In February, our Data Science team had an argument about which restaurant we went to made the best French Fry.

2月，我們的數據科學團隊對我們去哪家餐廳做得最好的炸薯條產生了爭議。

We decided to make it a competition throughout Feb/March and find out who truly was King of the French Fry. Move over March Madness, Hello Starch Madness

我們決定在整個2月/ 3月進行比賽，以找出誰是真正的炸薯條之王。 移動三月瘋狂 ，你好淀粉瘋狂

I typed up our findings into the first academic paper about French Fries and submitted it to arXiv.

我將我們的發現輸入關于薯條的第一篇學術論文中 ，并將其提交給arXiv。

It was promptly rejected. :(

它很快被拒絕了。 :(

Nevertheless, here is the story of The Objectively Best French Fries, or as I titled it:

盡管如此，這還是The客觀上最好的炸薯條的故事，或者如我所說：

An Objective Analysis of the Subjective Quality of French Fries in the Downtown Santa Monica Area

市中心圣莫尼卡地區薯條主觀質量的客觀分析

Warning: This article will very likely make you hungry for French Fries

警告 ：這篇文章很可能會讓您餓到炸薯條

抽象 (Abstract)

It all started with a team lunch. We always ordered fries for the table. After several lunches, we began to ask the question: What are the best French fries near our Santa Monica office? How do you even determine “best”? As a Data Science company, we knew this couldn’t be determined simply by eating fries at various restaurants — we had to structure our analysis around scientific rigor and specified constraints, so that we could be confident in our findings… If the results weren’t reproducible through peer review, what was the point? And thus, Starch Madness was born; a contest wherein a bunch of data nerds objectively decided which restaurant served the subjectively best French fries in Santa Monica.

這 一切都始于一個團隊午餐。 我們總是為桌上點薯條。 幾頓午餐后，我們開始提出一個問題：圣莫尼卡辦公室附近最好的炸薯條是什么？ 您甚至如何確定“最佳”？ 作為一家數據科學公司，我們知道不能僅僅通過在各家餐館吃薯條來確定這一點-我們必須圍繞科學的嚴格性和特定的約束來構建分析，以便我們對我們的發現充滿信心……如果結果不是'通過同行評審可重現，意義何在？ 因此，瘋狂淀粉誕生了。 一場比賽，一群數據書呆子客觀地決定了哪家餐廳在圣莫尼卡提供主觀上最好的炸薯條。

介紹 (Introduction)

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson served “potatoes served in the French manner” at a White House dinner. From there, the French fry was born. Potatoes cut into slices and deep fried became a staple in American cuisine.

1802年，托馬斯·杰斐遜擔任“法國送達方式土豆”在白宮晚宴。 炸薯條從那里誕生。 土豆切成薄片然后油炸成為美國菜的主食。

Despite being most associated with burgers and fast food, French fries are served in most restaurants. With their ubiquity, the question must be asked: “Who serves the best French fry?” The simplicity of the food recipe makes this question especially interesting, as there are only a few variables a chef can play with to craft their ideal French fry.

盡管炸薯條與漢堡和??快餐最相關，但大多數餐館還是供應炸薯條。 由于它們無處不在，所以必須提出一個問題：“誰為法國炸薯條做的最好？” 食物食譜的簡單性使這個問題變得尤為有趣，因為廚師只能選擇幾個變量來制作其理想的炸薯條。

In addition, some institutions produce mass quantities of fries per day — does this mass production reduce the quality of the fry? Does the fact that they must focus a large portion of their business on producing enjoyable fries create a better quality than a restaurant known for higher end cuisine?

另外，一些機構每天生產大量的薯條-這種大量生產會降低魚苗的質量嗎？ 他們必須將大部分精力都集中在生產美味的薯條上，這是否比以高端美食聞名的餐廳產生了更好的質量？

We would like to take this moment to address the research elephant in the room — if this research is even important in the first place. We propose that in fact:

我們想借此機會談談房間內的研究大象-如果這項研究首先很重要。 我們實際上建議：

是的。 (Yes it is.)

The pursuit of knowledge is admirable regardless of scale, and there has yet to be any studies conducted on the French fry quality of the downtown Santa Monica area. We may not have millions of dollars in French fry funding (yet) at our disposal, but we have the tenacity and drive (and palettes) to see this project through. It is our pleasure to add a tiny morsel of new knowledge into the human corpus.

無論規模大小，對知識的追求都是令人欽佩的，并且尚未對圣莫尼卡市區的炸薯條質量進行任何研究。 我們可能尚未獲得數百萬美元的炸薯條資金，但我們有足夠的毅力和動力(和調色板)來完成該項目。 我們很高興在人類語料庫中添加一小撮新知識。

1.方法 (1. Method)

1.1 Location

1.1位置

We had to first choose the fries that would be entered into the contest. The simplest sampling method was to select fries that could be purchased at a location that was less than 10min walk away from our office. Luckily, our office was located in the heart of downtown Santa Monica and there was no shortage of fry options; in fact there were far too many. To narrow down the locations, we simply typed “best French fries” into Yelp and chose the top 12 results. Several of the locations were eventually replaced due to fry style (see section 1.2) but this methodology yielded a strong crop of contenders.

