[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: Scatterplot: Weighted markers change size |

Date |
Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:08:23 +0100 |

It's not an answer to your specific question -- at all -- but I've long given up treating these bubble plots as serious graphics, even though I don't have a good answer to the problem they are presumably intended to solve, expect to say that I prefer quite different kinds of graphs for trivariate problems. First, StataCorp seems to have stopped publishing the algorithm used in the manuals. I don't want to use what I can't explain. Second, what is a reader expected to think about: the radius or the area? One possible answer is that it doesn't much matter, as the reader is not expected to decode bubble sizes quantitatively. As locally we often say in examinations, "Discuss." There is some psychological evidence that readers perceive neither radius nor area but a power more like 0.7. A more general issue, although it's controversial at the margins, is that people are relatively lousy at decoding areas from published graphics. Third, the range of values for the variable used as weight doesn't have to be pathologically large to present an insoluble dilemma: the largest bubbles swamp the others, or the smallest bubbles are unreadable. Largely because of that, StataCorp's algorithm was _not_ one of drawing proportional to size, but one with extra fudges. I have no reason to believe that the current algorithm differs. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Friedrich Huebler Thank you, Svend. Your solution works in this particular case because all observations in group 2 have a larger weight than the observations in group 1. With my real data there is no such neat relationship between the different groups. The trial and error approach to getting the right marker sizes is also not practical with my data because I have 200 observations in 10 groups. On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Svend Juul <SJ@soci.au.dk> wrote: > -scatter- supports weights. When a scatterplot is drawn, all weighted > markers have a distinct size. This size changes when the data are > divided into two or more groups and then drawn as overlaid > scatterplots. I am looking for a way to retain the size of the > original markers. The problem is best understood with an example. > > clear all > input x y weight group > 1 1 1 1 > 2 1 10 1 > 1 2 100 2 > 2 2 1000 2 > end > scatter y x [w=weight], name(A) > twoway (scatter y x if group==1 [w=weight]) /// > (scatter y x if group==2 [w=weight]), name(B) > > Compare graphs A and B. In graph A all four markers have a different > size. In graph B there are two pairs of markers with the same size. I > would like to have the same marker sizes in graph B as in graph A > while keeping the colors that identify the two different groups. How > can I do this? > > =============================================================== > > You can use the msize() option to modify the marker size. By trial > and error I got something close to what you want - but actually I > cannot figure out why 0.2 and 2 are the right factors: > > twoway (scatter y x if group==1 [w=weight] , msize(*0.2)) /// > (scatter y x if group==2 [w=weight] , msize(*2)), name(C) * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**Re: st: Scatterplot: Weighted markers change size***From:*Svend Juul <SJ@SOCI.AU.DK>

**Re: st: Scatterplot: Weighted markers change size***From:*"Friedrich Huebler" <fhuebler@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: question with MLE and complex model** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: question with MLE and complex model** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Scatterplot: Weighted markers change size** - Next by thread:
**st: using the command substr in stata** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |