Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I've stopped using box plots (2021)

nightingaledvs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 258 posts

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

#91

Post by munch117 »

cjk2 wrote: post #15
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…

Exactly this on the last point. Although rereading this the distribution point is explained poorly. People waltz in with assumptions and then complain when they don’t work because they don’t really understand the tools they are using. The author is one of them. It’s a bad article and the author should not be using or demonstrating things they clearly don't understand.

Isn't that the whole point? That the graph type is very easy to misunderstand. If you are right, and not even a professional data visualization consultant properly understands the graph, then who will?

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

#92

Post by pocketsand »

blueflow wrote: post #14
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…

This should be the topmost comment. Box plots are made for visualizing generalized normal distributions and nothing else. Edited to preempt nitpick.

Why? They’re non-parametric and make zero assumptions of normality.

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

#93

Post by cjk2 »

munch117 wrote: post #91
cjk2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this on the last point. Although rereading this the distribution point is explained poorly. People waltz in with assumptions and then complain when they don’t work because they don’t really understand the tools they are using. The author is one of them. It’s a bad article and the author should not be using or demonstrating things they clearly don't understand.

Isn't that the whole point? That the graph type is very easy to misunderstand. If you are right, and not even a professional data visualization consultant properly understands the graph, then who will?

Some of us are perfectly qualified to understand them and the nuances.

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

#94

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg »

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…

Boxplots don't assume anything about your data. They just measure percentiles and put them on the y-axis.

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

#95

Post by cjk2 »

ohmyiv wrote: post #89
cjk2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The author is way out of their depth and should retract the article and take a formal, accredited statistics course. Maybe you should learn about the author before you make such assumptions. I find it hilarious you think he should take statistics courses when he teaches data visualization workshops to places like NASA, IRS, and the UN. I'm done with this thread. Such a joke.

Oh I know the author.

Just because you’re high profile in the data viz industry doesn’t mean you should be commenting on statistics especially with such a clear misunderstanding going on.

Some of us are definitely more qualified to speak on these matters and we still don’t think we’re qualified to teach it.

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

#96

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg »

ncruces wrote: post #54
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #3

The author just has a bad intuition. On the first picture he says "this looks like a small quantity". No, you can't say that. All you can say is that half the data points are in the shades part. You don't know where the rest are.

> You don't know where the rest are. Of course you do: they're in the whiskers; half in each whisker. That's the entire point of the picture, BTW.

You're right. I guess that's not the author's mistake then. His mistake is assuming "the whisker is small, therefore it has a small number of datapoints".

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

#97

Post by cjk2 »

scrollaway wrote: post #85
cjk2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#98

Post by pocketsand »

cjk2 wrote: post #75
ohmyiv wrote: post #65

Earlier 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…

I do stats and data viz for a living and the article seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

He isn’t dogmatic.

He makes reasonable arguments.

I’m confused by these hopelessly uncharitable readings of the article.

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

#99

Post by conformist »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #88
rcxdude wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, there's nothing in a box plot which assumes a bell-shape. It does, however just visualise the parameters which reasonably well characterize a smooth single-mode distribution regardless of the underlying distribution. So it's a valid criticism of using box plots, especially when the alternatives can just as well visualise a bell-shaped distribution, as well as showing when it is not.

> smooth single-mode distribution That IS a bell curve. While it's true that the Guassian distribution is often called a bell curve or even "the" bell curve, a non-Guassian single mode distribution is still absolutely bell shaped in a general sense. So, although you started your comment with "nah", you're actually in agreement with the content you replied to.

In the mathematical sense this is clearly not true - it’s easy to come up with a smooth single mode distribution that doesn’t look like a bell.

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

#100

Post by blueflow »

pocketsand wrote: post #92
blueflow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the topmost comment. Box plots are made for visualizing generalized normal distributions and nothing else. Edited to preempt nitpick.

Why? They’re non-parametric and make zero assumptions of normality.

How else would you calculate the quartiles to render the boxes?
Post reply on HN