following.
> >>>>  >
> >>>>  > 1-way ANOVA is to test if two or multiple distributions are the
> >>>> same,
> >>>>  > assuming all the distributions are normal and have equal variances.
> >>>>  > Wilcoxon's test is to test two distributions are the same without
> >>>>  > assuming what their distributions are.
> >>>>  >
> >>>>  > In this sense, I'm wondering what is the generalization of
> >>>> Wilcoxon's
> >>>>  > test to more than two distributions. And, more general, what is the
> >>>>  > generalization of Wilcoxon's test to multi-way ANOVA with arbitrary
> >>>>  > complex model formula? What are the equivalent F statistics and t
> >>>>  > statistics in the generalization of Wilcoxon's test?
> >>>>  >
> >>>>  > Note that I'm not interested in looking for a specific nonparametric
> >>>>  > test for a particular dataset right now, although this is important
> >>>> in
> >>>>  > practice. What I'm interested the general nonparametric statistical
> >>>>  > framework that parallels ANOVA. Could somebody give some hints on
> >>>> what
> >>>>  > references I should look for? I have google searched this topic, but
> >>>>  > don't find a page that exactly answered my question.
> >>>>
> >>>>  This is your first of three postings in the last hour and they are
> >>>> all
> >>>>  in a category that could well be described as requests for tutoring
> >>>> in
> >>>>  basic statistical topics. I am of the impression you have been
> >>>>  requested not to engage in such behavior on this list. For this
> >>>>  question for instance there is an entire CRAN Task View available and
> >>>>
> >>>>  you have been in particular asked to sue such resource before posting.
> >>>>
> >>>>  It's not the described role of the r-help list to remediate your lack
> >>>>
> >>>>  of statistical background, but rather to deal with difficulties in
> >>>>  applying the R-language to particular, discrete and exemplified
> >>>>  problems.
> >>>>
> >>>>  --
> >>>>
> >>>>  David Winsemius, MD
> >>>>  West Hartford, CT
> >>>>
> >>>>  ______________________________________________
> >>>>  R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>>  PLEASE do read the posting guide
> >>>>  and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> R-help at 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> R-help at 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Frank E Harrell Jr   Professor and Chairman        School of Medicine
> >                      Department of Biostatistics   Vanderbilt University
> >
>R-help at r-project.org mailing list
>PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>Confidentiality Statement:
>This email message, including any attachments, is for t...{{dropped:17}}

More information about the R-help mailing list