[TRU Research] Web App Data Schema
Harry Maher
harryb.maher at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 13:02:28 PDT 2019
Hi Jim,
Cool! Badges would make it pretty if it's possible; I think leaves would be
cool. Maybe 0 to 4? That might require someone with more graphic design
experience, but 5 diff images with various levels of filled-in leaves would
be awesome and they'd probably need to get hard-coded into whatever
database tableau requires.
This may be helpful:
https://icons8.com/icons/set/leaf
(Here are 2 images of leaves to potentially use as empty and filled-in
leaves, but they have other leaf options and it's easy to fill and stroke
with diff colors and etc.)
[image: icons8-leaf-60.png][image: icons8-leaf-60(1).png]
Quick note--before making this public on our website, we should scrub some
details from the Robert Half quote. My friend's quote identifies him as *the
*accountant for RH currently contracted at UWP, which could potentially put
him in an awkward position.* Can we just get rid of that second sentence*
that says he's getting a card through UWP? It identifies him to Robert Half
and it's a confusing and unhelpful quote out of context anyway.
Thanks!
-Harry
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 12:24 PM Jim Walseth <jim.walseth at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20190908/3d80810f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icons8-leaf-60.png
Type: image/png
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.transitriders.org/pipermail/research/attachments/20190908/3d80810f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icons8-leaf-60(1).png
Type: image/png
Size: 1316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.transitriders.org/pipermail/research/attachments/20190908/3d80810f/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Research
mailing list