Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: editing
From
"Lachenbruch, Peter" <[email protected]>
To
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject
st: editing
Date
Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:59:47 +0000
In recent days there's been a lot on automated editing. I just got a large (for me) data set with 20,000 observations and 270 variables. It's in rotten shape - the people who prepared the data made many errors such as giving codes that were impossible - a dichotomous variable had 7 redponse codes, etc. Many string variables which were clearly the same name had multiple spellings, etc.
This to me is a failure of initial editing. I will go through the data and note errors to some extent, but I am unwilling to take on the role of data editor and cleaner. Since this is a pro bono task, someone must do more thinking. I don't see how an automated editing procedure could help with the extremely large number of ways things can get screwed up...
Peter A. Lachenbruch,
Professor (retired)
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/