tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post6713724566461603150..comments2023-07-07T06:52:33.856-04:00Comments on floatingsheep: Deconstructing the (most detailed tweet) map (ever)Mark Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00659652124105331552noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-82125473439970834102014-12-21T20:38:41.109-05:002014-12-21T20:38:41.109-05:00Sorry that not everything can fit in a tweet, Terr...Sorry that not everything can fit in a tweet, Terry.Taylor Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298678765648978003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-10972421892776627202014-12-21T20:37:22.734-05:002014-12-21T20:37:22.734-05:00In short, yes. :)In short, yes. :)Taylor Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298678765648978003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-50029796333139934862014-12-21T16:09:34.358-05:002014-12-21T16:09:34.358-05:00Thanks. Let me play this back and make sure I got ...Thanks. Let me play this back and make sure I got it. Are you saying that you calculated a West End/East End total tweet split, and they compared the ratios of tweets in each individual cell relative to that overall ratio and used that to assign the shading?The Urbanophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094204641794131438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-16631478984384674612014-12-21T07:14:17.311-05:002014-12-21T07:14:17.311-05:00Never heard the saying "Brevity is the soul o...Never heard the saying "Brevity is the soul of wit"? Or was this an homage to the days of being paid by word and using the most possible words to tell a story?<br />DocSkinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14325442765858363317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-70485447676317710002014-12-21T07:12:35.993-05:002014-12-21T07:12:35.993-05:00TL;DRTL;DRDocSkinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14325442765858363317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-80116959344944417382014-12-18T17:36:49.471-05:002014-12-18T17:36:49.471-05:00Terrific critique. Well argued. I posted something...Terrific critique. Well argued. I posted something similar for one of Eric's previous maps in 2013 (http://cartonerd.blogspot.com/2013/06/3-billion-tweets-on-map.html) and at the time said much the same. The problem isn't so much to do with the map per se, it's to do with the hype and the rhetoric that accompanies it (and others, this isn't specific to Eric's map).<br /><br />There's nothing intrinsically wrong with making a map of a load of latitude/longitude pairs. A lot of people are doing the same. Where Eric goes beyond most is making the map really beautiful. Could you imagine it with emoji symbols instead? But I see many maps these days have titles that simply don't match the work. They generate interest and capture people's imagination (and get blogged, liked and retweeted) but unfortunately those same people aren't able to assess the map in the same way as presented here. They treat it at face value. In truth, maps have always lied and this is not a new problem but I fear unless we begin to cast our maps in a more objective, less sensational fashion we risk damaging trust beyond repair.<br /><br />I looked at Eric's map and immediately saw flaws because I know something of the data and the impact of his choice of methods. I liked it to look at and I could largely ignore the title because it makes the map out to be something it isn't. I think it's time to respect the readers of our maps a little more and not be so quick with the grandiose claims.<br /><br />Experimental mapping is great. Great looking maps are great. We need to develop a healthier way of telling people what it is they're looking at. Making a map of latitudes and longitudes is fine but they don't tell is this, or that or whatever other fanciful assumption we might make from combining the image with a sensationalist title. The campaign for modest map titles starts here!Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15699366133342613861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-55860949704848053332014-12-18T15:39:57.473-05:002014-12-18T15:39:57.473-05:00@Eric: Thanks for the thoughtful reply and further...@Eric: Thanks for the thoughtful reply and further clarification of what you meant by 'detail'. Of course, the bigger question of what that particular definition of detail does, and how it was interpreted and reframed by the world-at-large when writing about your map, remains...<br /><br />An issue you raise, which we didn’t touch on in our blog post, is the issue of access to this kind of data, and what it means that many people are unable to access this data because they either lack the necessary technical skills to collect it themselves, or the Twitter Terms of Service bars those of us with these large databases at our fingertips from sharing them widely, all because Twitter stands to make some money from selling the data through their partnership with GNIP. <br /><br />There’s definitely something powerful about people being able to explore this data for themselves — I think the same is even more true of your earlier work on tourists vs. locals and on the use of iPhones vs. Android phones — and it’s easy to forget that there are plenty of folks who *should* have access to this data who don’t, and that this actually keeps people from asking and answering more complex questions with this kind of data. And perhaps it’s because of this lack of access to experiment and do more with the data that people tend to be, I would argue, overly fascinated by the map itself, and not more critical or inquisitive about what other things we could be doing with data.<br /><br />Anyways, thanks again for engaging! Hopefully we can keep this conversation going in some way, shape or form!Taylor Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298678765648978003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-15829924815489752792014-12-18T14:06:45.748-05:002014-12-18T14:06:45.748-05:00Thanks for putting so much attention into analyzin...Thanks for putting so much attention into analyzing this map and what it might mean.<br /><br />As I said on Twitter, the reason I called it "the most detailed ever" is because it does have more points on it and lets you zoom in further than any other tweet map I have ever seen. Twitter's own archives must have more points, but those archives aren't accessible.<br /><br />And you're right: it doesn't tell anyone very much that they didn't already know. That's why I framed the blog post as a tutorial on how to make dot maps, rather on anything particularly special in this one.<br /><br />The things I think are genuinely interesting about Twitter data are that it shows where the non-residential concentrations of people are, and how those places relate to each other by travel and by communication. I still struggle with how to show those relationships between places on a map, but even showing the concentrations at arbitrary scale is challenging enough that it's worth talking about.<br /><br />At the same time, I do think there is value in simply making things like this available to the public. The reaction has demonstrated that there are a lot of people who are interested in scrolling around and seeing what the activity patterns look like in places that they know or are interested in knowing. When you have this sort of data available at your own disposal to answer your own questions, it's easy to forget that not everyone has it until you expose it to them.<br /><br />I'm glad that your local knowledge of Louisville lets you go further into what the tweets there mean. My hope is that someday I will be able to form a general theory of friction between nearby places and how those gaps might be able to be bridged.Eric Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17717107532168518915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-87014043268226609762014-12-18T14:01:55.558-05:002014-12-18T14:01:55.558-05:00I assume you're referring to the discussion of...I assume you're referring to the discussion of the odds-ratio measure here... In effect, the odds-ratio compares the relative number of tweets between the two groups in a given hexagon relative to the overall balance of tweets between the two groups. So by "expected", we mean the overall distribution of West End vs. East End tweets, which is compared to a more micro-level distribution within certain areas. So a value of 1 signifies that the relative number of tweets in a given area is equivalent to the overall distribution between the two groups, rather than meaning that the two numbers are exactly equal. Does that make sense?Taylor Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298678765648978003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1166669645725536266.post-64409158580119511612014-12-18T12:01:21.338-05:002014-12-18T12:01:21.338-05:00Query: What's your definition of "expecte...Query: What's your definition of "expected" tweets? Thx. The Urbanophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094204641794131438noreply@blogger.com