[TRU Research] Web App Data Schema
Jim Walseth
jim.walseth at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 12:24:33 PDT 2019
Hi all,
Is a visualization with badges still a goal (e.g., leaves)? I was just
sitting down to try and figure that out.
Certainly would be nice to have something "jazzier" than the current draft:
https://public.tableau.com/profile/jwalseth#!/vizhome/CosttoWorkDRAFT3/CosttoWorkbyNeighborhoodandIndustry
Jim
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:11 PM Tom Chartrand <tmchartrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also past a busy time at work now and could put in some time on this
> over the weekend. Katie, let me know if there's some chunk it would be easy
> to delegate, like getting some additional set into the spreadsheet.
> -Tom
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:07 PM Katie Wilson <katie at transitriders.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I think we’re in pretty good shape— Jim has been mocking up some visuals
>> and we’ll want to add a numerical “monthly cost” column (instead of or in
>> addition to the rating) but I think I can do that.
>>
>> Thanks for all your work on this, and hope you’re doing ok Stephen!
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Stephen DeSanto <rachidian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi friends, happy Thursday. I am dealing with some personal issues that's
>> preventing me from dedicating a lot of time and energy to this project
>> right now. I hope you all can get this over the finish line.
>>
>> In solidarity,
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:23 PM Katie Wilson <katie at transitriders.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great! I will head over there at 5:30. I’ll grab the conference room if
>>> it’s free, otherwise I’ll just find us a table.
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Jim Walseth <jim.walseth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I should be able to attend as well. Cheers, -Jim
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:32 PM Stephen DeSanto <rachidian at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victrola is fine! 5:30 works for me. Gives me time to get there after
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:09 PM Katie Wilson <katie at transitriders.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cool, does Victrola on 15th work again, or is somewhere else better?
>>>>> Having an actual meeting, even if a small one, will help me to sit down and
>>>>> focus on this instead of getting distracted by other things. 5pm good, or
>>>>> 5:30 or 6?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Stephen DeSanto <rachidian at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also available Tues evening. Otherwise I'll keep making updates
>>>>> from home. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:43 PM Katie Wilson <katie at transitriders.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is awesome, thank you Stephen. I put some thoughts in-line in
>>>>>> red below, and attached a hard-to-interpret spreadsheet with info
>>>>>> about Business Choice participants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will try to schedule some time this week to start completing rows
>>>>>> for the businesses I’m sure about based on the info we have. If anyone
>>>>>> wants to get together for a spreadsheet workparty this week let me know, I
>>>>>> have time Tuesday and Friday evenings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Katie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Stephen DeSanto <rachidian at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone. Made a few updates to the master list of employers
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HmOcG7hJLD1G0unCMPcsDnXr4RIA_PMKEE5ne-hhQR8/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>> for the upcoming website:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Added companies and transit benefits raw descriptions from TRU
>>>>>> survey data
>>>>>> - Added "Likely CTR Targets":
>>>>>> https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133438365/Likely%20Target%20Assessment
>>>>>> - Added "Potential CTR Targets":
>>>>>> https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133437828/Potential%20CTR%20Targets
>>>>>> - "Likely" / high-profile targets (hotels, banks) are highlighted
>>>>>> in ORANGE
>>>>>> - Added "Potential Poster Children":
>>>>>> https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133439169/Potential%20Poster%20Children
>>>>>> - Poster children are highlighted in GREEN
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Highlight colors are just to make it easier to find rows that a)
>>>>>> someone said should be included in the list, and b) probably needs benefits
>>>>>> data incorporated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things to be done:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Normalize locations data For this and the “leaf scores” and the
>>>>>> “polluter” columns, I’d be inclined to do this after we’ve got
>>>>>> enough info to check the “publish” box. I could be wrong, but I feel like
>>>>>> it will be less work that way.
>>>>>> - Assign "leaf scores" to all companies that don't have one
>>>>>> - Assign "polluter" etc badges to companies we want to name&shame
>>>>>> - Add all of the hotels?
