Junk Charts

On the bubble

A couple of you noticed this table of bubbles in the Times, and asked what I think of it.  Dustin J suggested that this could be considered a decent application of bubble charts.  I agree, with some reservations.

The data set is the best thing about this chart.  The riches that lay beneath!  Many questions can be addressed, including:

• Which Presidential candidates are getting the most face time?
• Are candidates seen equally often across the stations?
• Are there differences between network and cable stations in terms of total face time?  In terms of individual face time?
• Are there Democratic/Republican leanings by station?  by type of station?

The intrepid can even build a regression out of it.

The bubble chart contains answers to all those questions but nothing jumps out. Okay, it's easy to see the station that gives each candidate the most face time.  Anything else requires moderate to a lot of effort.  Here's the junkart version.

The list of things done to the data is long:

• Candidates are grouped together by party
• Candidates within each party are arranged in order of decreasing maximum face time
• Stations are arranged by increasing total face time, this order happens to retain the network vs cable divide
• A heat map construct is used instead of bubbles: the legend is missing but there are four hues for each color: darkest = top 10%; medium = 10th - 50th percentile; light = bottom 50th percentile excepting zeroes; white = no face time.  In raw numbers, 90th percentile = 81 minutes, 50th percentile = 19 minutes.
• The only data shown are the totals by candidate and totals by station.
• On the right margin are little bar charts that show the distribution of network/cable for each candidate.
• On the bottom margin are little column charts showing the distribution of party affiliation by station.

A few observations follow:

• Cable stations gave much more face time to the candidates in general.  Fox, no surprise, gives Republicans 85% of its time while all the others were roughly equal.
• The more mainstream the candidate, the balanced was the time spent on networks versus cable.  John McCain (R), Hillary Clinton (D) and John Edwards (D) had the highest proportion of network time.
• More time is not necessarily good since McCain was the clear winner but his campaign is struggling

Source: "Tracking Face Time", New York Times, August 1, 2007.

Transgender trends

One of the many gratifications of blogging is to connect with others who have similar interests; so it has been fantastic to receive user submissions (though admittedly I don't check my inbox frequently enough).  The thoughtfulness of these nominations continues to impress me.

Evan sent in 254 charts he created after looking at the post on baby names.  An example is shown on the right. 

He is particularly interested in the question of names that are given to both males and females. 

For example, the bottom chart shows that Jordan is primarily a male name, and saw a period of growth followed by decline, although the decline has been more severe on the male side than the female side. 

It's a nice touch to label the most recent year.  I'd also label the values for the most recent year on the axes.

Evan also offers the following solution to the scaling problem we identified in the original WSJ chart:

My solution was just to put two charts on each chart. One at a fixed scale for every chart to give a sense of size and one at a variable scale to better show the shape of the plot.

In other words, for less popular names, the top chart would look much more compressed.

There are many more charts to sift through on his site.  Evan welcomes suggestions.

Noisy subways

This NYC subway report is impossible to read.

However, it is very difficult to find a good way to show the information.  In fact, the data contained very little of that.  Curiously, the ratings are very dispersed so that each line is graded high on some category and low on others.  Here's one view of it:

I have grouped the subway lines together (A/C/E, 4/5/6, etc.).  The metrics are plotted left to right in the same order as in the original.  Is it all noise and no signal?

(I just realized the vertical axis is reversed: best ratings are at the bottom, worst ratings at the top.  Doesn't matter anyway since I can't see any patterns.)

Source: "No. 1 Train is Rated Highest by Commuter Advocates", New York Times, July 24 2007.

PS. Two contributions from readers.  Still looking for insight from this data...

Baby names and success

While we speak of baby names, David F. nominates this set of 6 charts from WSJ.  Compare this with Wattenberg's names voyager, and the benefit of interactive graphics is immediately evident.

In David's words:

They show graphs of six different names, but the two on the bottom use a dramatically different scale (from 1st to ~20th, instead of from 1st to 1000th). The introductory text notes the difference, but it is still a shock.

