[Babase] Re: Enhancements to Ranker
kfenn
kfenn at princeton.edu
Tue Jan 8 11:43:22 EST 2008
> I think it is definitely the case that the old ranker loaded them in
> the previous months rank order. As I have never needed to actually
> create matrices, Susan, Tabby, do either of you have any input on
> whether it would be better to have it automatically load previous
> rankings, or to load alphabetically and then have the explicit step to
> ask it to order the individuals according to the previous months
> ranking? From what I know of the process, I don't forsee there ever
> being a time when we won't want the matrices ordered according to the
> previous month's ranking, but like I said, I haven't run enough of
> these myself to know whether those circumstances would present
> themselves that we would want them listed alphabetically, or how much
> it would slow down the process to have to reorder them each time.
I don't forsee a time when we would use the alphabetical listing for
ranks. However, if the program can run the extra step quickly, in
theory, I don't have a problem with the initial alphabetical listing
because 1) it's a good reminder that we need to think about/specify the
rank order that seeds that matrix 2) there may be a time when its
useful to run the matrix in alphabetical order for sname proofing purposes.
But I haven't used the program yet, so I reserve judgement.
>> Back to your example of NET. I think NET should shown as a column
>> header even
>> though he didn't participate in any interaction, because the order of
>> column headers
>> is what determines the current ranking. If we omit NET from the
>> headers, we wouldn't
>> have any way to specify how NET is ranked relative to the others.
>>
> This is totally true. My confusion was with the two different date
> types, which created the issue of NET vs no NET. In the case that an
> individual is in the group but doesn't interact (which is extremely
> common) we definitely want his rank. We just don't want him in the
> ranking if he isn't in the group at all.
I agree we don't want absent individuals to show up in a matrix as if
they are present, but not interacting. In old RANKER, new individuals
showed up with an asterisk next to their snames. I know females have
dropped out of the matrix as they died, but I don't know what
programming mechanism controlled this. Was it simply that they had no
interactions that month with ANYONE, or was there a check against the
census table? Karl, do you know?
Tabby
Tabby Fenn
Research Assistant
Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
401 Guyot Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
609 258-6898 (Ph)
609 258-2712 (Fx)
More information about the Babase
mailing list