>>>>>> https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133666440/Hotels
>>>>>> Yeah let’s go ahead and add them...
>>>>>> - Add Choice participants? Good question. I did get info back
>>>>>> from Metro on what products the choice participants are buying, I can’t
>>>>>> remember whether I shared that with you all. Anyway, it’s attached. It’s
>>>>>> actually a little hard to interpret (I got a tutorial from a Metro staffer)
>>>>>> so I can try to explain by phone or in person if someone wants to dig
>>>>>> throughthat. Maybe it makes sense to look through that info and add
>>>>>> businesses selectively as we feel like we have a grasp on their programs.
>>>>>> - Add column for Commute Seattle participants?
>>>>>> https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133438167/Commute%20Seattle%20List%20of%20Passport%20Participants I
>>>>>> don’t think we need to do this, because this info is most likely
>>>>>> duplicative with what we learned from Metro about passport participants.
>>>>>> The Commute Seattle list doesn’t tell us how much of a subsidy they
>>>>>> provide, so it’s not going to add much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Citations, descriptions of benefits, etc. for companies that
>>>>>> need it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's still a lot we're not 100% sure about for employer benefits,
>>>>>> but we can do the best we have with what we've got, and make changes as we
>>>>>> get new information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thinking was, we can use the "master employer list" to get as much
>>>>>> information about the companies we're interested in. When we're satisfied
>>>>>> that a row is finished and ready for publication, check the checkbox in the
>>>>>> "__publish" column. Then, when we export this data to the website, we can
>>>>>> only get the rows where "__publish" is checked. This hopefully will ensure
>>>>>> that someone manually reviewed and verified all the data for an employer
>>>>>> before it gets published, and that unfinished rows won't be accidentally
>>>>>> exported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this helpful? Am I just spinning my wheels in the mud?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:06 PM Stephen DeSanto <rachidian at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI, added most of you as editors on the spreadsheet I'm working on,
>>>>>>> in case anyone has time for tedious data tasks (or a quick way to do
>>>>>>> tedious data tasks). I'm currently adding in data from the TRU survey, from
>>>>>>> respondents whose employers offer transit benefits. Eventually, we'll need
>>>>>>> these tagged with industry and fix the neighborhoods data? And add in any
>>>>>>> other company data we have from the other research spreadsheets on the
>>>>>>> wiki? And eventually some subset of this data ends up on the website?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:03 PM Tom Chartrand <tmchartrand at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh you're right, sorry for the confusion everyone! was just fairly
>>>>>>>> hidden in the view i looked at. Column S!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:00 PM Katie Wilson <
>>>>>>>> katie at transitriders.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the spreadsheet with PII removed still does include the
>>>>>>>>> Employer column, no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry I’m being slow to respond to all this good stuff, I am still
>>>>>>>>> digging myself out from being away last week and I’m at an all-day thing
>>>>>>>>> today… but I should have time to pay more attention before the end of the
>>>>>>>>> week!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 19, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Stephen DeSanto <rachidian at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have time to go through the survey data and find the reported
>>>>>>>>> transit benefits per employer, though I'll need the data set that contains
>>>>>>>>> that data. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I am going to be trying to match CTR neighborhoods to
>>>>>>>>> the employers already in our spreadsheet, as well as adding any employers
>>>>>>>>> mentioned in other sources/sheets on our wiki.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:02 PM Tom Chartrand <
>>>>>>>>> tmchartrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is looking great, Stephen!
>>>>>>>>>> I had put myself down to organize the survey data with respect to
>>>>>>>>>> employers for this, but I just realized that info was removed as PII (of
>>>>>>>>>> course)! So either Mike will need to take that on (I think Mike did the
>>>>>>>>>> original PII removal) or we'll need to figure out an appropriate way of
>>>>>>>>>> sharing that.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm feeling pretty swamped myself lately, so if you (Stephen)
>>>>>>>>>> were down to help him with the task that could be great. I can certainly
>>>>>>>>>> still take on some of it if needed though, once we get this sorted out.
