How the British Geological Survey overcame bad data management - after 165 years

I have gone on at length in this blog and on its parent website about how data aren't informative until they're organized in some useful way. The first step in organizing them is making them accessible - putting them in a database, giving them a unique identifier, and organizing them so that you can use them in the way you intended.

In 1846, John Hooker, a botanist, collected 314 slides of botanical samples for the British Geological Survey. Then he had to rush off on a trip to the Himalayas and didn't get around to entering the samples in the specimen register. In April, 2011, Howard Falcon-Lang, a paleontologist, was poking around in a cabinet in a dark corner of the BGS and found the drawers of Hooker`s slides. He pulled one out, shone his flashlight on it, and read the label "C. Darwin, Esq." (Click here for a news report)

It turned out that Hooker's slides were from Darwin's expedition on the Beagle, and that Dr. Falcon-Lang was apparently the first person in 165 years to recognize what they were. Dr. Falcon-Lang expects that examination of the the samples will contribute to contemporary science. Imagine what contemporary science would be like, though, if these examples had been examined in the 1840s and 50s.

The data most of us use aren't likely to be as significant as Darwin's, but if we can't use them they're as useless as Darwin's were for 165 years. A big problem I have run into with databases is that some data just don't get entered. People entering data omit fields they consider unimportant or too difficult to collect. Often this ends up producing huge amounts of missing data, especially when data are being entered from the field by several people, and if huge quantities of data are missing the data are useless. If you want to use the data, ensure that a complete record must be entered. If you don't use the data, don't collect them. If you don't collect unnecessary data you'll probably make fewer errors in entering the necessary data.

And don't enter summaries of data. For example, enter people's exact ages, not an age range. If you use pre-defined age ranges you may end up with all the ages clumped in one or two categories, which severely limits the analysis you can do. If you enter the exact age, you can define age ranges whose categories have roughly equal numbers of people in them, which makes it easier to find differences between the categories (click here, here, and here for more about these issues.

Similarly, instead of a test score or a rating, enter the individual test and rating items. First of all, that makes it easier to clean the data - to find erroneously recorded items or scores. More importantly, it gives you the ability to assess the adequacy of the test or rating (a PDF you can download from my website describes some things you can do with ratings; click here for the PDF).

And enter the data in a format appropriate for the type of analysis you want to do. Most statistical packages for example, want records entered as rows.

Data will only talk to you if you care for them. Be nice to your data. Only collect the ones you need, and treat the ones you need with respect.

Accuracy is not enough

Data are not necessarily information. They are informative only to the extent that they reduce uncertainty. If you want to know what programs are on television tonight, knowing yesterday's television schedule will not help you. Yesterday's schedule is full of data, but the data are no longer informative.

In psychometric terms, informative data are those which are valid – which predict events of interest to you. To be valid data must be accurate; in fact, the validity of information is limited by its accuracy. Of course, inaccurate data cannot be valid, and the maximum possible validity of accurate data is equal to the square root of its reliability coefficient.

The minimum validity of accurate data, however, is always zero. Sometimes data are not valid simply because they are distributed in a way ill-suited to the statistics which are used to assess validity; often the distribution can be modified through a mathematical transformation and validity restored. Sometimes the data are simply irrelevant or poorly defined.

In Canada a federal election campaign is under way. As usual the press commentary about it includes frequent presentation of poll results. At the moment the poll results are the unverifiable opinions of the 30% of the population that takes part in polls about what they think they'll be doing a month from now. These people probably differ significantly from people who don't take part in polls. They've probably got more time on their hands for a start, which means they're likely older, better off, and so on. That is, they are probably not even accurate estimates of unverifiable opinions. If you check the excellent Polling Report website you'll find that American polls have been dependably incompetent at predicting the results of American presidential elections, which are simple two-candidate races. In Canada, with three national parties and a big regional party they are likely to be even less effective.

Anyway, if you depend on any type of database, it should be checked regularly to ensure not only accuracy but also relevance and utility.

Accuracy is not Enough © 2001, 2011 John FitzGerald

More articles from www.ActualAnalysis.com

The future belongs to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich has a plan to simulate the entire world. According to this report the plan is to "gather data about the planet in unheard of detail, use it to simulate the behaviour of entire economies and then to predict and prevent crises from emerging."

Back when I was being trained in research, this type of project was always held up to us as an example of what not to do. Unfortunately, many people today believe that if you collect massive amounts of data the Truth will emerge from it. Dream on.

There are may problems with this approach. One of the chief ones is that the process is entirely inductive. Relations are identified in data from the past, and then extrapolated to the future. These relationships may hold in the future, or they may not. And if they do hold in the future, they may not hold forever.

I often think that it would help decision-makers if they spent some time handicapping horse races. Believe me, if you see that horses on the rail have been winning all week, that is no guarantee that they are going to win for you today. There is no reason they should.

The basic problem here is the lack of a theoretical approach. Ordinarily you start with a theory, or at least a hypothesis, about how something in the world works and then you collect the data necessary to establish whether your theory or hypothesis stands up to empirical test. If you confirm the theory you then try to modify it to increase its explanatory power. What the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology is trying to do is to get the data to think up the theory for them. But data don't have brains. The theories they come up with are going to lead you down a lot of paths that go nowhere. Any dataset is full of relationships, many — and sometimes all — of which are spurious, products of random variation or of systematic bias. Spurious relationships are not a foundation of successful forecasting.

Another important problem is that typically the relationships you find between the variables of the type that are going to be collected for this project are weak. Most of the variation in them is due to the effects of other variables that you usually don't have measures of. That means that predictions from your model will be at best only grossly approximate. Among other things, the developers of this model of everything want to predict economic bubbles and collapses. However, since these predictions are almost certain to be only grossly approximate, they will offer little guide to policy. If you remember last winter, you remember the extremes governments went to after an H1N1 pandemic was predicted, and how unnecessarily expensive (and ineffective) they were.

But the European Union is sinking a billion euros into this venture. I'd wish them good luck, but I'm confident that even with the best luck possible this project is going to fail, and fail miserably.

Link to the first in a series of related articles at the main site

The future belongs to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology © 2010, John FitzGerald