I've stopped using box plots (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#141

Post by ajuc » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:04 PM UTC

rzmmm wrote: post #67

ozyschmozy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are very real use cases for box plots, The author argues otherwise, can you give an example of a use case where box plots would be preferable to the alternatives the author suggests?

Often people are interested in exact quantitative statistics like IQR, median, top/bottom deciles which are commonly represented in box plots. The alternatives are visually simpler but they contain less quantitative information.

If you want quantititive information it's better to use a table anyway - precisely because it doesn't mislead you about the internal distribution.

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#142

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:10 PM UTC

ncruces wrote: post #137

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? I have a perfect grasp of these things. As I said, half is in the shape area. You must've missed that. Also, that IS his mistake, it's literally the first thing in the post. And this stuff isn't hard or hard to teach _at all_ has long as you're at least 5.

This thread started with bdjsiqoocwk , who wrote: > You don't know where the rest are. This is wrong, period. And the fact it's wrong is pretty much the entire point of the article. Are bdjsiqoocwk and lkdfjlkdfjlg the same poster? Please don't pick a needless fight.

[flagged]

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#143

Post by inSenCite » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:12 PM UTC

been in love with violin plots

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#144

Post by vehemenz » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:33 PM UTC

sigmoid10 wrote: post #12

>box plots always make distributions look bell shaped I feel like this is where the confusion stems from for the author and everyone else here. Box plots don't make anything bell shaped (they don't change the distribution), they assume that your data follows a bell/gaussian shape. This is correct in cases where the central limit theorem can be applied (which is almost everywhere) - but when that is not the case, the…

The argument is more about the relation between the visualization and the audience, not the data and the visualization. I see a lot of commenters missing this point.

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#145

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:36 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #113

blueflow wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do that in your paper, you better write next to the graph that you did that.

Arguing that nobody who might be professionally expected to look at a box plot can be reasonably expected to understand how box plots are defined doesn't make a compelling case that using them is a good idea.

It is actually a fascinating argument that shows how little of what is being decided is based on actual data ( or at least our understanding of it ), but rather that data visualization is being used to push already pre-approved decisions with data being used merely as a 'for' argument.

I agree that if there is an indication that if most professionals don't really know what boxplot is supposed communicate, maybe it should not be used.

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#146

Post by j_bum » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

mkl wrote: post #21

The only advantage box plots had is that they can be drawn by hand. Now that computers are ubiquitous this is no longer valuable. Violin plots and bee swarm plots are better. Jittered strip plots can be okay if you're careful to avoid saturation (or more points added in the saturated region will disappear as they can't make it any darker).

I disagree about violin plots being better.

Here is a great rant (borderline lecture) from Angela Collier on why they aren’t [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/_0QMKFzW9fw?si=86mRAZRnFCBfSzw0

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#147

Post by chefandy » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:46 PM UTC

Just like anything else in design, the first question should be "how can I convey this most clearly to the audience I'm addressing" not "hmm, I wonder if there's are any problems the technique I chose because it's what everyone seems to use for this." Use the right tool for the job. There's even a good chance that juxtaposing these elements differently or adding another element could clear this up entirely.

This is why it's good to have a really competent visual designer around. Their sole purpose is visual communication, and that very much includes dealing with the subconscious connotations and unintended messages hidden within data visualizations. Yes, you've probably encountered designers that would not be good at that, you imagine. You've also probably encountered developers that would not be good at the sort of data munging that scientists, et al do; that doesn't mean developers, generally, aren't best equipped to handle the related coding problems.

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#148

Post by cb321 » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:49 PM UTC

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #74

I always find new types of plots very interesting. Is there a nice resource showing all the common types of plots, when to use them, alternatives, code etc?

The @amelius sibling has nice links to "graphics" choices, but I feel like the overall topic of the original article and this comment thread is more about the interaction of that with "statistical choices" as per my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40766618) pointing to plots you might like to peruse.

For example, though the final example in the reference there is graphically "only" shading the "outer band" darker than the inner alpha-blended region, this seems important statistically/visualization-wise since the unknown true parent distribution/ensemble samples are, well, sampled from need only be any monotonic curve within the whole region.. (not even differentiable if mixed discrete-continuous values may happen).

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#149

Post by DonsDiscountGas » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 2:04 PM UTC

iainmerrick wrote: post #130

Lots of people defending box plots here -- a lot more than I expected! What I don't see is anyone saying "box plots are useful because they're the best kind of chart for [specific use case]". I can't off-hand think of any situation where I'd rather see a box plot than a strip plot or violin plot. When and why would you want to summarise the data so coarsely and visualize it so un-intuitively?

Violin plots are massively overhyped, IMHO. If your data is simple and unimodal, use a boxplot. If the distribution is more complicated and you need some detail, use a histogram or a ridge plot. Violin plots are never the best option; they're curvy so a little more pretty but don't do a good job of conveying information.

Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)

#150

Post by pxx » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 2:10 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #138

commathingy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exponential distribution (modal value 0) is not bell shaped. If you don't like it's range of non-negative, then take some smooth mollification

And the smooth mollification will look like...?

in the simplest case... just mirror it (some call this a Laplace distribution). if you don't like how it's not differentiable at the mode there are further smoothings (see, e.g., the wikipedia article for this distribution) but this simple construction is continuous.