Alteryx, Tableau, data visualisation

The Gaslight Analysis: when sentiment analysis doesn’t quite work.

I love sentiment analysis. It’s a great way of getting fascinating insights from a glut of text data. You can take a load of Yelp reviews, figure out how people feel about a place, and cross-validate it with the star rating. You can take the works of Jane Austen and plot narrative arcs. You can look at the texting styles of you and your girlfriend. If you’ve got a dataset with clear sentences in standard textbook English, you can find out all sorts of things.

But, here’s the thing with language; it’s gloriously, infuriatingly messy.

That makes it really hard to do really good sentiment analysis – certainly with the free, widely-available tools. Most of those assign certain emotional values to specific words; for example, in the NRC dataset often used with the R package Tidytext, the word “alive” has associations of ANTICIPATION, JOY, POSITIVE, and TRUST, while the word “afraid” has associations of FEAR and NEGATIVE.

This approach works great for sentences like this:

“I bought these shoes last week, and they’re amazing. They feel great, and they make me feel great. Good value too! 10/10, very happy about this.”

…but it doesn’t work for sentences like this:

“I don’t feel good about this. I don’t feel good about this at all. I’d love to get out of this situation right now.”

The second sentence is pretty obviously negative, but it works by negating words. The word “good” isn’t actually good, because it’s being negated by “don’t” a couple of words earlier. And “love” isn’t a positive emotion here, as it’s expressing the desire to get out of the situation, meaning that what’s going on is not a positive thing.

It’s possible to address this with sentiment analysis, but it’s complicated. You’d have to account for every possible way of negating/reversing a word, and there’s a lot of those. You’d have to account for every possible way that a word that’s positive in isolation could actually be referring to a negative overall situation, and that’s a huge task. This is why good sentiment analysis costs a fortune. It’s really complicated.

Luckily, people tend not to speak indirectly all the time, and in aggregate, the twisting, sentiment-negating sentences are cancelled out by the number of straightforward sentences where word-level sentiment analysis does work. But the caveat is that just because you’re using sentiment analysis, that doesn’t mean you’re using it well, and you should really cross-validate it with some other measures.

I’m exploring this with lyrics from Brian Fallon’s bands – The Gaslight Anthem, The Horrible Crowes, and his solo project. I’m looking at Fallon’s lyrics because:

  1. Song lyrics are enough of a deviation from standard English to pose problems for standard sentiment analysis;
  2. At the same time, song lyrics are some of the most obviously emotional usages of language we have;
  3. Fallon writes lyrics in a pretty clear style, often in full sentences, without too many obscure metaphors or references;
  4. I really like his music.

I’ve used the Tidytext package in R for doing sentiment analysis before. This time, I’m using the same NRC sentiment dataset, but trying it out in Alteryx instead. I’ve also visualised it in Tableau, and you can click any of these images to go to an interactive link where you can play around with it yourself.

So, first things first; let’s have a look at sentiment in each song:

1

Looks pretty good so far. Here’s lookin’ at you, kid is a wistful, regretful song; definitely on the negative side, quite a bit of sadness, very little joy. Click the graph to explore other Brian Fallon songs, if you know them.

There’s a lot of different sentiment measures available, so let’s simplify it to looking at positive and negative. Here’s lookin’ at you, kid has 13 negative words, and 4 positive words. If we take difference (9) and divide it by the biggest value (13), we get a ratio of positive to negative words:

Positive – Negative
————————————
MAX(Positive, Negative)

This accounts for the difference between positive and negative words, as well as the number. For example, if one song has 10 positive words and 5 negative words, and another song has 6 positive words and 1 negative word, the difference is the same, but the second song is more positive overall, because it has far more times the number of positive words than negative words.

If we calculate this +/- balance for each song, we can order them as follows:

2

There’s a nice mix of positive and negative songs, and if you know the songs, some of them definitely feel right; Here’s lookin’ at you, kid is negative, so is Get hurt, while 45 is an upbeat, positive song. But there’s definitely some weird ones in there. We did it when we were young is a sad, regretful song, but it’s up there in the top half of positive songs. That doesn’t seem right.

