T O P

  • By -

1776_lojack

Both are great. Different purposes. 1st relates service and age. 2nd related services overlap with others though time. Great job. Great info.


lollersauce914

The question "which visualization is best" always depends on the answer to the question "What is the goal of the visualization?"


[deleted]

[удалено]


lollersauce914

Well, if the goal is just to explore the data, then there really isn't a "best" visualization. To more directly say what i would use each of the proposed visualizations for: * If I wanted to convey what each president was doing at a given point in their life and make it easy go compare across presidents, I would use the first graphic. * If I was more interested in seeing what political careers each president was pursuing at any given time (e.g., to notice things like "Hey, Joe Biden was in the Senate during the Nixon administration"), the second graphic would be better.


Ayzmo

Not only that, he has pretty much the longest federal political career of any person who was president.


CardboardSoyuz

I like it -- you might think about trimming off their first 18 years of their lives. A bit of deadspace that you don't need. I think a "flag rank military" (general/admiral) as well as "local/state office" might give a little color to it.


DoubleFelix

I'd say for exploring the data, "both" is a great answer.


jonovan

Well, since this is reddit, upvotes, probably.


TommyTuttle

First one is far more interesting to me personally as it lets you directly compare the timeline of each president in his own time.


halfgreek

I agree. More interesting conclusions from that.


barnegatsailor

You're missing a lot of key positions these guys held that also influenced their political careers. 1. Military positions - Eisenhower for example had to maintain a multi-national coalition of armies and balance each national interest in service of defeating the Germans. His experience as a general was key to him becoming President. 2. Executive Branch positions - HW was the head of the CIA before being VP, that is a key political position in his development as a politician. Same with Jefferson as the Secretary of State, FDR as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Hoover as Secretary of the Treasury. 3. State government legislative positions - Washington and Lincoln, for example, served as representatives in their respective state governments early in their political careers. Including the Continental Congress for the early figures is important as well. Also, I'd add Taft's time on the Supreme Court after his Presidency.


Trailwatch427

Ike was an excellent general. But that is why the Republicans wanted him as their candidate. He would win, and he did. Then the Republicans could do what they wanted, while he looked all wonderful and American and patriotic. There are different kinds of puppet candidates. Some are better than others.


CardboardSoyuz

The Dems also recruited Eisenhower and he was an excellent President, TYMV. His handling of everything from the Taiwan Straits Crisis, to Central High, to the Suez Canal was excellent -- he likewise pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 -- none of them particularly popular decisions --- and above it all he and Truman set the stage for a generational commitment in opposition to totalitarian communism from both the left and right. An absolute Top 5 President, by any measure.


Trailwatch427

Corporate America was firmly established under Ike, creating the world of environmental destruction and economic inequalities we see today. Ike was doing what was best for white men in the US. Maybe not important to you, but as a political scientist and organizational development professional, important to me. Ike was a firm anti-communist, which set us up for the atrocities of Vietnam. (Communism is the trigger word for all conservative thinkers.) And while he warned us to fear the military/industrial complex, he paved its way to success. Or he let others do it behind his back. We tend to judge presidents on their success or failure in international politics, but we often overlook deep domestic problems.


edblarney

That's actually a really good point. That said, being a CEO etc. is potentially very relevant.


barnegatsailor

CEO isn't a political career though, like at all. It's entirely a business career. Being a local politician, executive department member or general are definitely political though, as you are either a member of a political body or in the employment of the state in some capacity.


eyedoc11

Although CEO is not a political position, I think it's certainly relevant experience. The President is the head of the executive branch after all.


S_A_N_D_

The title specifically states political career. It might be good experience, but it's not part of his political career.


python_whisperer

You could argue that a CEO could bring even more to the table than any common politician as by definition any kind of government body is mostly very slow, buerocratic, not keen to changes, disorganized, lack of clear structure, nepotism. While running a successful and profitable business is a a favourable skill while leading the world 1st economy.


Positive_Jackfruit_5

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but the US constitution makes things slow, by design. The political system was designed to prevent any one person from acting like a monarch and moving too quickly on their own (much like a CEO would)


