Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Superb_Firefighter20 t1_j5gjuo9 wrote

Including only a few states’ racial data in the first column is confusing as no other dataset uses states a a parameter thus not particularly relevant. Also, the state data leads the view up to make false comparisons. As example Data Dog is not based in CA but the layout leads to comparison of those numbers. In addition putting the the the US aggregate data within the states obfuscates the number that will give better context for individual companies below.

1

teamongered OP t1_j5i0xmm wrote

All the companies shown in the figure are headquartered in one of those states (or outside the USA), so that I why I showed those ones in particular. As far as I know, Datadog is headquartered in New York, so I used that state for it's state-level reference. But I see what you're saying, since they are visually close together people may inadvertently compare them. Maybe I could have added some text to indicate which state each company's HQ is in.

​

Also possible I was a bit overly ambitious in this figure by providing both USA and state-level comparisons, but I felt it was worth while since the demographics of some states looks quite difference to the USA overall.

2

Superb_Firefighter20 t1_j5i3wak wrote

Thank you for clarifying. It is impossible to parse the top and second section as it is now. Maybe break up the companies by headquarter state. It will still be weird for companies like Amazon that probably have a lot employees outside of their headquartered state.

I really like setting up the demographic break down if each company compared to the deviation from population demographic.

1