So let’s cross-validate this. Spotify’s Echo Nest data has a measure called Valence, which is a measure of how positive the mood of a song is. You can get all kinds of interesting measures for your Spotify playlist here. When we plot the Spotify Valence (branching off to the left for values under 50), we get this instead:

3.png

Spotify has Here’s lookin’ at you, kid as one of the most negative songs, along with Cherry blossoms, which seems about right to me, but has We did it when we were young as a pretty neutral song, which still doesn’t feel right. Have a look at the difference with Blue jeans and white t-shirts, as well – it’s one of the most negative songs according to Spotify, but one of the most positive according to sentiment analysis. I’d put it somewhere in the middle, maybe a bit more positive than neutral.

Since I keep using my own perspective as a fan and a human, I figured I’d better cross-validate both of these stats with what fans think. I set up a simple survey where to get Brian Fallon fans to rate each song for positivity on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 meant really negative, 4 meant neutral, and 7 meant really positive. I stressed in the introduction, several times, that it’s not a rating of how much you like each song, or how positive each song makes you personally feel (like, I really like Fallon’s sad songs because they make me feel nice… but they’re still objectively sad), but about the emotion in the song itself. Around 15-20 fans answered for each song, so I averaged their ratings together to get a human-generated emotion rating per song. It’s not the most scientific approach, but it’s good enough for the purposes of this blog.

Here’s what we get, centred around an average of 4 for neutral songs:

4

This time, Blue jeans and white t-shirts comes in as I see it – fairly positive, but not hugely so. We did it when we were young is down there in the negative range, along with Get hurt and Here’s lookin’ at you, kid.

It’s fascinating to see how the three measures agree and disagree for each song. If we rank each song along each measure (with 1 being most positive and 85 being most negative), we can see how the rank difference varies. There are five possible combinations:

  1. All measures disagree with each other
  2. All measures agree with each other
  3. Spotify valence and fan rating agree, but sentiment analysis disagrees
  4. Sentiment analysis and fan rating agree, but Spotify valence disagrees
  5. Sentiment analysis and Spotify valence agree, but fan rating disagrees

…and there’s at least one example of each:

5.15.25.35.45.5

We can see which songs are most consistently rated across all three measures by looking at the difference between each song’s highest and lowest positivity rank:

6

Blood loss is the most consistently rated, with a rank difference of only four places, while The backseat has a massive rank difference of 81 – fans put it as the second most positive song in Brian Fallon’s catalogue, while sentiment analysis rates it as 83rd, ahead of only I believe Jesus brought us together and I witnessed a crime. Spotify puts it at 24th.

Another way of showing this variation is by creating scatterplots of each measure against each other, with each dot representing a song:

7

I’ve run simple correlations on each plot – not exactly statistically kosher, but this is all just exploratory. There is no correlation between valence and sentiment analysis, and more tellingly, no correlation between sentiment analysis and fan ratings. There is a correlation between valence and fan ratings, but it’s not particularly strong.

The overall point, then, is to be careful with sentiment analysis. It’s not that it doesn’t work – it can often work really well, and be a really useful line of investigating data. But relying on sentiment analysis alone, without checking whether it matches measures that should reflect the same kind of thing, might give you some false insights. You don’t want to have Great expectations, or you might Get hurt.

Standard
Alteryx, data visualisation, football, Tableau

The growing gap between the Premiership’s Top Six and the rest.

This is my first football data blog for a while, and I feel all nostalgic! It’s nice to dive into some league table data again, and even nicer now that I have Alteryx; I was able to format my data about 10x quicker than I was in when I first started doing this in R. Then again, I’ve probably also spent 5x more time using Alteryx than R in the last year or so. Anyway.

I’ve been hearing a lot more analysis of the Top 6 in the Premiership recently. I first noticed it in the last couple of seasons, when I saw a few journalists/people on Twitter writing about a “Big Six Mini-League”. Liverpool often seemed to do quite well at this, and Arsenal often seemed to do quite badly at this. Neither team won the actual league.

I’ve started looking at how the Top 6 sides in the Premiership perform each year (using data from this fantastically well-maintained repository), and there’s quite a few interesting stories in here. The first main point is that the big clubs are accelerating away from the rest of the league. The second main point is that any big six mini-league doesn’t really matter, as you can win the Premiership with an underwhelming record against your main rivals if you trash everybody else. I mean, that shouldn’t be much of a surprise – if you’re a Top 6 team, only 30 points are on offer from matches against your rivals, but you can potentially take 84 points from the 28 matches against the rest of the league.

For all these analyses, I’m taking Top 6 literally – meaning the teams that finish that season in the top six positions. Nothing to do with net spend, illustrious history, shirt sales in Indonesia, or anything like that. I then look at the average points-per-game changes by team, position, season, and Top 6/Bottom 14 status. I also filtered out the first three seasons of the Premiership to keep it slightly easier for comparison, since there were 22 teams in the league until 1995-96.

When plotting the average points-per-game per season between the two groups, a clear trend emerges; the Top 6 are better and better at beating the rest of the league:

1

However, this trend appears to be asymmetrical. When looking at the overall average points-per-game for all games across the season, teams that finish in the Top 6 are getting better, but there’s only a negligible decline for the rest of the league. This suggests the bigger, better teams are pulling away from the rest of the league:

2

This effect is most striking when plotting the difference in overall average points-per-game between the two groups:

3

Teams finishing in the Top 6 scored around 0.6 points-per-game more than the rest of the league in the early nineties, but that’s now up to over 1 point-per-game in the latest couple of seasons. That half-a-point difference translates to a 19-point difference across a whole 38-game season.

We can plot each team in each season of the Premiership (since 1995-96, when the league was first reduced to 20 teams) and look at how well they did against the top teams and the rest of the league. In this graph, the straight line represents equal performance vs the Top 6 and Bottom 14:

4

A couple of things stand out:

1. Only a handful of teams have ever done better vs. the Top 6 than the rest of the league. This seems to have no effect on final position.

2. It’s possible to win the league with a poor record against the Top 6 by consistently beating everybody else. Manchester United won the league in 00-01 and 08-09 with only 1.3 PPG vs the Top 6.

3. Manchester City this year are ridiculous.

I find it interesting to compare Liverpool and Arsenal over the years. One narrative I sometimes hear is that Liverpool tend to raise their game for big matches, but are too inconsistent the rest of the time, whereas Arsenal struggle against big sides but do well enough in the rest of the league to consistently finish well. This chart seems to bear that analysis out; Liverpool’s cluster of dots are higher on the chart, but further to the left:

6

…while Arsenal’s cluster is slightly lower but further to the right… and most importantly, more colourful:

5

And if you want to explore other teams and seasons, there’s an interactive version of all these graphs here.

Standard
data visualisation, Tableau

Why won’t my Tableau small multiples chart work?

Andy Kriebel wrote a great tutorial on how to make small multiples charts in Tableau here. It works pretty much all the time… but you’ll also find that if you simply copy and paste the calculations, it might not work with your data.

For example, have a look at Superstore here. I’m plotting sum of Sales for each continuous month per product subcategory. The rows and columns calculations split up the view nicely into a line for each subcategory, which is good:

small multiples not working

But look closely, and you’ll see some weird stuff going on; there’s a brown-ish dot for subcategory = Copiers and month = October 2014 in the Chairs section (second row, second from left):

small multiples not working - highlight point

What’s going on there?

It turns out that the rows and columns calculations can’t handle nulls in the underlying dataset. I haven’t dived into this fully, but I’m guessing this is because the index calculation works depending on what’s in the view, rather than being fixed on all the subcategories and months regardless of whether there’s data or not.

In this case, what happens is that the October 2014 missing data for one one category – Accessories – shunts everything else up one; the Appliances value turns up in the Accessories small multiple, the Art value turns up in the Appliances small multiple, and so on. The same thing would happen in March 2014 if there was another subcategory after Tables too.

table with nulls

You’ll see that if you switch to calculating using quarters instead of months, this problem disappears completely.

Andy’s calculations are great because they’re really flexible, and they’ll work fine without much further adjustment most of the time. But if you get issues with null data like this, you can try this alternative instead.

With these calculations, I’m going to hardcode the small multiples by whatever thing you’re splitting up the view by. That means that you’d have to create separate fields for every dimension you’d ever want to do it by, which is extra work, but it does take care of the nulls issue.

First, create a calculation called Number (or Subcategory ID, or Steve, or whatever suits you). This is a case statement which assigns a number from 0 to N-1 for a particular dimension.

CASE [Sub-Category]
WHEN 'Accessories' THEN 0
WHEN 'Appliances' THEN 1
WHEN 'Art' THEN 2
WHEN 'Binders' THEN 3
WHEN 'Bookcases' THEN 4
WHEN 'Chairs' THEN 5
WHEN 'Copiers' THEN 6
WHEN 'Envelopes' THEN 7
WHEN 'Fasteners' THEN 8
WHEN 'Furnishings' THEN 9
WHEN 'Labels' THEN 10
WHEN 'Machines' THEN 11
WHEN 'Paper' THEN 12
WHEN 'Phones' THEN 13
WHEN 'Storage' THEN 14
WHEN 'Supplies' THEN 15
WHEN 'Tables' THEN 16
END

Typing all that out is quite a faff, so I generate that text with a concat function in Excel like this:

excel help for calc

Now create a calc called Columns with the modulo function like this:

[Number] % 4

And then create a calc called Rows by dividing and rounding like this:

INT ([Number] / 4)

It’s crucial that you use the same constant each time! I’ve used 4 because that’ll give me 4 columns across the top, meaning that the 17 subcategories in superstore will be split over four rows of four columns and a fifth row with one column, exactly like Andy’s small multiples do. If you want to do it another way, you could use 3 instead. That would give you five rows of three columns and a sixth row of two columns. There’s a lot of playing around with the configuration, but it’s also more flexible in terms of the configuration you want to plot.

Now that you’ve got these row and column calcs, you can drag them into the view like this, and generate small multiples which work even with null data:

small multiples fixed (simple)

Just to make sure, let’s colour code it by subcategory too. No differently coloured dots in the wrong places anymore!

small multiples fixed plus colour

Another advantage of this approach is that you can colour the graphs by another field. You can do that with Andy’s calcs too, but you have to be careful about how the table calcs work and what they’re using to compute the calculations. Because my calcs don’t have index() in them, there’s no table calc issues to worry about. Just drag and drop.

small multiples fixed plus region colour

Standard
Tableau

How to give your area and bar charts a makeover with connected scatterplots.

I haven’t always been a fan of connected scatterplots, but I’m gradually coming round to them. First it was with centre of gravity maps; now it’s as a replacement for (some) area charts and bars.

I came across a chart a lot like this at work this week:

1 area and bars

I’ve mocked it up using some fake data, but it’s pretty much showing how two departments (or groups, or types of things, or categories) do in terms of profit (or another measure) over the year, and how many orders (or another measure again) there were in each month across both groups.

I’m not a fan of the area chart plus bars over the top approach. Firstly, the bars obscure what’s going on with the area chart underneath them, and secondly, area charts can be misleading as it’s hard to parse each thing separately.

Let’s show the same information with a connected scatterplot:

2 simple connected scatterplot

Here, the red and blue lines show the two departments, and the grey line shows the aggregated number of orders and profit. Instantly, the difference between the two departments is a lot clearer; department A has had a lot of variation in number of orders but profit has stayed pretty consistent, while department B has had a lot of variation in profit but the number of orders has stayed consistent.

The lines are joined up by month… but as it is, it’s impossible to tell where the year begins and ends, which makes the whole thing pretty pointless. Let’s show time with size:

3 connected scatterplot two colour, size

The lines get thicker as the month gets more recent, and now it’s easy to see the trends over the year. The variation in orders in department A is all over the place, but the variation in profit in department B is a bit more consistent; profit has gone down over the year. We can also see the aggregate profit and order trends much more clearly on the grey line, with orders going up but profit going down.

The downside of using line size to show time trends is that the thinner parts are hard to see and the thicker parts can be hard to parse. Let’s try it with colour instead:

4 connected scatterplot, colour range, same size

I personally prefer this approach to using line size, but it’s also a bit of a faff. Tableau doesn’t like it if you try to do a three-way colour split by dimension (i.e. red, blue, and grey) and then change the shade of the colour by a measure, so you have to convert the month to discrete and make sure to order everything correctly. It’s not too taxing though, so it’s worth it if the data doesn’t change all the time.

