by Nicholas J. Cox, Durham University
revised 4 January 2022

The purpose of this document is to give some extended discussions of points that often arise in using Statalist. People can differ in good faith on what is good practice, so the aim is just to give some advice based on prevailing Statalist style, not to offer a rigid list of arbitrary rules.

1. Bumping, closing threads, and starting new threads

Executive summary: Don't bump, usually. It is better to improve a question than just to ask the same one over again. Start a new thread if and only if you have a different question.

1.1 Bumping

Bumping, strict sense, is adding a new post to an existing thread with the sole aim of drawing attention to it. Sometimes this is done crudely ("bump", "anyone?"), sometimes politely ("Any advice on this please?"). We suggest that bumping should be done only

(a) after some time has elapsed (as a rule of thumb, 12 hours at least); within 1 or 2 hours, or a few minutes, will not be welcome.

(b) once in a given thread

(c) very politely indeed.

Any bumping that just mentions urgency, desperation, or your need for an answer is out of order. It's not that we don't sympathise; it's just that such context doesn't make your question more interesting or easier to answer or deserve extra attention.

1.2 Repeating the same question

Please don't! Posting exactly the same question again is strongly discouraged and is unlikely to increase your chance of getting a response.

1.3 Expanding on a question

It is entirely good practice to add details, particularly when you realise that your initial question was possibly unclear or incomplete. So adding a data example or code is, for example, helpful and encouraged.

Note that the forum software will allow you to edit any of your posts, including your initial question, within one hour of its first posting. You can always create a new post in the topic to add to, clarify, or correct what you have previously posted.

1.4 Keeping a thread going

If it's really the same question, then it is usually best to keep the same thread running. What's key here is that each new post bumps the thread to the top of each forum, so it remains as visible as possible.

1.5 Starting a new thread

If you have what is essentially a new and different question, it is generally best to start a new thread. A cross-reference to the previous thread is helpful if there is a relation.

There is one kind of exception, however. Sometimes a thread is moving very slowly. Particularly if there are several posts, it may become hard work for anyone to try to see where the discussion has reached. In this situation it can sometimes be a good idea to start all over again, restating the question as clearly and fully as is needed (yet also concisely). But always give a cross-reference.

2. Using private messages

Executive summary: Please don't ask Stata or statistical questions using private messages to active individuals.

Many members will have noticed that messages may be sent to specified individuals. So, you can send personal or private messages to your friends in the Stata community. What you say is of interest only to the parties concerned: gossip or grumble away in confidence.

New members sometimes ask Stata or statistical questions through private messages to active members (meaning principally, those who answer many questions). This may be because new members are confused about the difference between questions and messages. We try as hard as possible to ensure that this doesn't happen. Messages aren't even mentioned in the FAQ Advice, which all members are asked to read before posting.

Much of the benefit of a forum with publicly visible threads is that discussions may be of interest to quite different people. That benefit is lost if a question is posted in a private message. Even more important, a public thread is visible to many people and may get different answers, less subject to the caprice of who is watching the forum and who is busy, asleep, or away from the office.

Hence if you are new to Statalist and want to ask something, use whichever forum is best suited for your question. Almost always, this will be the General forum.

3. Why do we ask for full real names?

Executive summary: We ask that you use your full real name here, such as Florence Nightingale or Prasanta C. Mahalanobis. This section explains why. Asking this is a request, and not a rule.

Statalist has a long history by internet standards, going back to its origin in 1994 as an email-based listserver. At that time, people were identifiable through their personal names and workplace affiliations.

Using full real names, most usually given names and family names, is thus a longstanding tradition on Statalist. We request that you continue this tradition. This is a request, and not a rule, but many members feel strongly about it. If you depart visibly from this practice, you may get gentle peer pressure to consider changing your name.

The practice of full real names is intended positively. The most active members all use their real names. In many cases, they will refer to their own Stata work (programs, papers, books or other resources) as likely to help you understand or solve your problem. If you stick with Statalist, you will quickly learn who is who and whose posts are helpful to you. You will have an enhanced sense of not just joining, but more importantly benefiting from the Stata community.

Similarly, full real names help to promote polite and professional exchanges. We have all encountered places on the internet where nasty, rude or even hateful comments are par for the course. Statalist will not tolerate posts with such material. It is entirely possible that you are confused or wrong or on unsafe ground in your Stata or statistical work, and experienced members are likely to be candid in explaining where they think you are misunderstanding. But the code of practice is to explain the error, not to flame the person. Polite and professional is a principle for everybody, from the most experienced people to the newest member.

There is no social recommendation without some downside. Clean water for everybody is a positive, but it's more expensive than the alternative. Similarly, what if you have absolutely no intention ever to be rude or impolite, but just want to ask a learner's question without embarrassment? It's the same request, nevertheless. We all know forums where the idle and the clueless try to outsource their work to the internet, even to the extent of posting their homework or expecting others to provide lengthy personal tutorials or to write code for entire projects. That's not you, naturally, but you will not benefit if there is a large fraction of posts from people who do not even try to learn Stata or use the documentation. Full real names give an incentive not to be seen to ask a really lazy question.

4. Homework

Executive summary: Please do not post homework questions, and please ignore any that are posted.

By `homework' we mean here any coursework assignments for a formal course or module on which you are registered at a university or other institution and for which you will be graded.

There is a grey area here, and members may want to draw the line in slightly different places.

After all, most questions here concern research that will be written up in dissertations, theses, papers, books, or reports. But it is part of a widespread research culture that almost everybody consults others at some point and draws upon their general or specific advice, including -- in the case of Statalist -- Stata code (even new programs posted) and concrete suggestions about data management, data analysis, and graphics.

However, coursework that will be graded raises some very different issues. To start at the sharp end, many institutions have strict rules about plagiarism and collusion. So, consulting others and receiving help from others may place students in difficult situations, with very possible serious risk to their grades and their careers. It is thus not at all in students' best interests.

Most of all, homework is in essence set as fair challenges to students with the expectation that they can work their own way towards answers and will benefit from doing so. All of us have been students at some point, and many of us are academics with teaching roles. Long-term members here tend to agree strongly that the ethos of being helpful stops short of providing help on whatever is obviously homework. Institutions will have their own support rules and set-ups (faculty office hours, teaching assistants, whatever), but out-sourcing homework support to internet forums is not part of any policy we wish to support.

Any policy should be practical as well as founded on respected principles. Clearly, if someone asks a specific question arising from their homework, we often will not know how it arises, and the story ends there. But the main point here is to underline why many members will explicitly decline to support obvious homework and why requests for help on homework will often be ignored. No one can or will forbid anyone else from doing that, but we request that homework questions not be posted and not be answered.