Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Politicians with $0 DEM don't show up in search #67

Closed
dturnbull opened this issue Aug 8, 2013 · 5 comments
Closed

Politicians with $0 DEM don't show up in search #67

dturnbull opened this issue Aug 8, 2013 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@dturnbull
Copy link

Users currently won't know that if someone isn't showing up in the search it is because they have $0 DEM. They might think it is because we are missing their data or something is wrong/not working. It'd be good for all legislators to be included, even those that have $0 in DEM to avoid this confusion.

@ghost ghost assigned michalgm Sep 24, 2013
@michalgm
Copy link
Owner

i've changed the way the graphs are built to include legislators with $0. There's three different methods I've found to do this:
1: link them all to a single dummy company called 'Accepted $0' or something like that - you can see this method at http://dev.states.dirtyenergymoney.com
2: I can create a 'cluster' of nodes with a box around them (which we could choose to hide) by linking all the $0 people to one another - seen here: http://gregstates.styrotopia.net
3: If we don't link the $0 people to anything, they are randomly scattered throughout the graph, I found this to be pretty distracting, so I didn't implement it like that, but if anyone wants to see it like that, I can whip up an example pretty easy.

Obviously, there's tweaking that could/should be done on both methods 1 and 2, but does anyone have a preference? One minor hidden drawback to 2 is that the graph files are bigger due to all the extra edges.

@dturnbull
Copy link
Author

I like option 1 -- except that when you click on that "dummy company called Accepted $0", what comes up is (not surprisingly) a bit confusing.

Option 2 looks a bit "unrefined" in the graph to me, but could also work.

@michalgm
Copy link
Owner

Yeah - consider these prototypes for now - they both need some work to
be fully implemented. But we need to make a decision on which base
method to use before I can begin that work.

On 09/25/2013 09:55 AM, dturnbull wrote:

I like option 1 -- except that when you click on that "dummy company
called Accepted $0", what comes up is (not surprisingly) a bit confusing.

Option 2 looks a bit "unrefined" in the graph to me, but could also work.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#67 (comment).

@stanleyjones
Copy link
Contributor

I like Option 2. They look like a posse and it avoids the dummy company problem (what do we call that?). With some styling, it would look great.

How much bigger are the graphs? Just a couple K?

@michalgm
Copy link
Owner

ok - I went with option two. I believe I've polished things enough to be usable - I've removed the box, and slightly faded the people with no contribs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants