Talk:SpiderGraph chart

File:Hpqscan0002a = The Real Estate SpiderGraph - A home-Buying Decision-Making Aid.jpg

The issues with the missing image can be found at the author's Commons talk page. Apparently this file was missing the proper permissions and the file has been deleted. Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing

This Author no longer needs your help! Having the article chopped in half and its subject and references mixed up, forced this Author to rewrite the whole article for the 3rd or 4th time within 5.5 months. Now this final rewrite seems to be even better than before! Thanks to all Reviewing Editors for your help! Sincerely, Gregory L. Chester 00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Dear Reviewing Editors, I NEED YOUR HELP!

RE: The "SpiderGraph chart" article went from AFC to Public Article on Feb. 23rd. I'M NOW REQUESTING TO RETURN ARTICLE BACK TO PREVIOUS CONDITION.

The above "technical article" was written in the same format as the WP Radar chart article, in an impartial comparison style, to clear up any confusion that may exist between Radar charts (aka Spider charts), having two or more patterns, plotted from spreadsheets, from some of which are now being called SpiderGraph charts in error. A SpiderGraph chart has only one circular pattern and is plotted directly (w/o spreadsheets), a fact that is clearly discernible.

SIDE NOTE: Author was previously informed by the Trademark board that 40+ companies have inadvertently infringed upon the Trademark of SpiderGraph, believed to be in error, by calling their Spider chart, a SpiderGraph chart.

Problem: Feb. 23rd & 24th, shortly after the article went public, Editor Chiswick Chap (clearly not a technical person) performed "a Major work over & section removals" of the total article, distorting its purpose and confusing most of the comparison facts and references, as well as disregarding the notability & verifiability facts referenced, that the SpiderGraph chart was mentioned in trade magazines and is presently included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation, found in the Library of Congress. (This Author knew the article was in trouble, when it was noticed that Chiswick Chap had changed the word "trade-off" from an adjective into a noun, in the very first sentence of the article! The first paragraph of the article was shortened from 144 technically descriptive words, to 66! In addition, all FeatureLines are the same length, not varied!)

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 07:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 20:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Three things:

• First, please do not make comments about other editors at any time.

• Secondly, the term "trade-off" is commonly used as a noun by engineers - indeed there is a Wikipedia article named Trade-off which begins "A trade-off is a situation ...", in other words using it as a noun.

• Thirdly, while I am as fallible as the next person, I edited the article neutrally for clarity and balance. Please read WP:NPOV to familiarise yourself with the required style of articles. Since you have a WP:COI on this article, you are not absolutely forbidden from editing it, but you are exhorted by the guideline to take extreme care not to press or favour your own point of view. Other editors will certainly edit the article in due course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I want to add that nobody owns an article at Wikipedia! mabdul 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregory L. Chester 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement of fact

The term "Trade-off" is commonly used as an adjective throughout this whole article, never as a noun. The term Trade-off is modifying the word Decision. The object of the SpiderGraph chart is to arrive at a Final Decision, not creating another situation! Also, remember WP articles are not to be used as a Source!

Being an Engineer of very high Integrity, I am now embarrassed for WP, having such a confusing public article, with so many inaccuracies in its present state! Gregory L. Chester 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 20:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns

March 31, 2012

ATTN: Glrx RE: Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart."

Your Notice seems like Deja Vu of the previous 5 months, but unfortunately I had thought that since its been almost 2 months since the article was last tagged, that "All Faults Had Been Corrected" and the previous Reviewing Editors had just forgotten to remove their Tags after having received answers to all of their concerns!

I wish I had previously answered the Reviewers of this article on the article's Talk Page, instead of directly to them. I also wish that there was a way for me to read the Resume of the Reviewers, so I would know better how to respond to them, because in the past, I've run into some very friendly Reviewers; some kids trying to discourage me and put notches on their belts, so to speak; and also some very non-technical Reviewers, reviewing this technical article.

