Junk Charts

Lacking buzz

Nielsen, they of the ratings, is roughing it in the information age.  When they announced on-line tracking tools, Wired quipped: "It's looking like online video policing companies will have to make room for another deputy."  Last year, cable companies revolted over a service measuring the effectiveness of commercials.

Via the Data Mining blog, I learnt about yet another new on-line offering, called "Hey! Nielsen" for obscure reasons.  (Perhaps Hey! Nielsen is the new Yahoo! !)

The site is an enigma wrapped in a mystery.  The official description says:

Hey! Nielsen is the place to make a name for yourself while trading opinions on TV, movies, music, personalities, web sites and more.

How does one "trade" opinions?

According to the FAQ, the "Hey! Nielsen" score, the cornerstone of the site, is:

a real-time indicator of a topic's impact and value and you play a major role. As the site evolves and users submit their opinions and commentary, the score will rise or fall based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, user opinions, news coverage, and raw data from our sister sites Billboard.com, HollywoodReporter.com, and BlogPulse.com.

Sounds like a product aimed at marketers to help them track public opinion but offering little control over sampling. 

The "Hey! Nielsen" buzz chart (below) captures the change in "Hey! Nielsen" score over time.

This chart is an unfortunate case of flipping background into foreground.  What grabs our attention are those hideous white circles with numbers in them.  The legend explains that these are the daily numbers of opinions on the subject, in other words, the daily sample sizes.  As they stand now (with the site still in beta), they serve to expose the low level of participation, leading to small sample sizes, and irrelevance.  But what when the site became super-popular, would the circles say 56234, 19245, 90257, etc.?  Why would visitors care about daily sample sizes anyway?  Mousing over these circles reveal text but in most cases, they are blocked by neighboring white circles.

In the meantime, the circles obscure the line which shows the trend in the "Hey! Nielsen" score over time.  This chart reminds me of that Google toy known as Google Trends.  The Googlers provide no vertical scale so the graphs are unreadable.  "Hey! Nielsen"ers provide a vertical scale -- kind of -- but the graphs are still meaningless: what does a score of 881 mean?  how about 724?  what is the maximum score?  what is the minimum?  Beware numbers without context.

The vertical axis does start from zero but has an odd spacing of tick labels. The gridlines are distracting and serve no purpose.  The orange area under the curve also makes little sense.

We look forward to seeing version 2.0.

 

The eyeball test

This set of graphs was used by the NYT to discuss changes in U.S.  spending patterns over time.  For this post, I am focusing on the bottom left and bottom right graphs.  One shows spending on energy as a percent of GDP; the other, on "nonresidential structures" (aka, commercial buildings).

At first glance, spending on energy and that on commercial buildings look very similar in shape (see above or below left).  Alas, this "eyeball test" doesn't work very well with time series data.  Lets investigate further.

"Standardizing" the data (above right) tells us whether the swings are unusual or not in the history of the data.  So in the 1980s, commerical building spend spiked to more than three times the standard deviation above the historical average.  Generally speaking, the standardized unit of 3 is taken to mean highly unusual. 

Notice that the peaks of the left graph had equal heights but on the right graph, energy spending peaked only above two while commerical building spend rose above three.  This is because energy spending has been more volatile historically so it takes larger jumps (or plunges) to count as "unusual" movements.  This information is hidden in the unstandardized version.

Further, since we are concerned with long-term trends, lets take a look at five-year moving averages (below right): in other words, each time point is the average of the preceding five years worth of data. 

The fluctuations have been smoothed out and the peaks are no longer as high.  Glancing at this chart, we may still conclude that the spending patterns are quite similar -- especially in the period prior to 1995.

But is that really the case?  Zooming in on the 1980s, we may mistakenly think the two lines are "close together" if our eyes read the horizontal distance and/or area between the curves, rather than focusing on the vertical distance.  The arrows on the bottom left chart depict this difference.  To make things clearer, the bottom right chart plots the vertical distances between the two lines.

Observe that the difference expanded to above 1 unit in the late 1980s.  A difference of one unit is very large in the standardized scale (of "unusualness") since 0 is business as usual and 3 is "highly unusual".

Eyeballing the two time series would lead us to believe that the two series are similar but we run the risk of underestimating the differences as illustrated here.

Source: "Auto Sector's role Dwindles, and Spending Suffers", New York Times, Nov 3 2007.

Points of comparison

In light of the current housing crisis, arising from mortgage defaults, I pulled this graphic from a Jan 2007 opinion piece that plotted historical default rates of mortgages.  Notice the high degree of stretching on the vertical axis that exaggerates the volatility: essentially, the annual delinquency rate ranged from 1.75% to 2.65% during the last six years or so.  One might be forgiven to think that a 2% default rate is quite acceptable.

Compare the above chart to the pair that showed up in the NYT in Oct 2007 (see right).  The default rates here are in the 10-20% range, very alarming indeed.

The two graphics illustrate a key issue of "aggregation" in statistical analysis.  The first graphic is super-aggregated: all types of mortgages of all ages are put together to calculate each year's default rate.  The second graphic hones in on subprime mortgages only.

More importantly, the second graphic presents data in "vintages".  Each line represents loans originated during a particular year (a "vintage").  This establishes comparability.  On the first chart, each point in time represents the default rate of mortgages averaged over all ages (some loans may be only a few months old; others may be 15 years old).  Since the default rate is much higher for very young mortgages than for older mortgages, such averaging hides crucial information.

Overall, the NYT graphic very effectively conveys the alarming trend of new mortgages performing much worse, especially those originated in 2007.

It can benefit from two slight edits: adding a few more years, and using vertical lines (the most critical comparisons are default rates for loans of a given age!)  Something like this...

Sources: "As Defaults Rise, Washington Worries", New York Times, Oct 16 2007; "Mounting Mortgage Credit Problems", economy.com, Jan 23 2007.

Cheers

This is an exemplary chart from the NYT Sports page.  It provides a clear, informative and exciting way to visualize how the baseball season has gone for the Mets this and last year.  It's been mostly up and not much down. 

We can observe the more subtle differences: last season was a steady rise with only two prolonged down periods; this season's curve is driven by two up periods (including right now), outside of which the record has hovered around two levels (0, +3).

Especially commendable is the judicious use of axis labels.  However, I'm not clear on how some of the labels were chosen.  For example, 14 games ahead seem to me a rather arbitrary one.

All in all, a job well done.

Source: "Not Only Yankee Fans Cheering for Week 22", New York Times, Aug 27, 2007

Gauging the water level

This set of charts covered the back page of one of New York Times' sections this weekend.

Regular readers will share my enthusiasm for the top chart.  It makes a clear, cogent case to support the article's thesis concerning the rise of bottled water.  Various renditions of this type of chart have appeared here, for example.

Specifically, the smart use of color to cluster the line objects helps interpret the trends.  Blue sets out the two primary interests.  (It's a mystery to me why the gray lines were separated into darker and lighter hues.)

The twenty-year horizon used is another nice touch. I'd remove the gridlines although they aren't too distracting here.

Sadly, the second graphic does not meet the high standard of the first.  The biggest problem concerns the red rectangle, purportedly showing how much of the bottled water was imported.  The choice of differently-sized bottles as objects makes it impossible to gauge what proportion of the total was imported.  If the rectangle was placed over 1-litre bottles instead, it would look smaller.

Source: "A Battle Between the Bottle and the Faucet", New York Times, July 15, 2007.

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

Foreground, background

Derek C. points us to this effort by a science journalist to use graphs to help "clarify the concept of climate change".  The graph on the left shows that actual greenhouse gas emissions have exceeded the level predicted by the most pessimistic climate models.  The 3D bar chart on the right examines which countries had most increased emissions since 1990.

While the bar chart contains many of Tufte's "ducks" (not sorted by percent change, 3D, color, gridlines, sufficiency, etc.), it's the left chart that can be made more powerful. 

The casual observer does not need to know which model led to which trajectory of predictions; the graph is vastly simplified, and the message much clearer in the junkart version.  (I only included the CDIAC data because I didn't locate the EIA numbers.)

The general point here is recognizing what is foreground, and what is background.  Aside from gridlines, data labels, axis labels and so on, some of the data usually constitute background material, often as in this case being used to establish comparability.

One message I got out of this chart is that these climate models have done a good job!  (Now, I have no idea if part of the curve included the training period.  It is curious that the predictions were very narrowly contained in the early 1990s.)

Source: The Island of Doubt Blog, June 6, 2007.

If we report it, it's a fact

David Leonhardt wrote in the NYT of a shocking incident of statistical abuse committed by Lou Dobbs and the CNN crew.

On several recent occasions, while commenting on the red-hot immigration issue, Lou and company remarked that "there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past".  (Leprosy is a flesh-eating disease prevalent among immigrants, particularly of Asian or Latin American origin.)

When asked about fact-checking, Lou reportedly said: "If we reported it, it's a fact."  A quick visit to the government's leprosy program web-site immediately reveals the time-series chart, shown on the left.  With annual rates at about 150 in the last 5 years or so, one is hard impressed to find the 7,000 alleged cases!

Furthermore, because this chart lacks comparability, we fail to see that 150 cases out of a population of 300 million represent a minuscule risk.

A slight downward trend is evident in the last 20 years or so; this record is even more impressive when we realize the population grew during this period.  These points can be made clearer in multivariate plots.

Source: "Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs", New York Times, May 30, 2007; U.S. National Hansen's Disease web-site.

 

Looking for survival

Daniel W of esnips has started a collection of graphics on visualizing web statistics.  The following graph is an attempt to capture the ability of the web-site to attract returning customers.

The time axis serves double duty here: it is an indication of which "cohort" the users belong to, in other words, when they signed up; it is, also, the month of returning visits.

A more typical chart used by statisticians is the survival curve.  As shown here, these are the same curves as above but having the same starting point.  Now, the time axis is interpreted as number of months after registration.  Of 100 members who registered in January, how many returned one month later, two months later, etc.

If the purpose is to evaluate the consistency of retaining customers by cohort, then this graphic is less cluttered.  I also used a fading metaphor to color the lines so that the oldest cohort (also, the longest line) is the faintest.  Line labels are best hidden, and revealed interactively when the user mouses over a line of interest.

Not sure if Daniel was plotting real data; in general, we expect a certain amount of criss-crossing.  If the data is real, then his site has seen uninterrupted improvement every month thus far.

Source: The Web Analytics Graph Collection, eSnips.

Visualizing web statistics

Tim inquired about:

how to create an elegant graph for Web visitor traffic statistics that shows both how many views a page gets and then how many people click that page to go further ("conversion rate"). Part of the problem is that conversion rates vary from, say, .3% to 50% (a wide range).

Lets work with this sample data set.  I ordered it from highest to lowest click rate, which is the primary metric of interest.  The number of page views is of interest too as sometimes rarely-visited pages may have high click rates.

At this point, it's important to know the context.  Specifically, who controls the allocation of pages? Did the data come from a randomized experiment? Or did they get a self-selected sample (e.g. web surfers deciding which section of the site to visit)?

The first construct I tried is the "lift curve" often used in marketing.  It's the same thing as the Lorenz curve used by demographers but interpreted differently.  Here, we see that Guitar pages accounted for 26% of the page views but 37% of the clicks; House pages accounted for an incremental 44% of the pages and 59% of the clicks; etc.  The relative click rates are immediately clear from the steepness of the line segments.  The lift curve is appropriate for the self-selected case, in which we can take the allocation of page views as fixed.

If the allocation of page views is a decision to be made, then it doesn't make much sense to accumulate page views.  The second construct is the "scatter plot" of % clicks versus % page views.  The steepness of the line through the origin helps us compare the click rates.  Bicycles is clearly inferior in generating clicks.

Both these constructs are highly efficient; adding new data does not expand the chart at all.

Keen readers will observe that the slope of the line is not the click rate but rather a click rate index (relative to the overall click rate).  This means that any data point above the diagonal has above-average click rate.