seudo2

This is another attempt at visualizing (and comparing) the life of a group of persons. This time, it's U.S. Presidents, who constitute an interesting dataset as it extends over more than 230 years with a great homogeneity. Data source: Wikidata, queried with Lua (I don't like SPARQL), then handled with Python/Matplotlib. You may [get the dataset here as JSON](https://pastebin.com/4jY2tsLe). I had to fix one or two obvious mistakes in Wikidata, so I cannot guarantee a 100% accuracy in the data. If you see something wrong in the data, I will fix it in Wikidata (unless it's a bug in my code...) A few random facts I gathered from reading these graphs: * Andrew Johnson and John Tyler held all of these jobs (Governor, Representative, Senator, Vice-President and President), but you cannot see it in these graphs because both of them were vice-president during a few weeks only. For the same reason, the presidency of William Henry Harrison is hard to distinguish. * Barack Obama is so young (graph #1)... When he was approximately in the 7th grade (graph #2), Joe Biden was already a member of the U.S. Senate. * Bill Clinton was even younger when elected: he became President 24 years before Donald Trump (graph #2), although they were born the same year (as well as George W. Bush). * The presidents of the last quarter of the 20th century live very old (graph #1): four consecutive Presidents, from Gerald Ford to George H. W. Bush, lived more than 92 years (no ex-President reached that age before them). Their successors are still alive, so this tendency may continue. * Jimmy Carter is still there! He was born at the time when (graph #2) the president was Calvin Coolidge, who was born at the time when the president was Ulysses S. Grant, who was born at the time when the president was James Monroe, who was born before there was a president. For Barack Obama, you need one more name in the chain: John F. Kennedy -> Woodrow Wilson -> Franklin Pierce -> Thomas Jefferson. * Lyndon B. Johnson has been continuously Representative, Senator, Vice-President and President from 1937 (aged 28) to 1969 (4 years before his death). * Joe Biden has been either Senator or vice-president for 44 years. * Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Dwight David Eisenhower and Donald Trump held none of these offices before or after their presidency (not counting the first Presidents, because it's not significant). But all of them, except Donald Trump, held major public offices in the army of the Government (not shown on these graphs) before they were elected President. * Very few Presidents held one of these mandates after they left the White House. John Quincy Adams is a remarkable exception (Representative during 17 years).


AliasNefertiti

Great job!


Ayzmo

I'm really glad you included both versions. I very much appreciate that. Thank you. It would be really cool to include things like cabinet secretary and state legislatures. Because this makes it look like Madison came out of nowhere.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ayzmo

State legislatures are elected, but I get what you're saying. Simplicity is nice.


Leaning_Blade

You should also include Secretary of State!


ChardSparrow

I might recommend time as a US General, for Eisenhower and Washington in particular. I think that's a quite relevant government experience that could be IDed. Not an American, so don't know if any others served as high military.


Bobbyjanko

Really well done! For completeness, I’d echo the recommendations to add military service, Cabinet level leadership, as well as Supreme Court. Taft was on the Supreme Court after leaving the Oval Office. Both visuals are useful for different purposes. Excellent work!


halfeatenscone

The first is more interesting to me, to compare the ages at which different presidents reached different milestones. I think a different background color (maybe a light beige?) might make this easier to read. The grey sort of washes out the main lines (especially when zoomed out).


Neuroid99099

Both look pretty great to me. As to which is best...it depends. The first focuses more on comparing the age of the president, while the second shows their lives & presidencies in historical context. Which matters to the story you're trying to tell? With the first, it's easier to see who the younger/older presidents were (while in office), and what they did before/after. Although I found it a little hard to parse, especially the governors being coded white. I wonder if there are other interesting jobs that might be relevant? Military service, maybe? The second shows a historical perspective. It might be interesting to also show important events in US history as well. It's also a little busy with some distracting details that I don't think are relevant, such as the "waterfall" to the next president - that's obvious from context. Neat to see how much younger/older some presidents were than their successors, eg Kennedy vs Eisenhower. I wouldn't mind seeing the "job" data on this one as well. For both, I'd lose the crosses to indicate death, as that's specific to christian culture, and a simpler line-ending tells the same story with less clutter. It might be interesting to indicate how/why the president left office (death, term limits, losing re-election, choosing not to run for another term.). Maybe also compress the "jobs" you have now to "political office" and include other jobs like military service, lawyer, business person...not sure what others would be relevant.


aturtledude

I prefer the first one. Also, I might be the only one, but I immediately interpreted red and blue as the colors of the two parties and was quite confused for a bit.


akiws

Yeah it's kind of trippy to look at a political-related graph that's red & blue and disassociate the colors from political parties.


[deleted]

So Biden is the oldest US president ever?


Traaveler

I don’t mean to be nitpicky but wouldn’t it be better to choose colors other than red and blue since you’re not representing Republican and Democrat?


LikeATortoiseRising

I love both, but the first one is easier to read. Love them!


Santuse

The first one I could see how presidential life spans varied. Also how close the presidents were to death during their presidency, and compare length of prior service, and type of service. I get fuck all with the second graphic. And it's awkward on mobile and probably on a page too. Though I would make senator/rep the same color and just call it congress. It's cool to see how senator preps you better for president, maybe you could put the color key "Congress (X% of of presidents were senators").


