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

From |
"R. Allan Reese" <[email protected]> |

To |
Stata distribution list <[email protected]> |

Subject |
st: Scales dropping from your eyes (was broken axes) |

Date |
Fri, 16 May 2003 10:25:00 +0100 (BST) |

Let me repeat, at a risk of becoming repetitive, that design decisions should not be based on a whim, a vague personal preference, "what looks prettier", or "what fills the space" *unless you have consciously decided that the choice is trivial and irrelevant to the message.* Decisions are made for positive reasons (it enhances the message) or because of constraints (the Editor demands). The comments about transformed scales in the current discussion do not appear to be backed with reasoning. The ability of the audience to interpret the graph is also a vital consideration, but do not assume that a more professional audience will be able to correctly deconstruct a more complex graph, unless it is a layout with which they are familiar (ie, a local standard). One reason to use a transformed scale is to clarify a relationship. If effects act on a variable in a multiplicative manner, the resulting plot will generally be a curve. Plotting the transformed data (ie on a transformed scale) may make the relationship a straight line. The question of whether to label the transformed axis with the original or transformed units is separate. One example Nick gave was to plot SARS cases, or any epidemic where 1 carrier may infect N new cases. You might choose to emphasize to the general public the potential rapid growth, so plot on a natural scale, or attempt to model the spread for a medical audience, so use a log scale and estimate the slope. Another reason is to expand the detail in part of the scale. The problem of displaying several categories when one is huge compared to all others has been mentioned. Transforming to a log scale is one approach, but so is making a nested display: one display of dominant versus the rest, linked to a subdisplay of categories within "the rest". Plotting percentages near 0 or 100 on a log scale makes it easier to see the rate of change. A example I use comes from a US DOH report showing the varying success of anti-smoking campaigns by age and educational groups. Thirdly, the choice of units for measurements is itself a pragmatic decision. We report temperature on a "linear" scale, but linear in what? (I don't know, I've forgotten the physics). But acidity is always reported on a log scale (pH), which gardeners seem to accept. Earthquakes are reported on a log scale (Richter) related to energy, as is loudness of sound (dB). Many plots, however, do not rely upon basic measurements but display functions of them (eg, ratios). Try "findit transint" to download a zip file of Stata hlp files for a discussion on using transformations. What is "right" for a graphic depends upon what you are trying to say, and many problems arise because the creator of the graph clicked and accepted, and did not design. You may have come across programs that "generate jargon": from a list of words they assemble sentences that are grammatical English, may sound impressive, but have no reason to be sensible or meaningful. If I'm not careful, I might use "axis of evil" as an example. R. Allan Reese Email: [email protected] * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Easy way to export Stata output to Excel versions with different decimal separator** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: Systematic sampling in Stata** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: Easy way to export Stata output to Excel versions with different decimal separator** - Next by thread:
**st: counting process in streg** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |