I think after throwing this Cushman Collection of photos into Google Fusion Tables, I have sufficiently learned that I should not have the power of data displays in my hands. I have way too much fun playing around with them. Particularly this one here:
Network graphs though. They’re like jellyfish turned into graphs. And I even figured out how to embed it so everyone can play with it. In the case of this little graph, I was comparing the “Genre 1” and “Genre 2” categories of the Cushman photographs. I must confess, I’m not entirely sure how network graphs work, but I think what can be gleaned from this is that the bigger “nodes” are the genres that show up more often, and the lines between different nodes show genres that’re connected to each other. This is a pretty handy and fun way to figure out which genres the makers of this collection use the most, and what correlations there are between the genres.
I also decided to make a couple pie graphs about the genres, complete with Comic Sans font because I’m that obnoxious:
The first pie chart is for Genre 1, and the second is for Genre 2. I knocked the Genre 2 chart down from twenty slices to ten, because there weren’t enough categories in Genre 2 to have that many slices. These pie charts are a little different from the network graph, because although they have prettier colors, they don’t show the connections between these photographs’ different genres. It does make it much easier to see which genres are used the most often, and compare their frequencies to each other, but Genre 1 and 2 remain very distinct categories with the pie charts. Clearly, the way you choose to display data is significant, because different kinds of graphs and charts can reveal very different things about data.