Finally, you can go the whole hog and do some double encoding with both colour and size on the line to show time:

5 connected scatterplot, colour range, size

This is eye-catching, but possibly to the point where it’s more distracting than informative.

I like the connected scatterplots in this example, although there are many situations where the lines will overlap in a way that won’t tell you much. It certainly won’t work well with lots of different departments; here’s the mess you get if you look at all countries in EU Superstore for all months of all years:

6 eu superstore all

Even when filtering to four countries and two years of data, it’s not the clearest way of showing things:

7 eu superstore some

In summary, then, give a connected scatterplot a go. It may well not work, but sometimes it’ll result in something a lot clearer and more informative than a combined area/bar chart.

Standard
Science, Science in general

Not all who wander are lost… but it takes work to wander well.

[I originally wrote this as a guest blog for My Scholarly Goop, I’m now crossposting to my own blog]

I used to be jealous of my friend Dave when we were at school. He’s wanted to be a doctor ever since he can remember, and that gave purpose to everything he did. We’d be in a chemistry lesson, and he’d be listening intently, even though he knew the topic, and he knew that he knew the topic, because a mastery of chemistry would be the foundation of the rest of his career. He wouldn’t let losing focus on a dull Tuesday afternoon potentially jeopardise his university applications a few years down the line. I’d be sitting next to him, quietly filling out the sudoku I ripped out of the newspaper in the library.

I envied his sense of purpose and direction. Our lives looked a bit like this:

dave vs me

But in time, I grew a lot less jealous, and embraced my lack of direction. There’s something liberating about not being focused on any particular thing; it gives you room to explore all the spaces in between.

My academic career veered from Japanese to linguistics to cognitive neuroscience, with a smattering of international relations, public policy, and statistics. Along the way, I worked in various jobs in financial software consultancy, accounting, commercial law, translation, and selling dog food. I’m now a data scientist, and I’ve done projects with a Premiership football team, an auction house, a scientific research funding body, a cargo company, and two different medical charities. I’m currently on a six-month placement with Solar Turbines, working on making huge turbine engines more efficient and reliable. I haven’t followed a path so much as got lost in the forest, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed taking in all the trees.

Now, if you’re like my friend Dave, then great! You know what your goal is, and you’re probably doing what you need to do to get there. But if you’re reading a blog about post-PhD career paths, you’re probably a bit more like me. It’s exciting, because you can do anything! But it’s also overwhelming, because you should consider everything.

Writing about the joys of not having goals may sound flippant, but aimlessly wandering successfully takes a lot of effort. To put it in context, this is what my summer in 2016 looked like:

jobs applied for

I applied for something like 35 or 40 jobs in various fields, I went to six interviews, and I received one job offer (I withdrew from another two interviews before attending, because I’d have taken my current job at The Information Lab even if I’d been offered any of the others). Each job application took a good two hours or so to write, so that’s maybe eighty hours of work. The job application process for The Information Lab meant I had to download and learn a new bit of software, so I probably spent at least ten hours on that application alone.

But just the hours spent applying for jobs wasn’t enough. My PhD was about how special kinds of onomatopoeic words might or might not be related to multisensory processing and perhaps synaesthesia… and that’s the general summary version. PhD research is highly specific, which also means it’s highly irrelevant to most non-academic jobs. When you talk about your PhD, this is what you think you’re saying, and how it compares to what most people hear:

pie charts

Unlike the content of your PhD itself, the wider skills you learn are valuable, widely transferable, and highly sought. However, it’s your responsibility to show this to people. You could be a brilliant analyst, but nobody’s going to listen if you only talk about your skills in the context of your research. So, for every two hours or so I spent on a particular job application, I probably spent another two hours creating a portfolio on my blog. I used my coding, statistical, and data visualisation skills to play with various different data sources, such as looking at how the gender gap in GCSE results in England corresponds to various measures of how “good” a school is, or looking at football stats to show that the 2016 Portugal side are the worst winners of a European Championship. This took a lot of time and effort, but every single organisation that invited me to an interview said that it was this portfolio of work on my blog that had got me there. Not my PhD work.

This means that I spent about 160 hours, or twenty eight-hour days, or just under one working month, on getting one job offer. This probably sounds quite daunting. And yeah, it is. Getting a job outside academia was like writing an extra chapter for my PhD.

But the good news is that while it might be hard work, it won’t be wasted work. I’ve spoken to a fair few PhD students looking for a career outside academia, and I think a lot of people fall into a zone of self-defeat; they’re more than qualified for the jobs they’re applying for, but they undersell themselves because they’ve spent years surrounded by frighteningly competent people during their PhDs and only see themselves in relative terms. I felt like this for a long time myself, and it takes a while to get out of this mindset. I think academia does this to people’s perceptions of themselves:

perceptions 3 (annotated)

All this means is that academia itself is probably the biggest obstacle to getting a job outside academia. Take the time to research different careers, different people, different ideas; once you can frame your skills and abilities independently of your own research, you’re halfway there.

If you’re considering a career outside academia, you’re already far more qualified than you think you are, you’ve got more to offer than you think you do, and you can be far more than you think you can. But it’s up to you to prove it.

Standard
Alteryx, data visualisation, Maps, Tableau

Alaska Fried Chicken: the UK’s curious approach to naming chicken shops.

I went a little bit viral a couple of weeks ago when I tweeted about chicken shops in the UK which are named after American states which aren’t Kentucky. If I’d thought about it, I’d have written this blog up first, created a Tableau Public viz, and had all kinds of other shit ready to plug once I started getting some serious #numbers… but I didn’t. So, to make up for that, this blog will go through that thread in more detail and answer a few questions I received along the way.

It all started when I walked past Tennessee Fried Chicken in Camberwell, pretty close to where I live. It’s clearly a knock-off KFC, and I wanted to know how many other chicken shops had the same name format: [American state] Fried Chicken.

The first thing to do is to get a list of all the restaurants in the UK. I spent a while wondering how to get this data, but then I remembered that my colleague Luke Stoughton once built a Tableau Public dashboard about food hygiene ratings in the UK. All UK chicken shops – hopefully! – are inspected by the Food Standards Agency. So, Luke kindly showed me his Alteryx workflow for scraping the data from the FSA API, and I adjusted it to look for chicken shops.

My first line of inquiry is pretty stringent: how many chicken shops in the UK are called “X Fried Chicken” where X is an American state which isn’t Kentucky?

Turns out it’s 34. “Tennessee Fried Chicken” – including variants such as Tenessee and Tennesse – is the most popular with 13 chicken shops. The next highest is Kansas with six, which I’m assuming is so the owners can refer to their shops as KFC, although maybe the owner/s just really like tornadoes, wheat, and/or the Wizard of Oz. Then there’s four Californias, a couple of Floridas, and one each of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.

1 state fried chicken map

[tangent: I’m aware that a lot of these states aren’t exactly famed for their fried chicken, but as a Brit, all I have to go on for most of them are my stereotypes from American media. But hey, maybe it’s still accurate, and Ohio Fried Chicken tastes of opiates and post-industrial decline, Arizona Fried Chicken comes pre-pulped for the senior clientele who can’t chew so well these days, and Florida Fried Chicken is actually just alligator. Michigan Fried Chicken is, I dunno, fried in car oil rather than vegetable oil, and Alaska Fried Chicken is their sneaky way of dealing with the bald eagle problem up there? I’m running out of crude state stereotypes now, I’m afraid. Out of all these states, I’ve only actually been to California.]

There’s also a “DC Fried Chicken”, which is close but not quite close enough for me, and a “South Harrow Tennessee Fried Chicken”, which I’m not counting because either.

Here is where these American State Fried Chicken shops are in the UK:

2 map uk

Interestingly, this isn’t a case of a map simply showing population distributions. The shops cluster around the London and Manchester regions, but with almost none in any other major urban centre.

Let’s have a look at the clusters separately. Here’s the chicken shops around the Manchester area:

2.1 map greater nw

None of them are in the proper centre of Manchester itself, but they’re in the towns around. One town in particular stands out: Oldham. Let’s have a look at the centre of Oldham:

2.2 oldham only

Oldham, you’re fantastic. There are six separate “X Fried Chicken” shops in Oldham, and four of them – Georgia, Michigan, Montana, and Virginia – are the only ones by that name in the whole country.

For comparison, here’s the London area:

2.3 greater london area only

This is where all the Tennessees are, as well as the one Texas and Mississippi.

It looks like there’s a lot more variety in the north of England compared to the south, and sure enough, a split emerges:

3 latitude scatterplot

[chicken icon from https://www.flaticon.com/packs/animals-33%5D

Chicken shops in the south of England (and that one Tennessee place in Wales) tend to name their shops after states in the geographical south of the USA, while chicken shops in the north of England name their shops after any states they like.

This is where my initial Twitter thread ended, and I woke up the next day to a lot of comments like “Y IS THEIR NO MARYLAND THEIR IS MARYLAND CHICKEN IN LEICESTER”. Well, yeah, but it’s not Maryland Fried Chicken, is it?

So I re-ran the data to look at chicken shops with an American state in the name. This is the point at which it’s hard to tell if there’s any data drop out; the FSA data categorises places to inspect as restaurants, takeaways, etc., but not as specifically as chicken shops. All I’ve got to go on is the name, so I’ve taken all shops with an American state and the word “chicken” in the name. This would exclude (sadly fictional) places like “South Dakota Spicy Wings” and “The Organic Vermont Quail Emporium”, but it’d also include a lot of false positives; for example, you’d think that taking all takeaway places with “wings” in the name would be safe, but when I manually checked a few on Google Street View (because I’m dedicated to my research), about half of them are Chinese and refer to the owner’s surname, not the delicacy available.

This brings in a few more states – Marlyand, New Jersey, and Nevada:

4 state chicken map

Let’s have another look at the UK’s south vs north split. We’ve got a bit of midlands representation now, with the Maryland Chickens in Leicester and Nottingham, the Nevada Chickens in Nottingham and Derby, and a California Chicken & Pizza near Dudley. The latitude naming split between the south/midlands and the north isn’t quite as obvious anymore:

5 latitude with no fried restriction

…but, there is still a noticeable difference. This graph shows each chicken shop with an American state and the word “chicken” in the name, ordered by latitude going south to north:

6 north vs midlands and south

In the south and the midlands, there’s the occasional chicken shop that’s going individual – there’s the Texas Fried Chicken in Edmonton, the two Mississippi places in London which don’t seem to be related (Mississippi Chicken & Pizza in Dagenham, Mississippi Fried Chicken in Islington), the Kansas Chicken & Ribs place in Hornsey is almost definitely a different chain from the six Kansas Fried Chicken shops in and around Manchester, and the California Fried Chicken in Luton is probably independent of the California Fried Chickens on the south coast – but most of them are Tennessee or Maryland chains in the same area. In all, the south and midlands have 17 chicken shops named after 8 American states (excluding Kentucky), or a State-to-Chicken-Shop ratio of 0.47.

In the north, however, there’s a proliferation of independent chicken shops – 15 shops named after 9 different states (excluding Kentucky), or a State-to-Chicken-Shop ratio of 0.6. There’s the chain of six Kansas Fried Chicken places and two Florida Fried Chicken places in Manchester and Oldham, but the rest are completely separate. Good job, The North.

The broader question is: why does the UK do this? There’s obviously the copycat nature of it; chicken shops want to seem plausible, and sounding like a KFC (and looking like one too, since they’re almost always designed in red/white/blue colours) links it in people’s minds. I think there’s more to it, though. Having a really American-sounding word in the name is probably a bit like how Japanese companies scatter English words everywhere to sound international and dynamic (even if they make no sense), or how Americans often perceive British names and accents as fancier and more authoritative (even if to British ears it’s somebody from Birmingham called Jenkins). We’re doing the same, but… for fried chicken.

Finally, since this data is all from the Food Standards Agency’s hygiene ratings, it’d be a shame not to look at the actual hygiene ratings:

7 hygiene

It looks like independently-named chicken shops named after American states in the north are more hygienic. The chains in the south and midlands – Tennessee, Maryland, California, and especially New Jersey – don’t have great hygiene ratings, and the independent shops do pretty badly too. In contrast, the chicken shops in the north score highly for cleanliness. In fact, a quick linear regression of hygiene onto latitude gives me an R2 of 0.74 and a p-value of < 0.0001. Speculations as to why this is on a postcard, please.