So, I guess maybe I should tell you a little about myself: I'm a 72 year old man, with a very high Integrity, a matter-of-fact-type Electrical Engineer for my whole career and this is my first (and last) article for WP. When I developed the SpiderGraph chart, I was a PLC Product Manager & National Sales Manager, N.A. (for North America), managing & training 23 soon-to-be major city sales people for Omron Electronics, a worldwide Japanese electronics company. After five years, I started my own technical sales & marketing consulting company for another 15 years or so. One of my favorite consulting projects was to develop a Character Education Program (with 5 child psychologists that I hired) for the city school system of Dayton, Ohio. In 2006, I wrote a parent awareness book called "Parents Are Being Played Like A Video Game!" to help parents keep or regain the respect of their toddler children, in hopes that the children would continue respecting people & themselves as they would grow older.

Just to let you know, I did a lot of research on the Radar spider chart, so I could be informative, as well as impartial, in my efforts to present a "comparative" article to help remove the confusion between the two charts, that has developed over the last 31 years. Unfortunately, I found that many of the Radar chart users had written derogatory articles about the Radar chart's inaccuracies. In my writing about them, I quoted the articles verbatim in a Radar chart Limitations section of the article. (That section is copied at the end of this response) Consequently, I learned that I had developed the only competitor to the Radar spider chart and that I had unfortunately kept it internal to my company for fear of Trademark infringement. In this article, I tried my utmost to be overly impartial to help clear-up any confusion that had happen with 4o+ companies that have already infringed upon my Trademark.

Complying to your comments regarding Notability, I have copied, my 1/15/2012 response to WP:N/N:

This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

THE IMPORTANCE & NOTABILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT MATTER: "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart"

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS: Important decisions are made everyday, by everyone! Some such decisions can be "Life Changing!"

FACTS: Microsoft Corp. (Topic found in Wikipedia) developed a software package called "Excel" (Topic found in Wikipedia) for use by the general public & the business world and released it in 1985 (See article's Ref #6). This software package was designed to use an old charting method for Radar charts (aka Spider charts)(Topic found in Wikipedia) to be constructed from a "spreadsheet" and to be used for making "Trade-off Decisions." (3 Topics also found in Wikipedia)

This Definition is found in Wikipedia: A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a "situation" that involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. It implies a decision to be made with full comprehension of both the upside and downside of a particular choice.

Microsoft Excel (Topic found in Wikipedia) was designed to "present" (display) charts that make it possible to analyze, manage, and share information, helping you "track and highlight important data trends" that help you make better, smarter decisions (See article's Ref #8). Unfortunately, Excel only "displays the situation, to allow an estimated decision" and doesn't make an actual "calculated decision," as does the SpiderGraph chart!

Since 1985 (27 yrs.), Excel has been the most popular method used to make "estimated" Trade-off Decisions, but unfortunately, not very well, as attested to by its users! See Section: Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart written by other Authors.(WP:NPOV & DUE) (See article Refs #2, 9 - 12). [Note: This section was deleted by a Reviewing Editor!] A copy of this Section can be found at the end of this response to show you that I tried to distinguish the SpiderGraph chart from the Spider chart, but a non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted it! Please see if you agree or not with its Deletion from the main article, which could have disproved your NPOV & DUE Citations.

Fortunately for those wanting to make more accurate Trade-off Decisions, there was another method developed in 1981 by a Product Manager. This method however, selected products to match specific industrial control applications, but at the time, was only used within his company. Later, this method was written up in a trade magazine (See article's Ref #4) and later, included in The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation, that is found in the Library of Congress! (WP:N & V)(See article's Ref. #5). This method constructed a "SpiderGraph chart" (Topic of this article), which was very similar in appearance to the Radar spider chart, but arrives at a Trade-off Decision by calculation and not by estimation from a chart showing the data trends of a few patterns!

The reason this article is so significant and timely is that this virtually unknown charting method is soon to be developed into a "SpiderGraph Visual Decision-making App" for the Apple iPad Tablet Computer. Unfortunately, over the past 27 yrs., this chart's name has been confused with that of the Radar spider chart by over 40+ companies (See "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion") and now the public has a right to have that confusion corrected by an article on such a widely known and impartial venue as Wikipedia!

Also please note: Without the SpiderGraph chart article being presented, to give the readers a choice, Wikipedia and its Reviewing Editors would NOT be considered impartial, if only the Radar spider chart were presented as the only Trade-off Decision-making article, and as noted by several of its users, not a very good one at that! (WP:COI) Not really! Wouldn't you say that a "calculated decision" is far better than an "estimated decision." (WP:MNA)

And as far as the Wikipedia policies are concerned regarding this article:

WP:NOT#DICT: 2. Dictionary entries: Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public misrepresentation & confusion of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is estimation vs. calculation to obtain a decision, a mathematical significance?) or of individual numbers (40+ companies exhibiting chart naming confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.

Reading the above clarification, it seems that this article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!

I would also think, that anyone writing an article for Wikipedia "must cover the topic in the most factual and comprehensive way possible!" I also believe that if the writer uncovers any confusion or misinformation, it would be necessary to clear up that misinformation with the facts, in order to eliminate any confusion regarding that topic in the future! Therefore, in my opinon, that a one for one comparison of each chart's features is as impartial an article, as can possibly be! (WP:MNA)

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester

Added PS - The above explanation was placed on WP:N/N on 1/15/2012, because I didn't know who cited the article. I never got a reply! However, other Reviewing Editors were later given a copy of this same answer and I just thought that All Faults had been Addressed and that someone had forgotten to remove the remnant Citation Tags from the article, since there have been no other new Citations for almost two months!

Please let me add one more sore point, so you'll know where I'm coming from before I answer your other objections! I've been working on this article since October 2nd, 2011 (6 mos. of sleepless nights) and have rewritten it 7 times unofficially throughout the first 5 months for myself, 3 times on WP:Afc, and 1 final time on Public WP (Engineers never seem to know when to stop re-engineering!). BTW, I type with two fingers looking at the keyboard, just to let you know how important it is to me to have a truthful, properly presented, impartial article for Wikipedia! And oh yes, I have a Chiropractor's appointment scheduled on April 3rd for a sore back from spending so much time on the computer, re-reading & re-writing to put the article in its present impartial & hopefully final form. However, if you could make specific references to the troubled areas, if I have missed anything, it would be greatly appreciated!

Before I respond to your other comments, I must first ask you a question to ponder. When you first came to the SpiderGraph chart article, did you read the previous Reviewers February 2012 Citations before you started to read the article or did you go to the "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" section and read the first "Thank You paragraph" under "Editing" (previously titled "Poor Editorship") before you read the article? You see, I believe that it's where you started reading, that could have set a different Tone to your reading of this article!

However to reply to your comment, "the Secondary source (Ref.#5) that you say is absent", has been answered by the fact that the Editors of "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation" ask this author if they could include the Trade magazine article (Ref.#4) in an Industry's Handbook and in doing so, gave it such importance that it's mentioned on the first two pages of the "State-of-the-Art-Systems" section of the Handbook, which is indicated to be found in the Library of Congress. (If that's not Notable and Verifiable, I don't know what is!)

As to your comment regarding Ref #12: "neither quotation suggest the authors are skilled in the field,"the terms "PLC" (indicating the Programmable Logic Controller Industry) and "pioneer" (which the Dictionary definition indicates: is one that originates or helps open up a new line of thought or activity or prepares for others to follow) is a special designation "not lightly given" to anyone, in any field! The terms "Trade Magazine" indicates a "narrow" or select publication for a specific Industry of endeavor or vocation! (WP:MNA) As previously mentioned, the term "SpiderGraph" was intentionlly kept under wraps to avoid Trademark infringements. However, the reference of "Visualization Tools potential" lends credence to Visual Representation Decision-making Methods, of which in this case, is the SpiderGraph charting Method. (WP:MNA, credit by association) While at the same time, adding a discouraging comment referencing the Excel Radar charting method, by stating that: ...because "the raw data is prosessed" (by Excel software) to create the visual representation, biases in decision making may be accentuated. (NOTE: Measurements can be taken directly off the SpiderGraph chart, where as, since Excel software uses Geometry to create a visual presentation, lines in the display are not linear and areas of the patterns are found by using the square roots of their values!) (WP:MNA) Your "Advocacy" comment has me totally confused! The whole thrust of this article is to impartially remove any confusion between the two types of charts! Where is there any "Advocacy" or for that matter, where is there any "WP:NOR or WP:COI"? To make the article perfectly clear and impartial, I chose to show the difference between the two charts with examples! A SpiderGraph chart "for each item" (meaning one pattern) is pictured in Image #2 and the Radar (spider) chart consisting usually of "two or more data patterns" is pictured in Image #3. In addition, the first paragraph in the comparison section states: the charts may look alike, but they perform different functions to arrive at their trade-off decisions, so I try to clarify how each charting method is different by comparison. Then I proceed to show examples of charts with two or more data patterns in the "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion" section, that are being labeled as SpiderGraph charts, that should have only one pattern. I resent your automatic assumption that, just because I'm the Author & primary editor, it automatically means that there is WP:COI! However, that's exactlly why I choose to make "factual comparisons" between the two types of charts, using other authors (sometimes of Blogs) to make most of the distinctions for me! (WP:MNA) Having used the term "SpiderGraph" for 31 years, you're the first to suggest that CamelCase was used for advertising purposes. But in fact, it was used again to avoid confusion! You see, if ever the term would become separated, you would have "Spider Graph." Unfortunately, the word "chart" is also synonymous with the word "graph," thus the SpiderGraph could be confused with the Spider chart!

As for the term "FeatureLine," it is not "one component," there is a Line for each component that makes up the total item being charted! It could have just as easily been called a "RatingLine, but that doesn't sound good! In the article, the FeatureLine is mentioned as being "a radii drawn as spokes of a wheel," but in truth, they are all just lines. Consequently, the term FeatureSpokes just didn't sound good either! The thought of an Advertising Tone never entered my mind when I picked the names of the chart's components, which really doesn't tout anything, but a true description of the component, anything else would be a stretch! As for the name Divelbiss Corp., I just wrote the quote verbatim! In fact, I wish it wasn't even there my self! (This Section of the Article is still Deleted, however, it has been copied here for your perusal to see if you think it's worth reinstating.)

Six (6) Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart (as found in other Radar chart articles): 1) Radar charts are primarily suited for strikingly showing (pictorially) outliers (those data points lying outside the patterns) and commonality (those data points lying within the patterns), or when one chart is greater in every variable than another, and primarily used for ordinal measurements , where each variable corresponds to "better" in some respect, and all variables are on the same scale[9].

2) Conversely, that same article states that Radar charts have been criticized as poorly suited for making trade-off decisions - when one chart is greater than another on some variables, but less on others[9].

3) Further, it is hard to visually compare lengths of different spokes, because radial distances (around a common center) are hard to judge, though concentric circles help as grid lines[9]. However, even though concentric circles help as grid lines, it remains cumbersome to compare values on non-adjacent axes[12].

4) There are few charts in Excel that are as revolting as a Radar chart. I am yet to come across a Radar chart that tells out its story screaming loud. But they still suck! I mean the human eye is not trained to go around circles 4 times, stopping a 6 different parameters, only to realize that all the options are equally bad (good)[10].

5) Spider Graphs (this article incorrectly uses the wrong chart name throughout, so it has been replaced here by this Author, to avoid more confusion) "Radar charts," like most graphical representations, are better for conveying an idea than giving hard numbers. This is especially true since "Radar charts" use normalized numbers, so each statistic is on a scale from 0-100 [11].

