graphspergers - the graphs and quantitative visualization thread

thanks to ilxor max for pointing this out it's really amazing

http://exp.lore.com/post/28848285377/a-tragedy-of-priorities-the-most-appalling

http://columbiadatascience.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/photo-9.jpg

???

Those three circles shouldn't overlap at all?

Or at most the bottom circle should be inside the right circle.

i never realized there was such an overlap between people who work out and people who don't!

maybe that includes people who think they're working out, but it's controversial among people that really do work out. e.g., people who walk to work and think of that as working out since other people will walk a mile after work in sweatpants and count THAT as working out. that probably accounts for the overlap. and then you add in the people who are asleep and dreaming that they would work out if it weren't all hard and stuff (these people, when awake, actually do work out, or think they're working out, but it's controversial). and where all three of those sets meet - all of those people use the speck iPhone case.

case closed.

smh @ that

vennsanity

http://andrewgelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/n.png

http://i48.tinypic.com/106a44o.png

awesome! can we get a version without truncated board titles?

or rather, more distinguishably truncated?

do the circles represent the # of threads, # of posts, bandwidth, or something else?

No! (xpost)

Not because I don't want to, but I don't know how to do it.

Z S - it's number of posts.

However, here is one excluding ILM and ILE, which reveals more:

http://i45.tinypic.com/5po0ls.png

thx boo <3

one last question, sorry keith - is this from the beginning of ILX, or only the last year or so?

Since day one.

Ask A Drunk's showing made the time frame all-too-obvious to me. These days I can spit in all directions 30 days a month and never hit another drunk.

Here's a more readable one, with the "I Love" taken out:

http://i46.tinypic.com/rtnioo.png

http://i.imgur.com/l83uT8W.png

http://i.imgur.com/6QTxTcS.png

So this thing

http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/how-americans-die.html

knocked my fucking socks off.

also wow how have i never seen this thread

on the less impressive end of the spectrum: https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/455966095384793088

omg

btw this seems like a good thread for horace "chartboy" dediu's new show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab7yxU7lNHg

fuck everything btw

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BldfNyeIYAA7lAl.jpg

just died @ that gun deaths graph. add it to the data pool.

you may want to sit down for this. i've uncovered something disturbing, something that could have a substantial effect on the way that you'll experience ILX. and somehow, it all has to do with ME. what are the chances holy shit, this is exciting.

i was doing my routine morning data analysis on my thread posting history when i decided to "dig deeper" into the data and create some "data visualizations", aka charts. here's a line graph showing the number of threads i've posted over my many years on ilx (many more years than any other ilx poster):

http://i.imgur.com/ibvmKV5.png

note that for 2014 i took the number of threads i created in the first 6 months (15) and extrapolated that to an estimated 30 new threads for the entire year.

let's "dig deep" into the data and create a linear trendline:

http://i.imgur.com/3gZwbIn.png

science projects that i'll post 29 new threads in 2015. but let's dig deep into the data and see what polynomial theory has to say:

http://i.imgur.com/LdSxdPh.png

the second order of polyscience suggests that my output will decline to a similar degree, to around 28 threads in 2015. but what if we "dig deep" into the data and take it to the 3rd order? what then?

http://i.imgur.com/nzbC5sK.png

3rd order science appears to be making a surprising prediction: 50 new threads in 2015. on the way to the store to buy arthritis ointment i program my computer to take it to the next level and take the polynomial theory to the 4th order:

http://i.imgur.com/vh1X8oi.png

42 is the prediction for 2015. finding: polynomial theory appears to create trendlines that are different depending on the order. let's dig deep and reach for the 5th polynomial order:

http://i.imgur.com/J7XMQP1.png

astonishing: the deeper you dig into the data, the fewer answers you come up with. the theoretical 5th order projection is 16 new threads created in 2015. the farther i look with my mind, the smaller i become, in terms of my ILX presence. i am disturbed but also confused and angry at science, which appears to contradict itself. as i gather the kindling to make the bonfire that will burn my books of science and polynomial theory, i remember that there is one more order that can be achieved with the proper formula: "the sixth order of polynomial order".

again, you may want to sit down for this.

knowing what was to come, i sat down and produced this:

http://i.imgur.com/ticccQk.png

i will create over 500 threads in 2015. as this is the latest data i have obtained, i know that this projection is the most accurate. i am preparing to create 1.37 threads a day in 2015, all in tribute to science and order.

this polynomial theory is blowing my gourd

i did not have to scroll down to know who posted this

it is true that there is really only one authority in polynomial theory on this board

seriously though i don't really understand why the 6th order trendline is so crazy compared to the lower orders.

i like to call this paradox the "next frontier in theoretical polyscience"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting

hmmm, yes that's an interesting theory

but it's not the one you subscribe to, professor malone?

i prefer to let the mysteries of science marinate in the sea of self-collected data for a while - eventually, the answers always rise to the top

it would be fun to fake your way onto rightwing AM radio as a "science expert"

I've been making graphs for my company for the past year or so, and with no formal training, I still feel like this newspaper is publishing the rantings of a crazy person.

For example, we used to measure net absorption rates in regular bar form, like this:

http://assets.inarkansas.com/32941/net-absorption-by-quarter.jpg

Net absorption is such a weird stat anyway - Basically how much square footage was gained or lost in a market between two quarters. It can be positive or negative. And if a shopping mall opens or a factory closes, the numbers can vary widely.

So I wanted to show how big of a difference those numbers can be sometimes and came up with this:

http://assets.inarkansas.com/49176/central-arkansas-industrial-real-estate-vacancy-553.jpg

The marks we would've used in bar formats are still there, but I represented the rates by size. The time used above was a good one since everything was positive, but if any were negative, I could've still used the space I've got and just put the zero line in the middle. Like this:

http://assets.inarkansas.com/49054/vacancy-rate-remains-flat-781.jpg

Are those too busy? Do they make any sense? What changes would you make?

I get a little lost in the woods some afternoons I'm putting these together. No one's complained yet, but hell, who knows if anyone's even looking.

Different sized circles are usually bad for data visualization, because they're easy to mess up and can be difficult to interpret.
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/01/for-data-visualization-circles-dont-cut-it.html
And also see the discussion in Nathan Yau's book Visualize This.
But circles might be pretty good to use if you're using them to represent area (or change in area) like you are. Just make sure the circles actually represent area, and you're not accidentally sizing them by radius or diameter.

Hm, I think using both circle size and the Y axis to represent net absorption might be bad, because it makes the circle sizes more difficult to compare. If you want to represent net absorption by circle size, consider taking out the Y axis and just setting all the circles on the same horizontal line.

pplains, are you trying to demonstrate that the changes are mostly capricious/random or just that they can vary widely year-to-year? from looking at these i'd guess that something happened in 2013 4Q that lead to a huge boom in both commercial + industrial sectors?

I also think different sized squares would be a more easily interpretable indicator of area, because people aren't as good at perceiving that the outer parts of a circle contain more area (the famous "biggest pizza = best deal" thing)

(Also, Dr. Malone, get one information criterion!)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/26/282132576/74-476-reasons-you-should-always-get-the-bigger-pizza

one problem with the circles (as used above) is that it can difficult to tell at a glance what the actual quantities are - is it the point at the middle of the circle? at the top edge? bottom edge? reasonable people could come to different conclusions, i think. it's really impossible to tell without labeling each of the individual circles, which you've done. but if you have to label each of the individual circles in order to communicate the quantities, then there's probably a better way to do it. also, Dan I otm about area vs radius vs diameter