Timeline for Location of upper whisker in a boxplot draw with R boxplot() command
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 2, 2018 at 11:01 | comment | added | Bernhard | I have upvoted the question for being usefull and clear (as a first question), so @ashok 's score will increase and upvoting comments will soon be possible. | |
May 2, 2018 at 10:27 | comment | added | Nick Cox | Thanks for the appreciation and your intention to upvote my comment. | |
May 2, 2018 at 10:08 | comment | added | ashok | Thanks for very clear explanation. Sorry, I am unable to upvote your answer because of my score. | |
May 2, 2018 at 10:06 | vote | accept | ashok | ||
May 2, 2018 at 9:58 | comment | added | Nick Cox | Personally I think it's a lot simpler if whiskers extend to identified percentiles, e.g. 1 and 99% points or 5 and 95% so long as these are explained. Tukey-type box plots often aren't explained clearly in papers or texts either. But no design suits all distributions. It's arguable that the 1.5 IQR rule of thumb is past its sell-by date, as e.g. (1) it often proves confusing at introductory or elementary level (2) it was never intended as anything but heuristic, yet it's often warped into an universal criterion for outliers. | |
May 2, 2018 at 9:51 | comment | added | Nick Cox | The upper whisker always stops at a data point. It is never at upper quartile + 1.5 IQR unless that coincides with a data point. Rather that is as high as the upper whisker can possibly extend, but the data often (I'd say usually) imply otherwise. It's easy to think up examples where upper quartile + 1.5 IQR could be higher than the maximum in the data, but you wouldn't expect the upper whisker to extend beyond the range of the data, would you? | |
May 2, 2018 at 9:51 | answer | added | fabiob | timeline score: 1 | |
May 2, 2018 at 9:36 | review | First posts | |||
May 2, 2018 at 10:39 | |||||
May 2, 2018 at 9:31 | history | asked | ashok | CC BY-SA 4.0 |