Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is some really interesting data. I could spend hours on this site given some interesting things to look at. I really wish SO had included salary in their survey.

Some feedback since I see you are the cofounder of statwing:

1. I'd really love to be able to share one specific stat/relation with a friend. I found the relationship between "Career / Job Satisfaction and Number of Employees at Company" to be very interesting, and wanted to share just that one with a friend. Either include a share button on each relation, or update the url to reflect exactly what I'm looking at so that if I send it to someone it'll take them to the same page.

2. Your front page looks like it was written for data producers. Write it instead for consumers. I would be much more likely to come to your site again and again if it showed something similar to Quora: a list of most popular (by views, upvotes, recency, or ideally a combination of all three) stats. Stuff that a lot of people have found interesting and I will probably find interesting so I can go look for myself.

Edit: I just realized statwing is pretty much only for privately analyzing your data. That's too bad. I could see it being a really entertaining site for public data.



Hey, thanks for the feedback.

#1 resonates a lot. If you upload your own data, then we make it really easy to share a few specific analyses (sort of like how I shared a few analyses via this link). But we don't currently have that ability to let folks share analyses of a dataset that they didn't upload themselves. Sounds like we should, we're wasting a good opportunity for you to tell your friend about us.

#2 is also interesting. Obviously from a marketing perspective it's useful for us to get people sharing public datasets. Perhaps there's a way to walk the balance between analysis of private datasets and sharing of public ones.

Thanks again.


Really fascinating website. I agree with arassmussen's feedback. I'd also add that while spending the past five minutes playing around with the website, I'm consistently hitting Describe when I mean Relate. I wonder whether, if you looked at your logs, you'd find a high occurrence of Describe requests followed by Relate requests within 1-2 seconds.


Is that because of misclicking, the order of the buttons, or that it just feels like "Describe" should be the way to get the result you're looking for? (Or something else?).

Thanks for the feedback.


I think it's the order. The primary action I want is the one that connects two columns, but it's second in the order. I click on the first button without thinking what word is on it.

I'm not saying you should switch the order, though. In some way, it makes sense that you should first Describe a column before Relating it to something else. But I think some usability testing would be useful.

I also didn't immediately understand that the different actions would 'stack up' on the right-hand pane, showing everything you've looked at so far. That's really useful, and the pop-up tips were good too, although I had to restrain my instinct to automatically close/turn them off.

It would be nice if, in the Describe summaries, you could sort/order the data. E.g., I'd like to sort the Job Title by Count, instead of alphabetic order of Job Title.

After clearing the data, I wanted to relate three different things together. It wasn't clear how to do that; the Relate button was disabled. I tried Describe, then figured out that Relate To Each (which is clearly labeled!) was the right option. I think I would have preferred not splitting the Relate button into two, Relate and Relate To Each.

It's a neat site, and I hope you continue providing demos.


Awesome. Really appreciate that feedback. Thanks a bunch.

Edit: Also, we do actually allow you to sort the descriptive by Count, alphabetical, or manually chosen. There should be a "Sort" button to the upper right of the table.


The bar chart is sortable, but the table isn't, as far as I can tell.

Also the default sorting for compensation isn't that good. It should be in numerical order, but it's in some sort of alphabetical order.


What kind of confidence interval indicates it's statistically significant? In the sciences, in my experience, a lot of times you see 95% as the standard of confirming correlation, or is it something else?

This is awesome.


Yeah, we use 95% for all out stat testing. If you click the "Advanced" tab of any analysis you can see the actual p-value, too.


They did. See Compensation (with Bonus) right under Career / Job Satisfaction?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: