# RE: Weighted Statistics with Missings

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/re-weighted-statistics-with-missings/107502>\
**Category:** Statistics\
**Tags:** dataframes\
**Created:** [December 12, 2023, 2:45pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/re-weighted-statistics-with-missings/107502 "2023-12-12T14:45:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![adienes](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/adienes/32/37459_2.png) [@adienes](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/adienes)\
**Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 3:01pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/re-weighted-statistics-with-missings/107502/4 "2023-12-12T15:01:49Z")

</div>

> [@gaspardelanuit](#):
>
> `cumbersome syntax is not robust and does not give the intended results in this case`

good summary. my takeaway from [that thread](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-are-missing-values-not-ignored-by-default/106756) is that not much is likely to change unfortunately

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/re-weighted-statistics-with-missings/107502)._