We like the use of "small multiples" but their impact is compromised if we don't keep the background material constant so that readers can compare between charts.  By having  different scales, the message was distorted: Mary has had a much larger drop than David, and it's easily missed in these charts.

Lines should take the place of areas which carry scant meaning in this context.

The use of blue and red is a nice touch but dovetailing the male and female charts strikes us as excessive fun.  It would have been clearer to give the sons and the daughters their own columns.

The article itself relates the anguish of modern parents in naming their babies.  Much of this angst can be traced to serious econometric studies that claim to have found cause-and-effect relationships between someone's name and their eventual success in life.  Some of this research was highlighted in Freakonomics, for example.  My stance is that all such studies are dubious, there being innumerable confounding factors (socio-economic, genetic, cultural, luck, etc. etc.).  In addition, the measured response can range from "happiness" to income to many other metrics.  The danger of finding something because one looks hard enough is very real.  We don't currently have tools powerful enough to substantiate this sort of studies.

Source: "The Baby-Name Business", Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2007

Peripherals 2

In terms of interactive charting, Google Finance did much more than hide the legend.  In their main stock price chart, they used a number of neat features.

This chart effectively conveys a huge amount of information in a small space.  The bottom strip which shows relative prices for the past two years provides context to interpret the five-day movement shown in the main chart area.  I prefer to see a scale on the bottom strip as well. 

The sliding scrollbar can be dragged to show historical data.  Besides, the width of the window shown in the main area can be controlled.  For instance:

Without any effort, we are now looking at a 3-month chart for Q2 2006.  Notice the summary statistic on the top right corner also morphed.  The axis scale changed, and it never did start from zero to begin with.  (This shortcoming is alleviated by the profile chart in the bottom strip.)

Further, by placing the cursor in the chart area, we can highlight a particular day: a dot appeared on the price curve, the volume on that day was highlighted, and the text on the top right switched.  That text is what we typically place inside the chart area as a "data label".  The effect of moving it to the corner is similar to hiding the legend: it makes the graph more legible and provides space for longer descriptions.  As we move the cursor from left to right, the graph dynamically adapts.  Marvellous!

It may not be obvious the amount of data processing that has to take place to implement these sorts of features. I don't have space to address the data issue but maybe some of our readers can comment on it. 

Illusory disparity

The WSJ published a chart with the cheeky title of "Rich Get Richer" (reminiscent of the Economist).  The underlying data concerned one-, three- and ten-year returns for the buyout fund category.  For each return class, the overall mean and the means for the top and bottom 25% funds were depicted.

I won't go into the relevance of the title as I simply could not figure out how it connected with the data.  The following shows the original chart side by side with the junkart version.



Improvements include:

• Lines show the comparisons with a minimum of fuss compared with colored bars
• The overall mean return is placed in the middle of each line segment where it belongs, instead of being the first column
• The axis label, "annualized return", tells readers what is the performance measure
• Adding the word "funds" to "top quartile" and "bottom quartile" removes the possible confusion that those represent individual returns of the funds ranked at 25th and 75th percentiles, rather than the average returns of the bottom 25% and top 25% of funds
• The linear construct paints the correct picture that individual fund returns fall into a continuum

(Thanks to my students for some of these points.)

Reference: Wall Street Journal, Mar 3-4 2007.

Dot com bubbles

Thanks to Dustin J for the pointer as well as the title of this post.  Dotcom bubbles is the most appropriate name for this overblown chart (featured as the "chart of the day" here).

The chart has no title or axis labels so only the diligent reader will figure out that the data consist of acquisition value of several high-profile Internet companies in the past three years.

There are less data than it seems.  Both the heights and the areas of the bubbles indicate the same thing, the deal values.  If we are supposed to see a trend, we are not finding it.

Most of these deals are not directly comparable anyway.  Webex and Ironport are infrastructure type companies with real business models.  Skype is a phone service.  Ask Jeeves is not a leader in its own space. Myspace and YouTube are traffic sites.

