Milestone2 Grading

[asfarlathif]

Hi Team 10,

Not all the files in your repo has been described in the README.md ( .md files) (-2)

install.package() codes have not been removed or commented out in the troubleshooting doc. (-2)

https://github.com/stat545ubc-2023/collaborative-team10/blob/7e22fabb0000846c0c66869faa76deb66cd29603/troubleshooting-2.Rmd#L54

It is year > 2000 not >= (-2)

https://github.com/stat545ubc-2023/collaborative-team10/blob/7e22fabb0000846c0c66869faa76deb66cd29603/troubleshooting-2.Rmd#L84

It is the transmute() function here not mutate() (-4)

68/78

[akim2000]

Hello @asfarlathif ,

Our group had some questions regarding us losing marks on this assignment.

1. You mentioned that not all files in the repo have been described in the README.md file (the troubleshooting.md files). However, in our Milestone 1 submission, we did not include the troubleshooting.md file in the README.md and did not get any comments on missing anything. As such, we kept it consistent and only mentioned the .rmd file for the troubleshooting 2 file as well, assuming that we would be graded the same way. We feel like if we did not lose marks in the first submission (Milestone 1) for not including .md file, we shouldn't lose it on the second one as well, OR we should have been notified in the first submission (Milestone 1) that not including the .md file in the README.md is something that we would lose marks for, as we would have definitely made the change accordingly for the second submission. Since we were graded with full marks in the first milestone, we believe that it should be graded the same way for the second milestone.

2. You mentioned that the install.package() code was not removed, but we would not be able to run this code without devtools and we felt that mentioning that you need to install it if you haven't was necessary. This is also why there still remains the # Do not run this if you already have this package installed! , to notify users that this package is necessary, but to not run the code if you already have it. We thought that this line of code was a crucial part to this milestone and assumed that mentioning to not run it via # would be enough, as there were no specific mentions to remove it.

3. The instruction wanted movie entries that "were filmed after the year 2000." We understood this statement as including the year 2000, since for example, I would say that I was born after (not before) the year 2000, even if I was born in 2000. We feel like the instruction should have mentioned more clearly about excluding the year 2000, if it wanted that "error" fixed. Since it's not that we didn't understand why the code was wrong, but understood the prompt wrong due to semantics, we feel that it is unfair for us to lose marks due to a misunderstanding of the wording of the prompt, in an R-coding class where our knowledge of R is tested, not our reading comprehension skills.

4. Lastly, as you might have seen Jacky's message on Slack, he discussed in class with Lucy about how he is allowed to use mutate(.keep="none") instead of transmute for the question, as it supersedes transmute. We feel that we should not lose marks on something that was discussed in class as being okay.

   We hope that our explanations were clear enough for you to see why we did the things the way we did. Please let us know if we are able to receive marks for these issues.

[asfarlathif]

Hi,

1. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I can now go back to m1 and regrade it if you would like. The instructions for the README structure was clear and detailed in the website.
2. You shouldn't include requirements in the script. Removing those lines should still make your rmd knit smoothly.
3. This is not the definition of after. Unfortunately, reading comprehension is a prerequisite for any course especially at 500 level.
4. Removed the deductions for that question.

Thanks!