“Data” is a word I use a lot, which has not appeared in any of my post titles, until today.
If we looked at the data of these daily blog posts, I believe we would find many posts that start out in a similar way: surprise/acknowledgement that a certain word is making it to the title round here for the first time ever.
Why do I start blog posts that way, so often?
I don’t have any data for that. But I will try to answer that question, anyway.
Hmmm. It’s difficult to answer questions, when you don’t have any hard data.
Here’s my best attempt, for now, in answering that question: I often need some link to my past writings in order to feel grounded, as I start writing each morning. I’m also curious and concerned about whether I’m being repetitive. And I’ve written so many posts here that, on some level, I believe I must have written about every topic that is important to me, by now.
But, apparently not.
So, what do I want to say about data, this morning?
I work at a teaching hospital that values data.
In order for me to publish an article about — or otherwise get wider recognition for — the therapy groups I’ve doing, I need to show data about how these groups are helping people.
While I value data, I can get very caught up in what researchers call “anecdotal evidence” — people showing and talking about how much something is helping them.
There is more I could say about collecting data about my groups, this morning, but I don’t feel like it.
Aha! That last sentence is some anecdotal data supporting the speculation that I might keep avoiding using approved and standardized data collection methods, about my therapy groups.
However, I do want to say some more things, now, about “data.”
Some people think that photos provide irrefutable data. Actually, with all the possibilities of photo-shopping (or what older people might call “doctoring”) images these days, photographs are not as credible data-providers, as they used to be.
Nevertheless, I hope you believe me when I tell you that I have not doctored some photos I’m about to show you, taken yesterday, in any way.
Wait! I guess it depends on how you would define “doctoring photos.” I definitely have NOT photo-shopped them. However, I have cropped one — and only one — of them, zooming in on what I thought was the most important data contained in the photo.
Data indicates that blog readers feel more engaged and are more likely to comment if the writer asks them a question. Here’s a question: which one of these photos do you think I zoomed in on, hours after I took it? If you answer that question, I think I could gather some numerical data. Here’s another question, which might produce data of a softer kind: Why do you think I cropped that photo, particularly?
I just want to point out some data about that previous paragraph, before I proceed with presenting the photos. I started out that paragraph with the words “Data indicates”… but I didn’t provide any hard data — research studies, articles, numbers, and so on. So what do I mean by “data indicates” there?
Just this: I’ve read a lot of blog posts, and that’s what I’ve noticed, people.
Is that good enough for you? Can I continue now and show you some friggin’ photos?
I shall now mind-read everybody who might be reading this post …
(YouTube video of “magic sound effect” found here) (which, by the way, was the only video I liked well enough to use in a previous blog post for similar effect) (although while I like the sound, I’m really not loving that visual, particularly)*
… and come up with the answers I want, to those two questions I just posed. Which would be “yes” and “yes.”
Wow. I really DO have to work on my data collection skills. But before I do that, here are those photos, taken yesterday. And just to review those data-collection questions I asked you:
Which one of these fifteen photos did I crop, after I took it?
What’s your supporting data for making that choice, today?
Photo #1:
Photo #2:
(Note: At first, when my boyfriend Michael and I saw that cat yesterday, we thought it might be the same one we’ve seen on other walks, which has appeared, several times, in this blog before. However, when we examined the evidence more closely — the cat’s face and the tag around its neck — we realized otherwise. We decided to investigate for difference, because the cat was in a different location. Otherwise, we might have assumed it was the other cat, named “Espresso.” What is the name of that cat, above? We don’t know. The tag didn’t say. Now, I could try to check old posts to link to those that include photos of Espresso, the Very Friendly Outdoor Cat, but who has the time? Not I. And why should I assume that anybody reading these posts wants me to make that extra effort? The data I’m considering is resulting in this result: I shall not link to previous posts with Espresso.)
Photo #3:
Photo #4:
Photo #5:
Photo #6:
Photo #7:
Photo #8:
Photo #9:
Photo #10:
Photo #11:
Photo #12:
Photo #13:
Photo #14:
Photo #15:
Data indicates that many readers will NOT answer the two questions I asked about those photos. Of those readers who do comment in response to this post, my best-guess, based on past observation, is that approximately 50% will answer those questions. Others responding will make some other kind of comment (equally valued by me, by the way).
However, by presenting this blog post the way I have — that is, focusing on how people might respond — I might affect the results. That is, MORE people might answer those questions, than in a blog post that just asks the questions, rather than making such a big deal about the process.
Is anybody still reading this post? Or have I lost people, with the way I’m writing here?
Let’s see what the data tells us.
Thanks to all those who use data in any way and to you — of course! — for reading this blog post today (I assume).
