Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality - Revision history

162.158.155.26 at 17:33, 21 February 2018

2018-02-21T17:33:17Z

162.158.138.28 at 12:02, 21 February 2018

2018-02-21T12:02:19Z

NiceGuy1 at 05:01, 26 January 2018

2018-01-26T05:01:36Z

NiceGuy1 at 04:38, 26 January 2018

2018-01-26T04:38:28Z

162.158.214.34 at 22:15, 25 January 2018

2018-01-25T22:15:49Z

141.101.98.244 at 09:50, 25 January 2018

2018-01-25T09:50:22Z

108.162.216.100 at 19:35, 24 January 2018

2018-01-24T19:35:59Z

ProphetZarquon: Yay, train wreck!

2018-01-24T18:53:47Z

Yay, train wreck!

141.101.98.244 at 16:12, 24 January 2018

2018-01-24T16:12:28Z

108.162.216.154 at 05:09, 24 January 2018

2018-01-24T05:09:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 21 February 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6\|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)		Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6\|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

−	It resembles the uncanny valley region of the CGI humans resembling real humans.	+	It resembles the uncanny valley region of the CGI humans resembling real humans. {{unsigned\|Comment Police}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 21 February 2018
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6\|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)		Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6\|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	It resembles the uncanny valley region of the CGI humans resembling real humans.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:01, 26 January 2018
Line 25:		Line 25:

	::::: It could be that it was in wide enough use to bring down the average, but not wide enough to define the era. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34\|162.158.214.34]] 22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)		::::: It could be that it was in wide enough use to bring down the average, but not wide enough to define the era. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34\|162.158.214.34]] 22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
		+	: It looks to me that the downturn starts about 1988 and the era starts 1994 (i.e. close to halfway through to 90s but earlier). This would suggest that after existing for 3 years, Paint was starting to be used for enough graphs to have impact on the data (graphs created). Then, PP was around for 4 years before becoming prominent to "launch" the era where these two started being used for most graphs. Fits to me. :) [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

	Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]		Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 26 January 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:

	::: With enough effort, it is possible to make a good graph with any tool. However, the point is that with Powerpoint it is much easier to make a superficial graph than a good graph. With other tools such as R, Matlab, Origin etc. it is equally easy to make a good or a bad graph. Therefore, the average quality of graphs created with Powerpoint is much lower than with other tools. [[User:Thawn\|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn\|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)		::: With enough effort, it is possible to make a good graph with any tool. However, the point is that with Powerpoint it is much easier to make a superficial graph than a good graph. With other tools such as R, Matlab, Origin etc. it is equally easy to make a good or a bad graph. Therefore, the average quality of graphs created with Powerpoint is much lower than with other tools. [[User:Thawn\|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn\|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::: I believe the point is NOT that these are bad tools for creating graphs. I believe both are capable of very fine graphs. Even Paint can be used to recreate an extremely well-defined graph which was previously drawn by hand. I believe the point is that THESE tools are not only available to but useable by scientific know-nothings. People who know or remember little to nothing of how to properly structure a graph. It's less that other / previous tools were better, more that the plebians don't know about them and/or don't know how to use them, or simply don't have access to them! Even Excel, which makes it far easier to create quality graphs, simply because it requires the actual data from which to create the graphs, and is just as available as Powerpoint, doesn't get used as much as Paint or Powerpoint, simply because they allow people to be sloppier about graphs, and I suspect most don't even know Excel can do graphs, or they don't know how. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

	An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76\|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)		An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76\|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 25 January 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:

	:::: But if there's no prominence, there should be little effect. That was kind of the point. Unless the very existence of the tools was impacting even graphs that weren't created with them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244\|141.101.98.244]] 09:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)		:::: But if there's no prominence, there should be little effect. That was kind of the point. Unless the very existence of the tools was impacting even graphs that weren't created with them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244\|141.101.98.244]] 09:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::: It could be that it was in wide enough use to bring down the average, but not wide enough to define the era. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34\|162.158.214.34]] 22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

	Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]		Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:50, 25 January 2018
Line 19:		Line 19:

	::: That's a false dichotomy. An era is defined by prominence not existence. There are still gas-lamps, but we are not in the gas-light era		::: That's a false dichotomy. An era is defined by prominence not existence. There are still gas-lamps, but we are not in the gas-light era
		+
		+	:::: But if there's no prominence, there should be little effect. That was kind of the point. Unless the very existence of the tools was impacting even graphs that weren't created with them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244\|141.101.98.244]] 09:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

	Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]		Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 24 January 2018
Line 17:		Line 17:

	:: Well either they quickly came into common use, in which case the labelling of the 'era' is wrong, or they didn't, in which case it doesn't explain why the decline started so early.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16\|141.101.76.16]] 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)		:: Well either they quickly came into common use, in which case the labelling of the 'era' is wrong, or they didn't, in which case it doesn't explain why the decline started so early.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16\|141.101.76.16]] 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: That's a false dichotomy. An era is defined by prominence not existence. There are still gas-lamps, but we are not in the gas-light era

	Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]		Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166\|172.68.211.166]]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :: Well either they quickly came into common use, in which case the labelling of the 'era' is wrong, or they didn't, in which case it doesn't explain why the decline started so early.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]
 Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :: Well either they quickly came into common use, in which case the labelling of the 'era' is wrong, or they didn't, in which case it doesn't explain why the decline started so early.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
-You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing.  It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.
+You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing.  It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net
-[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net
+:An xkcd PowerPoint presentation by Randall Munroe would be so fantastic! Just... don't let him near Excel: "Why does this field reference a password-protected remote SQL DB entry labeled 'Midnight Protocol' or 'else' show the time of day as a sixteen-bit floating-point decimal value from zero to one?" 'Sorry, can't hear you, headphones; I'm working on the soundtrack for the new collaborative infinitely recursive xkcd AR exhibit at Meow Wolf Ollantaytambo.' [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
-:An xkcd PowerPoint presentation by Randall Munroe would be so fantastic! Just... don't let him near Excel: "Why does this field reference a password-protected remote SQL DB entry labeled 'Midnight Protocol' or 'else' show the time of day as a sixteen-bit floating-point decimal value from zero to one?" 'Sorry, can't hear you, headphones; I'm working on the soundtrack for the new collaborative infinitely recursive xkcd AR exhibit at Meow Wolf Ollantaytambo.'
+::You monster!  I can not delete your horrible suggestion 1) without running afoul of what a wiki stands for or 2) losing the educational value of a warning of what not to do.  And then, there is 3) the perverse attraction of seeing a train wreck. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 05:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net
 Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]