On Dec 21, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Karsten Loesing wrote: > On 12/18/13 2:03 PM, Rob Jansen wrote: >> On Dec 18, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Karsten Loesing wrote: >>> I also >>> aggregated observations similar to Torperf measurements, by plotting >>> only median and interquartile range. Here's the result: >>> >>> https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/connbidirect-2013-09-19-2013-12-18.png >>> >>> The old graph containing the same data is still there: >>> >>> https://metrics.torproject.org/performance.html?graph=connbidirect&start=2013-09-19&end=2013-12-18#connbidirect >>> >>> Do you like the new graph? Do you have further ideas for improving it? >> >> I do like the new graph, its much cleaner than the old one. But I like the >> mostly reading/writing parts of the old one too. Maybe we can create two >> more graphs like the new one (1 for mostly reading and 1 for mostly writing). > > Ah okay, then let's put the unidirectional parts back into the graph. I > made another graph with all three parts (both reading and writing, > mostly writing, and mostly reading) displayed with medians and > interquartile ranges on the same y axis. I find it easier to compare > the three parts in this graph than in three separate graphs with > possibly different y axis scales. > > https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/connbidirect-2-2013-09-19-2013-12-18.png > > How's this one compared to the other two?
Awesome! This is even better than have 3 separate graphs. I think this achieves the best balance between summarizing the data and showcasing the data that is available. > >> I also think a stacked percentage area graph (e.g. >> http://www.highcharts.com/demo/area-stacked-percent) could work here, as a >> way to get all the data on the same chart. > > I'm not really sure how that would work with our data. We could only > display medians, not interquartile ranges. And our three medians don't > even add up to 100%; using means instead of medians might fix this, > though I didn't check. Ah, I see. I assumed they added to 100%. > > Do you think this graph would be easier to understand than the one I > posted above? > Likely not, given the above comment. I'd say ignore this suggestion. >>> This graph is only there to show what kind of data we have. If somebody >>> is really interested in the data, they'll have to download the CSV file >>> and do their own analysis. Here's the specification of the file format: >>> >>> https://metrics.torproject.org/stats.html#connbidirect >>> >>> All the best, >>> Karsten >>> >> >> If the main goal is to show the data that exists, I think the old graph does >> that fine. But I think an important subgoal is also to have graphs that make >> it clear how the data is useful, not only that it exists. Perhaps keep >> both/all versions? > > Agreed, the graph should be useful, not just show that we have the data. > Though I'd want to avoid adding a second or third graph and instead > pick the most useful one we can come up with here. > > Thanks for your input! Much appreciated. > > All the best, > Karsten I think your newest graph (the one with the three median+range plots on the same graph) is the best, and would be happy if we switched to that one. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
