Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

st4n13l t1_iym7451 wrote

I kind of hate myself for thinking this looks cool

7

avwie t1_iym7tpr wrote

Now make one for the whole of Europe in the same time range

2

ASK_IF_IM_PENGUIN t1_iymc829 wrote

Replying to avwie (#845,509)

How are you defining "Europe"?

If you mean the EU it didn't exist back when this graph started although arguably it's predecessor did in a very different form. More countries have since joined and one, notably, has left.

If you mean the continent there are parts of it where we simply don't have records because the countries themselves have changed a lot, are generally unhelpful or flat out lie (cough Russia cough), and the boundaries themselves are open to interpretation.

3

Esarus t1_iymcat2 wrote

Sorry but this is not a good nor beautiful visualization, if you need a "How to read?" paragraph for your visualization to make any sense, you could improve your visualization.

17

Gwanbigupyaself t1_iymcdf0 wrote

The pipes you use on the bottom right are capital letter (i/I). It came up as a serif font for me and made it difficult to understand what the graphic was saying. Use pipes instead ||

5

LSeww t1_iymev38 wrote

Here's their definition of school shooting:

when a gun is brandished, is fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time, or day of the week

6

data_n_stuff OP t1_iymfjt5 wrote

Replying to LSeww (#845,825)

That's true, however, I specifically filtered to incidents where there were victims (injuries or death) plus the person who committed was a student or former student and the cause of shooting was NOT accident. This was I tried to filter the "actual" intentional school shootings from the very extensive database.

9

data_n_stuff OP t1_iymg1xj wrote

Replying to Esarus (#845,719)

Sorry man, I appreciate the feedback however I don't agree. If you are making any visualization which is not a "conventional" one like a pie chart or bar chart, it's a good idea to include a "how to read" or some explaining legend as people have different data literacy skills. It's very common even for the best creators in the industry (I'm obviously not in that group) to include a how to read section. With your last point I agree though, there is always room for improvement :)

9

swankpoppy t1_iymp58w wrote

Replying to data_n_stuff (#845,881)

I disagree that it is hard to understand. I think it shows the trends really well actually. Maybe kind of complicated, yes, but I was able to digest it pretty quickly.

I do always have a problem with the size of circles being used to illustrate data since the area of a circle goes as a square, or is the diameter (instead of the area) of the circle correlated to the data?

7

steven_qichen t1_iymr1h9 wrote

Replying to Esarus (#845,719)

I'm sorry its not another ugly bar chart like the frontpage of shit sub is. It's okay to actually use your comprehension skills once in a while. There's a lot of brilliant graph types that's not immediately obvious, just pick up any data visualisation book. The point is, once you understand the graph, the visualisation provides a useful tool for your brain to comprehend the graph. The point is not to have the prettiest bar chart because anything else is difficult to understand.

1

SueSudio t1_iymycm5 wrote

Replying to LSeww (#845,943)

A minute ago you thought what was really important was the definition they were using. When that was clarified now it's motivation?

Interesting. Expected, but interesting.

1

RD__III t1_iyn9zu5 wrote

Replying to Esarus (#845,719)

Meh, I actually like it. The descriptor is pretty simple, and it allows the plotting of 4 separate (year, number of incidents, casualties, & fatalities) variables in two dimensions in a way that's pretty easy to take in

9

water_sunshine t1_iynaygw wrote

I do not think you succeeded in treating a sensitive subject matter with respect or reverence.

0

data_n_stuff OP t1_iynm9lq wrote

Replying to water_sunshine (#847,200)

I’m very sad you think this way. I always try to be factual with my vizzes and while sometimes I have some hidden jokes or gimmicks on my vizzes this time I was very aware that there is of course no place for such thing so it is a very plain representation of the data which I do not own. I have all the sympathy for the victims and I deeply condemn any violence. That’s all I can say

−3

Training-Purpose802 t1_iynwxx4 wrote

I easily see the changes in raw number of shootings over time, and that most of the deadliest have been recent but I can't determine the answer to the graph's question at all. Is the average shooting becoming more deadlier? What is the average number of victims per shooting in a time frame?, the number of deaths?

1

KiwasiGames t1_iyopzac wrote

That’s interesting. We tend to think of Columbine as a watershed moment, however the graph shows otherwise. Guns on school grounds have been an issue for a long time.

On the other hand it also shows that your chances of actually being shot as a student is still minuscule.

1

sjandixksn t1_iyphxlx wrote

I like it.

​

Very interesting to see how many shootings we had even back to the 70s, and that columbine wasn't even in a particularly 'active' year. Also find it interesting to see that the 90's were as bad as it was until very recently.

2

TheUndieTurd t1_iyqj2rf wrote

fix the title. should be “are school shootings becoming more frequent?”

1

WaitAMinuteThereNow t1_j1tm767 wrote

It looks like the vertical is by date during the year. I think it would be more impactful and informative to put the most impactful ones down the 'center line' so that you could see the change in the number of victims per incident. Although, if this is by chronological order, it would seem the most violent attacks are later half of the year, though Columbine wasn't in the middle of year, April?

1