* If you looked at the data from my recent blog posts and compared it to the posts I was writing about a year ago, I believe you would find that, in the present, I am writing far fewer footnotes. Instead, I am incorporating as much information as possible into the body of the post itself. Why? I have no hard data to answer that question.
Day 623: Data
“Data” is a word I use a lot, which has not appeared in any of my post titles, until today.
If we looked at the data of these daily blog posts, I believe we would find many posts that start out in a similar way: surprise/acknowledgement that a certain word is making it to the title round here for the first time ever.
Why do I start blog posts that way, so often?
I don’t have any data for that. But I will try to answer that question, anyway.
Hmmm. It’s difficult to answer questions, when you don’t have any hard data.
Here’s my best attempt, for now, in answering that question: I often need some link to my past writings in order to feel grounded, as I start writing each morning. I’m also curious and concerned about whether I’m being repetitive. And I’ve written so many posts here that, on some level, I believe I must have written about every topic that is important to me, by now.
But, apparently not.
So, what do I want to say about data, this morning?
There is more I could say about collecting data about my groups, this morning, but I don’t feel like it.
Aha! That last sentence is some anecdotal data supporting the speculation that I might keep avoiding using approved and standardized data collection methods, about my therapy groups.
However, I do want to say some more things, now, about “data.”
Some people think that photos provide irrefutable data. Actually, with all the possibilities of photo-shopping (or what older people might call “doctoring”) images these days, photographs are not as credible data-providers, as they used to be.
Nevertheless, I hope you believe me when I tell you that I have not doctored some photos I’m about to show you, taken yesterday, in any way.
Wait! I guess it depends on how you would define “doctoring photos.” I definitely have NOT photo-shopped them. However, I have cropped one — and only one — of them, zooming in on what I thought was the most important data contained in the photo.
Data indicates that blog readers feel more engaged and are more likely to comment if the writer asks them a question. Here’s a question: which one of these photos do you think I zoomed in on, hours after I took it? If you answer that question, I think I could gather some numerical data. Here’s another question, which might produce data of a softer kind: Why do you think I cropped that photo, particularly?
I just want to point out some data about that previous paragraph, before I proceed with presenting the photos. I started out that paragraph with the words “Data indicates”… but I didn’t provide any hard data — research studies, articles, numbers, and so on. So what do I mean by “data indicates” there?
Just this: I’ve read a lot of blog posts, and that’s what I’ve noticed, people.
Is that good enough for you? Can I continue now and show you some friggin’ photos?
I shall now mind-read everybody who might be reading this post …
(YouTube video of “magic sound effect” found here) (which, by the way, was the only video I liked well enough to use in a previous blog post for similar effect) (although while I like the sound, I’m really not loving that visual, particularly)*
… and come up with the answers I want, to those two questions I just posed. Which would be “yes” and “yes.”
Wow. I really DO have to work on my data collection skills. But before I do that, here are those photos, taken yesterday. And just to review those data-collection questions I asked you:
Photo #1:
Photo #2:
(Note: At first, when my boyfriend Michael and I saw that cat yesterday, we thought it might be the same one we’ve seen on other walks, which has appeared, several times, in this blog before. However, when we examined the evidence more closely — the cat’s face and the tag around its neck — we realized otherwise. We decided to investigate for difference, because the cat was in a different location. Otherwise, we might have assumed it was the other cat, named “Espresso.” What is the name of that cat, above? We don’t know. The tag didn’t say. Now, I could try to check old posts to link to those that include photos of Espresso, the Very Friendly Outdoor Cat, but who has the time? Not I. And why should I assume that anybody reading these posts wants me to make that extra effort? The data I’m considering is resulting in this result: I shall not link to previous posts with Espresso.)
Photo #3:
Photo #4:
Photo #5:
Photo #6:
Photo #7:
Photo #8:
Photo #9:
Photo #10:
Photo #11:
Photo #12:
Photo #13:
Photo #14:
Photo #15:
Data indicates that many readers will NOT answer the two questions I asked about those photos. Of those readers who do comment in response to this post, my best-guess, based on past observation, is that approximately 50% will answer those questions. Others responding will make some other kind of comment (equally valued by me, by the way).
However, by presenting this blog post the way I have — that is, focusing on how people might respond — I might affect the results. That is, MORE people might answer those questions, than in a blog post that just asks the questions, rather than making such a big deal about the process.
Is anybody still reading this post? Or have I lost people, with the way I’m writing here?
Let’s see what the data tells us.
Thanks to all those who use data in any way and to you — of course! — for reading this blog post today (I assume).
* If you looked at the data from my recent blog posts and compared it to the posts I was writing about a year ago, I believe you would find that, in the present, I am writing far fewer footnotes. Instead, I am incorporating as much information as possible into the body of the post itself. Why? I have no hard data to answer that question.