Preëmpting your questions/comments:

“I live in […] and my local shop […] isn’t mentioned!”
Maybe you’re talking about a Dallas Chicken place. That’s not a state. Nor is Dixy Chicken, it just sounds a bit American. If it’s definitely a state, then does it have chicken in the name? If not, I won’t have picked it up. I also haven’t picked up shops which have, say, “Vermont Fried Chicken” written on the shop sign if it’s registered in the database as “VFC”. Same with if the state is misspelled, either by the shop or by the data collectors. If it’s all still fine, perhaps the shop is so new that it hasn’t had an inspection… or perhaps the shop is operating illegally and isn’t registered for a hygiene inspection.

“Did you know about Mr. Chicken, the guy who designs the signs?”
I didn’t, but I do now! He’s brilliant.

“How did you do all this?”
I use Alteryx for data scraping/preparation and Tableau for data visualisation.

“I have an idea for something / I want to talk to you about something, can I get in touch?”
Please do! My Twitter handle is @GwilymLockwood, or you can email me on gwilym.lockwood@theinformationlab.co.uk

“Your analysis is amazing, probably the best thing I’ve ever seen with my eyes. Where can I explore more of your stuff?”
Thanks, that’s so kind! There’s a lot of my infographic work on my Tableau Public site here.

Standard
Tableau

Strings and roundabouts: how to label your numbers in Tableau effectively

Lots of Tableau dashboards feature big summary numbers. They’re pretty nice, and they look like this:

1 numbers

And what’s even nicer is that you can alter the measure’s default number format to automatically round a specific unit, like this:

2 round to k.png

But sometimes, the range of numbers is a lot wider than sales per state in Superstore. Let’s have a look at population per country in the World Indicators dataset:

3 populations.png

Those are some long numbers, so let’s round them to the nearest unit again. But which one? If we round to the thousands, we get this:

4 populations k.png

And if we round to the millions, we get this:

5 populations m.png

It’d be great if we could get Tableau to figure out what the nearest sensible unit is. That functionality doesn’t exist yet (as far as I know!), but we can write a specific optimised rounding calculation for labelling purposes. It’s a bit of a long one:

6 pop rounded optimised

This calculation returns the number you want as a string. It does this by:

  1. Aggregating the number you’re actually working with already and finding out whether it’s above a billion (in which case you’d want to summarise to whatever number of billions it is), or above a million (in which case you’d want to summarise to whatever number of millions it is), and so on.
  2. Converting it to an absolute number so that it works for negative numbers too.
  3. Taking that aggregated number and dividing by the sensible unit. For example, if your number is 34000000, you’d want to express it as 34 million, so we’re dividing it by a million to return 34.
  4. Rounding that divided figure to one decimal place. This is just my preference, you can do what you like! Set the number to 0 for no decimal places, or 2 for two decimal places, etc.
  5. Convert that number to a string.
  6. Add a text unit abbreviation to the end of it.

Of course, you can also add trillions, quadrillions, and so on, if that’s what your data requires.

This sorts us out nicely:

7 boom

Now, I’ve deliberately aggregated everything within the calculation, and I’m only using it for labelling purposes. I categorically do not recommend aggregating outside this calculation or using this calculation for calculating anything else. This will result in a shitstorm of rounding errors which can seriously damage your data. But as a final step once you’ve sorted everything out, I find that this is really nice for presenting data.

Here’s the calculation in text so you can copy and paste it into your workbooks:

IF ABS(AVG([Population Total])) >= 1000000000 THEN
//round for billions
STR(ROUND(AVG([Population Total] / 1000000000), 1)) + "b"
ELSEIF ABS(AVG([Population Total])) >= 1000000 THEN
//round for millions
STR(ROUND(AVG([Population Total] / 1000000), 1)) + "m"
ELSEIF ABS(AVG([Population Total])) >= 1000 THEN
//round for thousands
STR(ROUND(AVG([Population Total] / 1000), 1)) + "k"
ELSE
STR(ROUND(AVG([Population Total]),0))
END

Standard