41–50 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it have to do with? The 217,000 most important companies, financial firms, and people...
Why did you stop there though? "...in the startup world..." In fact, I am surprised to see a lot of non-startup companies like Nokia listed quite highly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... In the data source, TechCrunch's Crunchbase ..." TechCrunch as a single data source. Are there any other sources used?
At the moment no. This was one dataset we used to get started but, we intend to incorporate data from Angel List and other sources as well.
:-)
One request, in the UI, where you have checkboxes, can you add 'exclusive' select. So for example, I want to see ONLY 'acquisitions' made; right now, we have to deselect everything else manually.
This reminds me of an analysis I once did: https://github.com/astanway/Crunchbase-Network-Analysis The data from Crunchbase is very, very dirty, but I managed to clean it up a lot. Feel free to fork if you want pre-built NetworkX graphs.
This reminds me of an analysis I once did: https://github.com/astanway/Crunchbase-Network-Analysis The data from Crunchbase is very, very dirty, but I managed to clean it up a lot. Feel free to fork if you want pre-built NetworkX graphs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it have to do with? The 217,000 most important companies, financial firms, and people...
Why did you stop there though? "...in the startup world..." In fact, I am surprised to see a lot of non-startup companies like Nokia listed quite highly.
The way this is laid out it looks like the entities that are in a row are associated, it's confusing. You name the columns at the top and label the ranks on the left. I love the use of different-sized circles, but I feel like you're comparing apples to oranges in a way. I think the circles should all be relative to one master size (#1) only their own category; rather than comparing Ron Conway to Google his circle cou…
We tried both options and liked using one scale for all categories. The idea is that you are comparing influence, or something like it, so that can be visually compared across categories. You do have the downside of having very small dots for the people after only a few pages, but since there are > 100,000 people, most are going to have the minimum sized dot anyway.
This reminds me of an analysis I once did: https://github.com/astanway/Crunchbase-Network-Analysis The data from Crunchbase is very, very dirty, but I managed to clean it up a lot. Feel free to fork if you want pre-built NetworkX graphs.
This is really interesting. I'm surprised you found that startups with higher centrality raised less money. Not sure how to explain that. Your investor graph has edges pointing both from investors to startups and back, right? Anyway, thanks.