>>>>>>>>>> Katie, maybe you could help coordinate this and make sure Mike
>>>>>>>>>> sees this sooner rather than later?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, do let me know if you have any more specific spots in the
>>>>>>>>>> report where some backup from the PSRC dataset could be useful!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 3:59 PM Stephen DeSanto <
>>>>>>>>>> rachidian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've added the list of industry categories to the Google Sheet,
>>>>>>>>>>> so that should help validate the data we add there, though it's going to
>>>>>>>>>>> likely be a manual task to fill in industries for all the employers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've also added a "citation" column, which can be the public
>>>>>>>>>>> representation of where we got the data to make our claim. We can fuss with
>>>>>>>>>>> the wording later.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I should have time this week to go through our survey data and
>>>>>>>>>>> other wiki tables to add or modify employers in the Google Sheet. Agree
>>>>>>>>>>> that it'll be good to have solid information on our primary targets and
>>>>>>>>>>> champions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:48 PM Harry Maher <
>>>>>>>>>>> harryb.maher at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick update with regard to qualitative data analysis: I
>>>>>>>>>>>> made a "Commute Survey Qualitative Data Analysis" folder on pbworks and put
>>>>>>>>>>>> a doc with some quotes in it for the report. I tried to pull out the main
>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant themes that I noticed discussed in the two qualitative questions
>>>>>>>>>>>> currently in the file with a couple of quote options for each
>>>>>>>>>>>> theme/category of response to the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Harry
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:54 PM Tom Chartrand <
>>>>>>>>>>>> tmchartrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding where to have this discussion - I'm just gonna
>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue the email chain cause I haven't followed where to put the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on the wiki, but someone feel free to steer it over there if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A brief update regarding establishing a larger list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employers to include in the dataset: basic contact information for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seattle businesses, sorted by the North American Industry Classification
>>>>>>>>>>>>> System, is available at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://web6.seattle.gov/fas/slimbizsearch/ResultsPage.aspx?NAICList=Top100,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's a huge list of course, with no info on number of employees or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> revenue to filter out the smaller ones. Still, I did send off an email
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about getting a copy of the database just for purposes of cross-referencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> names and such.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 6:42 PM, Katie Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For “neighborhood” I think it makes sense to use the “CTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network Areas” as defined here
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-options-program/commute-trip-reduction-program/draft-2019-2023-networks-and-targets>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For “industry” I think it makes sense to use the “Employment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sector” categories listed on Page 12 of this CTR strategic plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/TransportationOptionsProgram/CTR_Draft_Strategic_Plan_Jan2019.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the ratings, I think it does make sense to lump "piggy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bank" and "brown tortoise" in the same rating (0), and then add a tortoise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> badge for employers that aren’t even doing the pre-tax thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another simplification option to consider would be to lump
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together 3 and 4 leaves. But let’s leave them separate for now and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on how things shake out we can easily combine them later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don’t have any major sources of data on what benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employers provide other than:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> — Metro public disclosure request spreadsheet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133438080/First%20Public%20Records%20Request>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> — Our commute survey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> — Info gleaned online from company websites, asking around,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> glassdoor etc (what I’ve found I’ve added to the relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables in the wiki
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/132177123/Employers>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on CTR employers and “potential poster children” and “likely target
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assessment” and “hotels”)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense to have another string indicating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient certainty — when we have two sources, or one very reliable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> source, we enter an X or whatever, and that gives us the green light to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> display that data. Also it may not make sense to put a lot of work into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> categorizing employers into Network Area and Employment Sector until we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have reliable data on what benefits they’re offering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Seattle Coffee Works, I spoke with their HR person
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few months ago and actually employees have to pay $20/month (pre-tax $)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if they want an ORCA card. Still a great deal but not 100% subsidy as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported in the Metro data— which, I then learned, is self-reported by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> company. Metro only knows that all those companies are signed up for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Passport program. I noted the real situation on this page
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://seattletransitpasses-research.pbworks.com/w/page/133439169/Potential%20Poster%20Children>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, the point is we should probably crosscheck the Metro data as much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we can with our survey or other sources of information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Also speaking of Seattle Coffee Works they have locations in Capitol
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hill & Cascade too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.seattlecoffeeworks.com/our-cafes.aspx>. From
