Earlier quoted context omitted.
This I don't get, they usually look a lot nicer than other visualizations I see. What's the issue here?
Watch the video to understand her perspective on this. I don't want to spoil them for you if you like the look and once seen it's hard to unsee.
I've stopped using box plots (2021)
251–258 of 258 posts
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm honestly not sure what else to say about this besides: that's stupid. If someone is making that kind of joke and/or looking at the women in the room for validation ... how embarrassing for that childish person.
Perhaps, but (1) that's apparently what happens nevertheless and (2) to be clear, I'm just (further) answering the question about what's contained in this super long video
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#253My fundamental concern with box plots is that no one has ever shown me a single scenario in which a given insight was clearer in a box plot than it would be in a simpler chart type (i.e., strip plot, distribution heatmap, or stacked histograms). If someone can show me even a hand-crafted, cherry-picked scenario with the same data shown as a (well-designed) box plot AND a strip plot, distribution heatmap and stacked histograms, and in which a potentially useful insight is clearer in the box plot than in the other chart types, I’ll happily change my opinion. I’m still waiting for someone to show me such a scenario, though.
In the meantime, I’m not sure why one would use box plots when simpler chart types are available that say the same thing about the data or, in many cases, say more about the data (show gaps, multi-modal distributions, etc.). Even if the audience is very used to reading box plots, they’ll still find strip plots, distribution heatmaps and stacked histograms to be simpler to read (and will actually see gaps, clusters, etc.)
How do I know that other distribution chart types are simpler to read than box plots? Because I’ve taught these chart types to literally thousands of people of all skill levels all over the world. Quartiles are just inherently less intuitive than bins or, in the case of strip plots, no delimiters to understand at all.
Like I said, if someone can show me a scenario like the one that I described above, though, I’ll happily change my mind…
Before people jump all over me, I should clarify what I mean by a “potentially useful insight.” For example, “showing the interquartile range” is not an “insight” in this context, it’s an “observation” because it doesn’t point to any kind of action or conclusion, in and of itself. A potentially useful insight would be something like, “The employee salaries in Company A are generally higher than those in Company B.” or “Most people make close to $80K in Company A, but the salaries are much more spread out in Company B.” Basically, an “insight” in this context is a piece of information that would point directly to some kind of action or conclusion.
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#254No you shouldn’t stop using box plots. You should use them for when they are appropriate - showing location and spread. And not shape! There’s absolutely no information on modality or distribution presented past quartiles and limits. They are mostly useful for comparing batches not analysing an individual batch. The author doesn’t know what they are talking about and is telling people as if they do. If he read any of…
> No you shouldn’t stop using box plots. You should use them for when they are appropriate Yes, the author is aware of that. They even stated so: > Despite making more visual sense than box plots, I still wouldn’t recommend these design concepts or box plots in most situations because… Seems a few people missed the "in most situations" part. He's saying he stopped using them for whatever reasons because it isn't work…
"Other reviewers suggested that the conclusion [of this article] should be that box plots are a useful chart type, but only for statistically savvy audiences. Again, I’m going a step further, suggesting that even those audiences would be better served by other chart types in virtually all situations."
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No you shouldn’t stop using box plots. You should use them for when they are appropriate Yes, the author is aware of that. They even stated so: > Despite making more visual sense than box plots, I still wouldn’t recommend these design concepts or box plots in most situations because… Seems a few people missed the "in most situations" part. He's saying he stopped using them for whatever reasons because it isn't work…
The author doesn't use the correct terminology and does not understand box plots themselves so they are in no position to explain them to anyone. They explain in terms of absolutes with no rational or scientific explanation and entirely miss the point of the methodology and tools. That is a not a good position to start or a good person to take advice from. Not only that, the cases presented are likely better dealt wi…
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this sarcasm? I'm not one to appeal to authority but "author should take a course" is akin to ad hominem when a quick look at their profile ( https://www.practicalreporting.com/about-nick-desbarats - https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickdesbarats/ ) tells you that he's been doing dataviz and statistics for a long time.
Nope. I'm not one to appeal to authority either which is why I am making objective arguments about what is presented. And yes he should go on a stats course. I dread to think the chaos he’s spread to people who don’t know better.
Ad hominem arguments, however, should also be ignored. Saying that I'm unqualified doesn't prove anything and adds nothing to the discussion.
If you have specific criticisms of my reasoning, I'm more than happy to listen. If all you have are personal insults, however, well, enjoy the rest of your day.
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch the video to understand her perspective on this. I don't want to spoil them for you if you like the look and once seen it's hard to unsee.
Presumably you're referring to the "it looks like a vulva" thing that some other commenter mentioned, which honestly makes me think I must be trying to give credence to the opinions of people who have not progressed past adolescence, if this is truly their issue.
In any case - I don't personally use them not because of that but because of the reasons I gave[1] which she also mentions in the video - you usually want to present either the distribution (in which case a horizontal histogram without extreme kde smoothing or quartile info is usually better) or you want to highlight just the summary stats in which case the boxplot on its own (or just a table) is generally better. When I find I want to call out a given summary stat (median/mode/some quantile cutoff) on a histogram it's usually better in my view to just show the cutoff on the histogram and shade the tail (eg you frequently see hypothesis tests as a histogram with the critical region shaded and the CV1 number or whatever called out specifically).
[1] and one other which is they are even more confusing in many respects for non-experts than a boxplot so if I was to put one in a presentation or whatever I would find myself spending an undue amount of time explaining the plot rather than making whatever point I wanted to make with the plot which is never a good sign. It would be different for someone who tends to write for/present to fellow experts I imagine.
Re: I've stopped using box plots (2021)
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably you're referring to the "it looks like a vulva" thing that some other commenter mentioned, which honestly makes me think I must be trying to give credence to the opinions of people who have not progressed past adolescence, if this is truly their issue.
I think you're missing some nuance. She's saying this frequently leads to a situation where she (as a female scientist) is put in an uncomfortable/weird spot by a data visualisation because her colleagues/peers have (in your words) not progressed past adolescence. It seems completely unnecessary to use a data visualisation technique that leads to this issue, especially since it doesn't have any other particular benef…
And I just don't relate to this at all:
> you usually want to present either the distribution (in which case a horizontal histogram without extreme kde smoothing or quartile info is usually better)
Where I almost always see this is in time series plots where there is a distribution at each point. Horizontal histograms are not as intuitive for visualizing this, because plotting time on the x-axis is so universal. And while it is true that box plots work well for this when the distribution at each point is close to normal, it is not true that all data looks like this, and it's easy to not notice this if you default to using a box plot.
I do agree with this:
> or you want to highlight just the summary stats in which case the boxplot on its own (or just a table) is generally better
Yes, but you can also just leave off the summary stats from the "violin plot" (just like, as you point out, histograms usually don't and shouldn't include summary stats) in order to visualize only the shape of each distribution.
I also really don't care about the flourish of vertically centering / "reflecting" the distribution, a series of vertical histograms totally expresses the same information that I'm saying is useful here! People seem to find that ugly, which I figure is why they started doing the reflection thing to make it prettier, but I really don't have a strong view either way on which of these presentations is or isn't ugly or leads to awkward jokes. I just think "a series of distribution shapes laid out vertically" is a commonly useful visualization.
And I really don't know about your last point; I don't spend much time working with non-experts who don't understand histograms really well.