Totally different results in Qdap polarity and sentiment r about sentimentr HOT 4 CLOSED

I do not understand. You said

I initially cleaned the text (lower case, changed numbers into letters etc) and used qdap's polarity function, this found different avg polarity in the three groups (-0.5, -0.3, -0.2). I then found the sentimentr package and ran my data through that and got almost identical answers (-0.22,-0.25, -0.21).

This indicates the two algoriithms are similar?

Additionally, I would not expect sentimentr and qdap to be identical. sentimentr is an improvement on both speed and accuracy of qdap. IMO they are not comparable.

Also, a second question-should I clean + lemmatise the responses in both packages?

You might want to use some of the replace_ functions for cleaning. That's a researcher call but sentimentr makes these tools available. As far as lemmatise, this is not a requirement of either package but as a researcher you may have a reason to do so but in my experience I have never lemitized before using sentimentr.

from sentimentr.

Sorry, I don't mean that (-0.5, -0.3, -0.2) and (-0.22,-0.25, -0.21) are the same, but that (-0.22,-0.25, -0.21) are very similar while (-0.5, -0.3, -0.2) are not. The algorithms are not similar, but I'm trying to decide which to use, it sounds like sentimentr is the better package to use?

Thank you so much for your answers!

from sentimentr.

from sentimentr.

thanks!

from sentimentr.