4 ms·

I'm not sure that I would brag about running statistical methods on data before I looked at a plot of the data; especially not multiple ones. Aside from the tr

I'm not sure that I would brag about running statistical methods on data before I looked at a plot of the data; especially not multiple ones. Aside from the tree-murdering, your cow-orkers (nice reference) are doing the right thing, at least initially. You should always eyeball things before going to statistical tests.

gaius 16y ago
We're talking 30-40 sheets of A4 at a time here...
- onan_barbarian 16y ago
  Ouch. Still, my overall point stands - eyeball first, formal tests later. This has saved me from much statistical foolishness in my time.
  - hessenwolf 16y ago
    I am ambiguous on the eyeball-first requirement, but I agree that you definitely always have to check the visuals. Thirty or forty sheets of correlations might be made slightly prettier and on one sheet by just using 'plot' on a data frame in R. What context is this in?
    - onan_barbarian 16y ago
      Thirty or forty sheets of correlations sounds like too much work however you slice it. If they were grouped in some logical way I agree you could make them palatable with 'plot' or with the magnificent ggplot; the latter is one of the few things that I can happily play with all day... Not sure of the poster's original context. Just thought I'd air my statistical opinion out of sheer orneriness.
      - hessenwolf 16y ago
        Yeah... but for 8 variables, there are n choose 2 = n(n-1)/2 = 36 covariates. My spidey sense tells me there is one scatter plot per page. ggplot vs base & lattice in your experience? I have used lattice before but not in a few years, and I use base all the time. Don't have time to muck around with
        onan_barbarian 16y ago
        Plausible. Or it could be 30-40 arbitrary pairings with no variable used twice. ggplot: came for the Tufte-type aethestic, stayed for the graph grammars. I have a lot more experience with ggplot than base&lattice since I switched so early but wiser heads tell me that they are similar in capability. I just find ggplot easier to work with and look at.

gaius 16y ago

We're talking 30-40 sheets of A4 at a time here...

onan_barbarian 16y ago
Ouch. Still, my overall point stands - eyeball first, formal tests later. This has saved me from much statistical foolishness in my time.
- hessenwolf 16y ago
  I am ambiguous on the eyeball-first requirement, but I agree that you definitely always have to check the visuals. Thirty or forty sheets of correlations might be made slightly prettier and on one sheet by just using 'plot' on a data frame in R. What context is this in?
  - onan_barbarian 16y ago
    Thirty or forty sheets of correlations sounds like too much work however you slice it. If they were grouped in some logical way I agree you could make them palatable with 'plot' or with the magnificent ggplot; the latter is one of the few things that I can happily play with all day... Not sure of the poster's original context. Just thought I'd air my statistical opinion out of sheer orneriness.
    - hessenwolf 16y ago
      Yeah... but for 8 variables, there are n choose 2 = n(n-1)/2 = 36 covariates. My spidey sense tells me there is one scatter plot per page. ggplot vs base & lattice in your experience? I have used lattice before but not in a few years, and I use base all the time. Don't have time to muck around with
      - onan_barbarian 16y ago
        Plausible. Or it could be 30-40 arbitrary pairings with no variable used twice. ggplot: came for the Tufte-type aethestic, stayed for the graph grammars. I have a lot more experience with ggplot than base&lattice since I switched so early but wiser heads tell me that they are similar in capability. I just find ggplot easier to work with and look at.