Thursday, March 16, 2006

Re: RE: st: RE: pie charts

...I also agree with Nick and you that a legend with 229 values is likely to be unreadable...I have cleaned my data...hence, now, with one importing country, 13 years, and the ten first partners for each year, "it worked", if and only if instead of defining my graph over(partner) I defined it over(rank) that is to say over the rank of each partner: 1, 2, ..., 10. With the rank at each year having of course the same code (while the ten countries are different at each year and hence have different codes), "stata did accept" to represent the ten pies but without taking into account the evolution of the total amount of imports. Anyway it was just to present a kind of brief overview of my dataset...

Many thanks for your answers Regards Christopher

If you have 10 main partners in each of 10 years, then this could not possibly produce the 229 levels of the -partenaires- variable that Stata has found - it would give you at most 100, and, if some of the main partners exist across multiple years fewer than this. You need to drop (or at least exclude) all records except the 10 main partners in each year. This would reduce your problem, but, unless it leaves 15 or fewer main partners across the 10 years, will not fix it.

Another option is to define additional styles for p16pie, p17pie etc in your own scheme file (see -help scheme files-). For example, saving the text below as scheme-pietest.scheme in your ado path, and adding the option -scheme(pietest)- to your -graph- command will add definitions for a 16th slice of pie coloured bright red...

#include s2color areastyle p16pie p1 color p1 red

However, I would also agree with Nick that (1) a legend with 229 (or even 100) values is going to swamp your graph; and (2) pie charts aren't very easy to read anyway!


-----Original Message----- From: [] On Behalf Of Sent: 15 March 2006 15:38 To: Subject: Re: st: RE: pie charts

In a first stage I had dropped all the partners but the ten main partners for each year that is why there is nothing in the syntax to identify these partners. I wonder if the problem is not that the ten first partners are not the same for each year? And even though the ten first main partners are not the same why stata cannot, for each year, apply the command? Isn't there something to do with the long or wide format of the data?

By the way, a time series graph could be used to show the evolution of one particuliar partner but not of the structure contrary to a serie of pie charts which could, I think, both represent the distribution of the pie and the evolution in the size of the pie...

Anyway thank you for your answer, regards Christopher

I have three ideas here.

1. The variable -partenaires- evidently has 229 categories, and Stata will be struggling to cope.

Quite possibly all you will see is a legend and the charts themselves will be out of sight.

2. I can't see how your syntax corresponds to identifying the ten main partners.

3. Although you want a series of pie charts it is difficult for me to see how they will convey the structure of your data at all well. A time series graph appears more natural here. Stata does supply pie charts -- largely so nobody can say "But you can't get a pie chart in Stata!" -- but that doesn't make them an effective method for showing comparative structure over time.


* * For searches and help try: * * *

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit ______________________________________________________________________

* * For searches and help try: * * *

* * For searches and help try: * * *


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?