7
$\begingroup$

(Edit: It's auto-deleted now...)

I believe this post How to find whether the variable is discrete or continuous where appropriate? is on topic. The subject is inherently statistical and identifying whether variables are discrete or continuous (and further details about their type) is not inherently a programming issue (for all that the user wants to implement it in R).

There are other grounds for concern about it -- the question could be clearer and I think may be a partial duplicate, but I don't see how it fails our criteria for on-topicness:

if it needs statistical expertise to understand or answer, ask it here

The user doesn't have an algorithm ready that they're seeking to implement.

I think this user needs statistical expertise to get a good answer to this question. Why are we closing it as off topic?

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The whole of the question is "How to prepare a table to list down the variables in the data set with their corresponding scale of measurement? And how to find whether the variable is discrete or continuous where appropriate?" and the one tag is R. Ignoring the first sentence I have to agree that the second sentence is very unclear. I didn't vote here and I see your main point but if one ground for closing is disputable I still think it's a poor question that needs clarification. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Dec 7 '19 at 8:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I paid most attention to the second question, since it's also the title (figuring that signifies the central issue in the OP's mind). I agree it's a poor question that needs clarification, but the present close reason makes improving it both more difficult (why would the OP improve it if it's closed for being off topic?) and likely pointless (since it probably won't get enough votes to reopen). $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Dec 7 '19 at 12:39
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Given how sparse the question is, it needs a great deal of interpretation. My interpretation, at first blush, is that they're looking for an R function (like str()) that will tell them what type their variables are. Of course, it's possible they have something else in mind. But if you lean away from off topic, you should be leaning into unclear, IMHO. I would have closed this question, too. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Dec 7 '19 at 13:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think this would be an argument to reopen and close as unclear. (I wouldn't be posting here in that case). $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Dec 7 '19 at 21:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Re-opening for one reason and then closing for another has a certain logic, but the psychology is hardly better. Note that the OP posted the same question ~90 min later on Stack Overflow stackoverflow.com/questions/59214945/… That question was promptly closed too. Scope for interpretations all the way from "the OP didn't get help twice over and was failed by SE" to "the OP posted questions that showed no evident attempt to understand how each site works and little effort in explaining what they needed". $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Dec 9 '19 at 18:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My thoughts are: If the aim is to improve/focus a question that is partly on topic, it should close for a reason that indicates that. If the aim is to teach a new user how to write a suitable question for the site, it should close for a reason that indicates that. Closing it as off topic when it seems an important part of the question is on topic seems unlikely to lead to a user who asks better questions. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Dec 10 '19 at 13:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'll be heartless here. I think that someone who posts this kind of question - twice! - is so confused (to put it kindly) that it does not matter what closure reason we use. The reason will not help them clarify the question. Nothing short of major hand-holding will do so. $\endgroup$ – Stephan Kolassa Dec 12 '19 at 13:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .