Junk Charts

Knit-picking

In celebrating the recent trend by "elite" colleges to lowering the cost of education, the Times printed this chart, the top part of which is shown here.

The three colors represent different levels of aid.  Blue means "grants replace loans"; red means "free tuition"; yellow means "parents pay nothing".  The colleges are grouped by the minimum qualifying income for the blue category.

The whole effect is of a knit.  We shall call this the "knit chart".

I believe a simple data table will do the job nicely.  If any reader has other ideas, please show us your work!

A few points to note about the original:

• Ordering by the minimum income to qualify for "grants replace loans" is arbitrary, as is alphabetizing colleges within each group
• Qualifying "at any income level" should be shown on the left of "$40,000 or below" rather than to the right of $100,000.  The current order is such that qualifying level increases with income from left to right, except from $100,000 to "any income", where it falls off a cliff.
• Qualifying at any income level is better shown as a separate column on the right disconnected from the income scale.  The current configuration devalues the effort spent in making a proper income scale.
  
• Too many lines of equal length, and too few yellow and red lines to make the knit chart effective
  
• Should the graph cater to parents interested in seeing what aid they qualify for given their income level?  Or should the graph highlight the breadth of aid available at individual colleges?

Reference: "The (Yes) Low Cost of Higher Ed", New York Times, April 20 2008.

PS. The original point about the "any income level" was incorrect as pointed out by Chris below.  I have replaced that with a different issue.

PPS. Matias' version (see comments) is a superb demonstration of the power of data tables, well-applied.   It is clean and simple, and addresses both the questions pointed out in the last bullet point.  The only thing sacrificed was the visual representation of the relative size of the income requirements, which I agree is the least valuable part of the original.  As usual, many thanks to our readers for coming up with great ideas!

Progress and retrogress

Joran E. pointed to this "icky" chart he found on Clive Crooks' blog at the Atlantic. 


He ordered a "junkchart treatment", so here it comes.

First we wanted to process the triangles, dots and squares to make sense of this data.  We noted that the data came from a single year (2005) so the chart did not trace the development of the education sector over time.  But wait, it used a different route to get at the same idea.  The author compared different generations within each country to see if more and more citizens took university degrees.  So each vertical "arrow" was kind of a historical record of different generations within a country.  Under this criterion, Korea and Japan had come a long way while the US and China stagnated.

The chart is quite impossible to read as designed.  There is little reason to sort by 25-34-year-old proportion when the message concerns improvement over generations.  Besides, what about countries that apparently retrogressed?  (like Russia and Germany)

For this data, I returned to my favored bumps chart.  Here is version one.  There are two ways to read this chart: across countries, we note that most of the European states (blue) had similar profiles showing roughly a constant rate of growth.  The Asian duo of Japan and Korea (brown) had the most marked growth.  Of North America (black), Canada diverged from the US since the 35-44 generation.

Alternatively, we can focus on the change generation-over-generation.  From 55-64 to 45-54, almost all countries in this sample (except Japan) grew at the same rate.  Then between 45-54 and 35-44, the two Asian countries clearly set the pace.  The generation between 35-44 and 25-34 is most interesting: Korea has not slowed, Japan has slowed a little but still grew as fast as Canada.  A trio of European countries (Spain, Ireland, France) outpaced their neighbors.

Below I show version two.  This one combines bumps chart with small multiples.  North America, Europe and Asia/Australia are now in separate charts.  This removes clutter.

 

Ordering and grouping

The Times reported that January retail sales generally disappointed, and consumers showed a preference for discount retailers over department stores.

Taking the bar chart on the right, re-ordering by change in same-store sales, and grouping companies by type of retailer, we can present the data to match the text more closely.  The divergent performance between discount retailers and department stores is readily visible.

Reference: "Weak January dashed retailers' gift-card hopes", Feb 8 2008.

 

Sense of proportion

[I'm back from vacation.  Will provide my reaction to the responses to the Gelman challenge, and for those who have sent me email, I will work through them soon.]

The NYT commented on a trend among marketers to shift their advertising spending from so-called "measured" media like print and TV to so-called "unmeasured" media like product placements, contests, etc.  The following chart accompanied the article:

This construct is akin to a population pyramid; it's great for comparing two groups along one metric, say age groups between males and females.  Here, the two halves aren't comparable groups but two different metrics.  The main metric, that is, the proportion of unmeasured, is not directly depicted: the reader must figure out mentally how much of each bar the black part covers.  Also, the companies are sorted by unmeasured media spending but this leaves the measured spending with a jagged profile, confusing matters.

As for the little white slits on the gray bars, they are admittedly cute but it is difficult to compare the detailed breakdown between print, TV and other media among companies.

The following dot plot gives the two halves equal weight.  (Pink dots are measured, blue unmeasured.) It's not a very interesting graphic though. The sense of proportion is still missing.

I settled on a scatter plot which relates the proportion spent on unmeasured to the total amount of spending.  It appears that the largest advertisers had the lowest proportional unmeasured spend while the smallest (among the majors) had the highest.  (It's only a weak correlation: a linear fit yields only 16% R-squared.)

Source: "The New Advertising Outlet: Your Life", New York Times, Oct 14, 2007.

Structuring a chart

This chart from the NYT was intended to show how the EPA has moved the bar on vehicle mileage ratings: 2008 estimates were lower than 2007 estimates across the board, regardless of manufacturer, model and city/highway.

The chart was built from one basic component, repeated for each model.  I like the discreet gridlines (the white ticks) which enable readers to count off the mileage ratings.

The data is rich: ratings were given along three dimensions (model, year of estimate and city/highway).  Readers can benefit from a stronger guidance in where to look for the most pertinent information.  As the chart stands, it is merely a container for the data.  It fails our self-sufficiency test: all the data were printed on the chart, and the bars add little.

In the junkart version, I use knowledge of the data to structure the chart. First, noting that sedans, hybrids and trucks/SUVs/minvans have different levels of mileage ratings, I clustered the models into three groups.  Secondly, the city and highway ratings were separated into two columns as I consider the between-model comparisons more important than city-highway comparisons.  The chart is a dot plot, with a vertical tick for 2007 estimates and a dot for 2008 estimates.  It's easy to see that all dots sit to the left of vertical ticks.

More subtly, we can also see that the hybrids appeared to have been penalized more.  Or perhaps, the higher the rating, the larger the downward adjustment...

Source: "Mileage Ratings Are Still Estimates, Though Closer to Reality", New York Times, Sept 16 2007.

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.

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

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.

Peripherals 1

Like any technology, charts also come with peripherals: I'm talking about legends, data labels, grid-lines and so on.  These things typically give us the most trouble, especially with complex data sets.  The analogy is apt: one may feel inextricably knotted up like bunches of cords and wires.

Interactive graphics is a particularly elegant solution to this problem, and Google Finance has done a fantastic job leading the way.  One trick is to show the legend only when the user asks for it.  Using bar charts (on the left), Google summarizes neatly the performance of stocks within each industry sector.  The bar chart gives a sense of the dispersion which adds to the average returns printed next to them.  For example, most sectors gained on average but then about 30% of the individual stocks in most sectors actually declined on that day.  So the fact that technology stocks gained 0.48% on average doesn't necessarily mean that the two tech stocks you own gained 0.48% or gained at all.

Typically, we would put a legend on the side or at the bottom of the chart, which all be told, is an ugly duckling next to a well-executed chart.  Here, the legend is hidden behind the "What's this?" link.  The side benefit is that the legend can be as verbose as needed since it doesn't interfere with the chart.

There are a few minor things to consider:

• "What's this?" is not very informative: Why not call it a "legend" or "key"?
• The graph designer seems to think that the most important information sought by readers was the extremes, i.e. the percentage of stocks that gained/lost more than 2%.  By darkening the sides of the bar, it draws attention away from the middle which is the boundary between the gainers and the losers.  I'd like to see that boundary delineated.
• Similar to the above point, I'd sketch out a version which aligns the gainer/loser boundary to the middle so it's easy to see the balance between gainers and losers.  This version however would require more space
• I'd provide sorting by average return, and by percentage of gainers

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.