it labels the column 'percent'; it's not a percent

[daaronr]

Feature requests

The column 'percent' should be called 'share' instead (or it should auto-multiply by 100)

Bug reports

Brief description of the problem

mtcars %>% tabyl(cyl)

outputs

 cyl  n percent
   4 11 0.34375
   6  7 0.21875
   8 14 0.43750

But 'percents' add up to 100, while these add up to 1.

IMO it should output

 cyl  n share
   4 11 0.34375
   6  7 0.21875
   8 14 0.43750

or

cyl  n percent
4 11  34.375
6  7  21.875
8 14  43.750

[jzadra]

"percent" means per 100. A percent is the fraction of a value divided by 100. IE 45% is 45 per 100, or 45/100, which is .45.

mtcars %>% 
   tabyl(cyl) %>% 
   adorn_pct_formatting()

cyl  n percent
   4 11   34.4%
   6  7   21.9%
   8 14   43.8%

[daaronr]

I agree it is 'per hundred' ... but you need to represent the 'number per hundred' i.e., '57 per hundred' ... not actually do that division. I think my way is the standard conventional way. But if you disagree, it's not a big deal, I can make an adaptation of your function. (and thanks for the great tools) For one-way tables I have ``` tabyl_ow <- function(df, var) { df %>% tabyl({{var}}) %>% mutate(percent = 100*percent) %>% } ``` For multi-way tables with column and row percentage adornments I'm sure there's a way to make this adjustment

…

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:14 PM Jonathan Zadra ***@***.***> wrote: "percent" means per 100. A percent is the fraction of a value divided by 100. IE 45% is 45 per 100, or 45/100, which is .45. mtcars %>% tabyl(cyl) %>% adorn_pct_formatting() cyl n percent 4 11 34.4% 6 7 21.9% 8 14 43.8% — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#470 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6ZCMDRNZXIAZVFQXQ25ZDUXHLFPANCNFSM5MQVBHZQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jzadra]

My understanding is that "57 per hundred" is the same as 57%. The % means "per hundred".

If you don't have the "%" symbol after the number, the correct way to represent it is as the fraction.

57% is just another way of writing 57/100.

If you take the % away from 57%, it's the same as taking the 100 away from 57/100. And 57/100 = .57 (you've removed the "/100" by doing the math).

[daaronr]

But it has the word 'percent' the top of the column. So it implies the numbers in the column are 'numbers per hundred'.

…

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:41 PM Jonathan Zadra ***@***.***> wrote: My understanding is that "57 per hundred" is the same as 57%. The % means "per hundred". If you don't have the "%" symbol after the number, the correct way to represent it is as the fraction. 57% is just another way of writing 57/100. If you take the % away from 57%, it's the same as taking the 100 away from 57/100. And 57/100 = .57 (you've removed the "/100" by doing the math). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#470 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6ZCME3BBE5ZT4FDWOXVV3UXHOLHANCNFSM5MQVBHZQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jzadra]

Hmm. Yeah I see what you are saying. But regardless it would be a major breaking change to rename that column so I think you're on the right track with just modifying a function as you did.

[daaronr]

OK, it works for me. If you feel so inclined, I would suggest that the fix multiplies the thing by 100 if possible, or maybe gives the user an option to choose how they want to display percentages.

…

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 7:23 PM Jonathan Zadra ***@***.***> wrote: Hmm. Yeah I see what you are saying. But regardless it would be a major breaking change to rename that column so I think you're on the right track with just modifying a function as you did. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#470 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6ZCMHNGYQPW7SO6JNX46DUXH2JTANCNFSM5MQVBHZQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sfirke]

I'm glad you like the package! You're correct and not the first person to suggest this. This has been discussed and unfortunately at this point I think the cost of fixing this outweighs the benefits. See #300 for more discussion.