Reference: "Chart of the Day: Web deals", Valleywag, Mar 15 2007.

Going out on a limb

Earlier in the month, Prof. Gelman linked to Brandon's fascinating analysis of on-line weather forecasting accuracy.  I have done some additional analysis of the data and the result can be visualized as follows.

I'll concentrate my comments on three observations:

• CNN was the clear winner in forecasting accuracy during this period based on two criteria: its median error in forecasting daily lows, and its median error in forecasting daily highs.  Moreover, both the median errors were zero, which gives us confidence about its accuracy.  The Weather Channel (TWC) and Intellicast (INT) were not far behind.
• The ability to forecast highs was better across the board than that of forecasting lows (except BBC).  I am not sure why this should be so.
  
• Overall, our weather forecasters were much too risk-averse.  Notice that the errors were heavily biased in the lower left quadrant.  A negative error on low temperatures means predicted low is higher than actual low; a negative error on high temperatures means predicted high is lower than actual high.  Taking these together, we observe that the range of actual temperatures have generally been larger than the range of predicted temperatures!  No one was willing to go out on a limb, so to speak, to forecast extremes.

Actually, I believe this inability or unwillingness to forecast extreme values is endemic to all forecasting methodologies.

Before closing, I mention that the graph was based on a subset of Brandon's data.  I only considered same-day forecasts, did not consider Unisys (because they didn't provide forecasts for lows), and also noted that there might be bias since there were breaks in the time series.  Also, I retained the sign information and didn't take absolute values as Brandon did.

Convenience charting

Statisticians have long riled against "convenience sampling", that is, the practice of selecting samples based on what's easily available, not at random.  Say picking your friends.

Dustin J sent in this example of what can only be called "convenience charting".  Dustin said he had no clue what this chart is saying, and I am not surprised. 

The chart plots a statistical object known as the "survival function".  It is likely that "survival analysis" was done, after which the chart creator  picked up the resulting statistical object and dumped it onto this "convenience chart".

If we take the top line on the "child survival" graph, it shows the probability of one child surviving up to a certain age, if the child belonged to a family with 1-3 kids.  The chance is about 92.5% that the child will survive through age 2, and 88% that the child will survive through age 18.  The difference between those percentages is due to the chance that the child may die between ages 2 and 18.

A slight transformation of the data will make this point much clearer.  What is the probability of a child dying by a certain age?  Using the example, a child has 12% chance to die by age 18, and 7.5% chance of dying between ages 0-2.

The junkart chart depicts this probability.  (I reverse-engineered the data which explains why the distances between the line segments look strange.)

What this chart doesn't address is how we are to interpret the probability of "a child dying" in a family with more than one child.  Is it a random child dying?  At least one child dying?  Exactly one child dying (the other X-1 surviving)? 

The original chart also committed a number of standard errors.  The child survival function represent probabilities, not percentages.  The third category should be 8-11 kids, not 7-11.  If we are picky, then we would also like to see "confidence intervals" because there must have been many fewer families in the 12+ sample than the 1-3 sample.  In the second chart (which I don't have space to discuss), some data labels are missing, which indicates a presumption that all readers have seen the first chart.

Reference:  "Child, Parents Drive Each Other to Early Graves", Washington Post, Jan 14, 2007. 

Losing count of Doomsday

The Doomsday Clock is making the news today: because of the  growing nuclear threat and continued denial of global warming, scientists say we are "five minutes from Doomsday".

This graph traces the movement of the clock's hand over the last few decades.  (I think it appeared on the New York Times website but I cannot find it now.)

The little tickmarks are superfluous, and the thin white borders between red columns serve only to make us dizzy. As shown below, a line chart is much easier on the eyes.

Now, a question for the scientists: Why the clock analogy?  Does it reflect a kind of fatalism that we can never be more than 60 minutes away from Armageddon?  How many minutes were we from Doomsday two hours ago?