6) One hazard of "Radar charts" is that using the area of a graph to determine (or estimate) the end result isn't entirely accurate[11]. The area under the plotted spoke data of the set you're observing is affected by the 2 adjacent spokes that have absolutely nothing to do with it, but still affect its area. In addition, the area of the shapes increases as a square of the values rather than linearly[12]. This can cause us to misinterpret the data since a small difference in values results in a significant difference in area, thereby exaggerating any difference when we follow our natural inclination to compare the size of the shapes[12]. Beyond this, there are over a dozen more subtle variations that have different consequences with respect to the efficacy of the Radar chart in this article[12].

NOTE: None of the above 6 obscure Limitations of Radar charts exists when using SpiderGraph charts, because area is not a factor and all measurements are linear and straight foreward! Consequently, trade-off decisions can be calculated and estimations, as used with Radar charts, are not necessary!

As a consequence of this Response, if every concern has been met with clear reasoning and approval, I would appreciate it if you would remove your wikicoding for Deletion as soon as possible! Hopefully, that should also include all tags at the top of the article as well, so this excercise could be avoided in the future! Working on such a demanding & important article for six (6) months, with hurdle after hurdle, has been quite a challange for an old man! However, it's definitely quite an acheivement to have placed an artical on Wikipedia! Thanks to all the Reviewing Editors that have helped make this acheivement possible!

This Response is being Respectively Submitted, on this the 31st day of March, by Gregory L. Chester, Author of the WP: SpiderGraph article. Gregory L. Chester 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

GregLChest objected, so I have removed the proposed deletion. I will nominate the article for deletion later.

The NOTE: above is especially troubling because it somehow concludes that SpiderGraphs are immune from the faults of radar charts. There is a reason that Excel scales the axes by the square root. There is interference with neighboring axes.

Glrx (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(THAT MAY BE TRUE ABOUT RADAR SPIDER CHARTS, BUT THE SPIDERGRAPH CHART HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A RADAR SPIDER CHART, THAT'S WHY THERE'S SO MUCH CONFUSION, THAT I'M TRYING TO CLEAR UP WITH THIS ARTICLE!!) Gregory L. Chester 22:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Your comments) Chester's claims at Talk:SpiderGraph chart#Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns are not persuasive (??), and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph - (NO, THEY DO NOT DIRECTLY CARRY OVER TO ANYTHING!). In particular, there are no cited sources saying SpiderGraphs do not have the faults of radar charts. (THERE IS NO NEED TO CITE THE OBVIOUS!) (WP:MNA)

SORRY, it's you that doesn't understand! It is Excel software that requires spreadsheets to construct Radar spider charts using Geometry formulas. The SG does not need software! These Excel formulas create patterns on different axis making it impossible to scale! The size of these patterns use sq roots to find their areas, which make the area's size misleading! The SG does not use patterns, non-linear axis measurement or squared areas to estimate a decision from! The SG uses direct calculations! NOTE: Chester understands all the problems with the Radar chart method (Pls Refer to the 6 comments by other Radar chart article's authors) The SG uses none of the afore mentioned misleading Geometric patterns to make observations that give misleading information to make "estimated" decisions from! The SpiderGraph is not computer enhansed! All measurements and calculations are taken directly from the hand-drawn "non-geometric" chart!

Gregory L. Chester 22:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Do not edit other editor's comments. Do not WP:SHOUT.

The visible area in a spoke sector is roughly a triangle. The area of a triangle is proportional to its height times its base. The height is roughly the position on the spoke; the base is also proportional to spoke -- the further out on the spoke, the longer the base. Consequently the area of the sector is proportional to the spoke coordinate squared. This is a well-known problem with certain graphs; see the book How to Lie with Statistics. The perceived area of a sector also depends on its neighbors; if both neighbors have a greater coordinate value, the sector will have more area. Similar argument is both neighbors are smaller.

The material is being challenged as unsourced. You need to find sources to support your claims.

Glrx (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)