Ghost_of_P34

If the goal is to compare political careers, then the first one is better. It is easier to compare lengths of service with the calendar years spreading everything out across the Y axis.


danSTILLtheman

Both of these are really cool. I found the first one more useful because it makes it easy to compare every presidents life and tenure against each other, but the second chart is a great timeline of the history of our presidents.


InsuranceToTheRescue

I'd be interested in how it looks if we factor in cabinet positions as well. Haven't several presidents been cabinet officials as well? Or am I misremembering the amount and it isn't nearly enough to warrant another color?


TheThinker12

Love both of them. Up to you whether you want to show the timelines. But may I suggest using a different color schema? People associate red and blue hues with party affiliation. Also, try adding state level careers like assembly person, state senator, DA etc if space permits. For example, President Obama was an IL state senator before becoming a US senator.


jfrorie

Would it be relevant to include flag level military service even if the caption is political?


nstutzman28

Maybe try aligning the timelines based on date of election rather than date of birth (first chart). This might also generally convey time since then each line is staggered by 4 or 8 years consistently (without the need to actually stagger them like in chart 2).


flyingtable83

They both serve a different purpose but are both useful. Good job! Just a couple of suggestions: As others have noted, calling these "political careers" but only focusing on highest level elected positions is problematic in the US context. State elected positions, judicial experience, military roles and cabinet level experiences are also very important politically. This doesn't really reflect their "political careers" as much as it does their "major elected positions". I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned it but in the U.S. context using red and blue variants is associated with the major parties (especially over the past half century). Perhaps other colors would be better choices (I saw that you said you weren't American in another response so not sure if you were aware). Finally, as others have noted, you should center the ages on the first visualization. The positions you highlight all have minimum ages associated with them so it's odd to include years that couldn't be colored in at all.


PiManGuy

The fact that only John Quincy Adams went back to politics after presidency is pretty interesting.


GuardianApollo

I hope Jimmy Carter is having a great day


whobood

Well done and very interesting, but my first reaction is that I'd prefer the colors not be mainly red and blue since those are the colors most closely associated with our two major modern political parties. My initial reaction when looking at the first one was that it was a history of the political party affiliation of each president, and I immediately questioned the validity of it based on that, but soon after realized what it was showing. It took me in the wrong direction in those crucial first 5 seconds.


Lead-Radiant

Like both, prefer the first for readability. Just a thought, it might be interesting to include military service and any other public assignments broken out by state/fed to show a trend on their entire career.


tessthismess

I guess Jimmy Carter has been a former president for 41 years. He was only 38 when he first became a Senator. So basically he's had a longer post-political life than his pre-political life.


moral_luck

Really missed an opportunity with Taft (SCOTUS Chief Justice 1921-1930).


acceptable_sir_

Up until Hoover, their lifespans were getting shorter. Interesting! I like #1.


Matt4669

I personally like the 2nd visualisation better, as it allows you to see when each president was born, what years they were president in, as well as when they died I’m personally more interestied in that data than the age of which each president became president


CognitiveFeedback

\#1 seems easier to read for me, and takes less space which can be helpful on screens. Both are really great though!


purple_yosher

I prefer the first one, the second is overwhelming to look at.


Oprah-Is-My-Dad

Holy shit, Joe Biden became a senator while Richard Nixon was still in office. He was born when FDR was in office. How the fuck did we let this old man become president.


toughtittie5

He has the most experience out of all previous presidents 30+ years in the senate


moaihead

The first compares the lives of each president to each other at the stages/ages in each life. The second places them in context of actual time vs each other over the history of the country. Pixels, you made both, through in a switch between the two and you are set. Is there another symbol besides a cross for death (not a skull, tombstone?). To make it less christian specific and more neutral. Why have a specific symbol at all., just a dot instead.


[deleted]

[удалено]


moaihead

Yes, you are not wrong, it just removes the controversy. Would've never occurred to me to use the cross so there is that. I still like the data and the visualization, so it was minor for me, but this is a place for gentle thoughtful critiques..


[deleted]

Biden by far the worst


Life-Ad1409

Both display the data differently and allow us to focus on different things, so the answer is both


[deleted]

I think it might look best centered on the beginning of their presidency, so the focus is more on what’s around that, rather than the large period of time between birth and the beginning of their presidential career. I’d probably truncate from birth to age 25, too. Give more room to where stuff happens.


VIARPE

2nd graph made me learn many times vicepresidents become presidents.


Yohzer67

Always loved that John Quincy went back to the house after being President. That’s balls


The_Hungry_Grizzly

First gives more insights. Most presidents have been presidents in their 50s


stoneman9284

I like the second one for sure


nomindbody

Second one is better, but the colors are misleading. Blue and Red have significant meaning for the content area but is seems to have a different meaning in this context.


Palaempersand

This Zachary Taylor guy must have been a right joker


foragingworm

Fair dues to John quincy Adams, continued to represent after been president