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking with the HR person I’m pretty sure all are include in their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> passport program, and the employees swap around a lot from location to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> location. They probably use the Ballard location as home base for transit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass purposes since that’s the least expensive zone.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One project would be to come up with a list of employers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have name recognition (or that we are interested in for some other reason)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and put a little work into attaining sufficient certainty. If we posted the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list to a page and put a call out on social media and email I bet we’d get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Stephen DeSanto <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rachidian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've taken a first pass at the data schema for showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employer transit benefits in our upcoming web app. In this draft, each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employer record is represented as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "employer": string,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "industry": [string],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "neighborhood": [string],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "alias": [string],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rating": int,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": string
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "badges": [string]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Employer* is a plain text string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Industry* is a list of strings (or a single string, if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to limit one employer = one industry).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Neighborhood* is treated similarly to industry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Alias* is a list of other names for the same company. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Rating* is a numerical scale that represents the "worker's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> monthly cost of an unlimited transit pass". The scale provided during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting went from "4 leaves" to "brown tortoise"; aligning to the leaves,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that gives us a scale of [-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4]. We could adjust this up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0-5, or lump "piggy bank" and "brown tortoise" in the same rating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Description* is a string that describes the employer's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transit benefits, i.e. why they got the rating they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Badges* is a list of strings that represent any additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> categories we want to assign to a company (e.g. "industry leader",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "polluter").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can make changes to this schema if it makes it easier to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work with our underlying data visualization platform (e.g. Tableau?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataTables?), but hopefully this is a suitable starting place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an example, take a hypothetical record for Seattle Coffee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "employer": "Seattle Coffee Works",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "industry": ["restaurant"],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "neighborhood": ["cbd", "ballard"],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "alias": ["Ballard Coffee Works"],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rating": 4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "Provides 100% ORCA Passport subsidy."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "badges": ["leader"]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Where Our Data Lives (For Now)*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also taken a rough chop at getting started with the data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here, I've just taken the raw list of ORCA Business Passport employers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned a score based on their subsidy percentage, as an example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HmOcG7hJLD1G0unCMPcsDnXr4RIA_PMKEE5ne-hhQR8/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The spreadsheet contains columns for each item of the employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record, as well as some additional columns to record the raw data we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on file for that employer, so we can use that data to automatically or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually determine an employer's rating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we have data from other sources not listed (e.g. survey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data, City of Seattle data), the "source_" columns can be renamed or added
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to represent that source's data. For example, if I want to add data from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TRU survey, I might rename "__source_b" to "__TRU Survey", then include
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results from that survey in that column for each company. (The columns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning with two underscores are ones I don't expect to be publicly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PBworks feels really inadequate for editing large data sets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't know where else to put it, so it's living in Google Sheets for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Set to read-only with the link, for now, but please request editing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions so you can add stuff to the sheet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, my expectation is that the spreadsheet will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand-edited in Google Sheets, and then when we're ready to put live data in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the web app, we can export the sheet to a flat file, which we can then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> import into a format appropriate for the website (big ol' JSON file,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> database, whatever). Manual process, but probably fine for a project of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this scale; I'm open to alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Things To Do Next*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from the ORCA Passport data and the data we collected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through TRU survey / legwork (on PBworks), do we have any other data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources that would provide context for a score?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the data sources we have, we'll have to start filling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of the spreadsheet, I guess?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we will need to determine:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) master list of "industries" we want to support, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) "industry" field(s) for each employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> c) "neighborhood" field(s) for each employer we don't have one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (or being more precise than what I have now)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> d) which companies get tagged with which badges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In solidarity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.transitriders.org/pipermail/research/attachments/20190908/8b1b14d0/attachment.html>
More information about the Research
mailing list