RE: st: Understanding Factor variables - is order significant ?

["Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>]

I am happy to agree that revision of -encode- is a little overdue. But
as it stands at present 

label define al 1 Low 2 Medium 3 High

can be followed by -encode- with -label(al)-, so that's not much
difference in practice. 

(If you have got 20 you still have to define them either way.) 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Feiveson, Alan H. (JSC-SK311)

Rich - I agree.

OK - How about an "order" option on encode:

encode stringvar,order(Low Medium High)


HA!


This would replace doing

label define level 1 "Low" 2 "Medium" 3 "High"
label values stringvar level

(maybe a trivial amount of extra work in this example, but not if you
had a list of 20 levels or so and had to list them all  with numbers and
double quotes around each one)

On Behalf Of Richard Williams

At 10:38 AM 5/27/2010, Feiveson, Alan H. (JSC-SK311) wrote:
>The trouble with -encode- is that it puts the levels in alphabetical 
>order. So in the L, M, H case you would get H = 1, L = 2, M = 3. To 
>get around this you would have to define a label by hand and assign 
>it to the string variable.
>
>Al F.

True, but as Nick points out you would have the same problem with 
factor variables.  One way or another you have to do a little extra 
work to get the codes in the order you want if they aren't in that 
order already.


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/