我們必須首先選擇要參加比賽的炸薯條。 最簡單的采樣方法是選擇可以在距我們辦公室步行不到10分鐘的位置購買的薯條。 幸運的是，我們的辦公室位于圣莫尼卡市區的中心地帶，這里不乏炸魚的選擇。 實際上有太多。 為了縮小位置，我們只需在Yelp中鍵入“最佳薯條”，然后選擇前12個結果即可。 最終，由于炸魚的風格，一些地點被更換了(見1.2節)，但是這種方法產生了大量的競爭者。

To avoid bias from judges based on where the French fries were from, each location was randomly assigned a false identity based on popular T.V shows. Figure 1 is the key mapping the real restaurants to their false identity. Henceforth all restaurants will be referred to by their false identity names.

為了避免法官根據炸薯條的來源而產生偏見，根據流行的電視節目，每個地點都被隨機分配了一個虛假的身份。 圖1是將真實餐廳映射到其虛假身份的密鑰。 從此以后，所有餐廳都將使用其虛假的身份名稱來引用。

1.2 Style & Procurement

1.2樣式與采購

There are many types of French fries, and unfortunately comparing different styles of French fries is like comparing apples and oranges, and thus we had to standardize our French fry types. We settled on the most common style — salted potato fries. This excluded popular variants such as waffle fries and sweet potato fries, but still allowed creativity and diversity amongst the participants.

?這里有許多類型的炸薯條，不幸的是比較不同風格的薯條，就像比較蘋果和桔子，因此我們必須規范我們的法式炸薯條類型。 我們選擇了最普通的風格-咸薯條。 這排除了華夫餅薯條和地瓜薯條等受歡迎的變種，但仍使參與者具有創造力和多樣性。

Judging one batch of fries at a time was not a feasible option, as that would have required quadruple the amount of time the current experiment was allotted as well as made tournament play (1.3.2) impossible. This increase in time would have inevitably resulted in judging fatigue. We instead attempted to gather as many fries as required per round at one time without degrading the integrity of each fry batch.

一次判斷一批炸薯條是不可行的選擇，因為這將需要分配當前實驗時間的四倍，并且使比賽無法進行(1.3.2)。 時間的增加將不可避免地導致判斷疲勞。 相反，我們嘗試一次收集每輪所需數量的炸薯條，而不會降低每批炸薯條的完整性。

Despite our earnest efforts to procure the fry batches as close to simultaneously as possible, our retrieval was not without flaws and some may argue the distances a fry batch travelled correlates inversely with the batch’s score. This conjecture is exhaustively reviewed in our discussion section 3.2.

盡管我們竭盡全力在盡可能近的時間內購買炸薯條，但我們的檢索并非沒有缺陷，有些人可能會爭辯說，炸薯條的行進距離與配料的分數成反比。 在我們的討論部分3.2中，對該推測進行了詳盡的回顧。

Individuals in charge of picking up the French fries were instructed to order the fries by saying, “can I please have an order of fries.” Whatever style the restaurant produced from this order was considered their typical fry style.

負責接管炸薯條的人員被指示要點炸薯條，說：“請給我一份炸薯條。” 根據此訂單制作的餐廳無論哪種風格，都被視為其典型的油炸風格。

1.3 Experimental Design

1.3實驗設計

Similar to the FIFA World Cup tournament design, Starch Madness was structured with two sections: group play (1.3.1) and tournament play (1.3.2). Adequate performance in the group play stage qualified you for tournament play.

小號 imilar國際足聯世界杯賽的設計，淀粉瘋狂與兩個部分構成：小組賽(1.3.1)和錦標賽(1.3.2)。 團體賽階段的充分表現使您有資格參加比賽。

1.3.1 Group Play Stage

1.3.1小組比賽階段

Each of the 12 participating French fries were randomly assigned into 4 groups of 3 contestants, called divisions, to be rated during the group play stage. The scoring used was the F.A.T System, defined in 1.4. Judges were instructed to use the F.A.T system (1.4) instead of comparing fries from within a division to reach a score.

參加比賽的12條炸薯條中的每一個都被隨機分為4組，每組3名選手，稱為部門，在小組比賽階段進行評分。 使用的評分是1.4中定義的FAT系統。 指示法官使用FAT系統(1.4)，而不是比較部門內的薯條以取得分數。

This is an important distinction as producing an objective score for each fry is a stronger indicator of fry strength than a comparative one. In addition, if a particular division has three excellent (or terrible) batches, they should be admitted into tournament play on their strength alone, rather than their division’s overall strength. Figure 2 Outlines the divisions.

這是一個重要的區別，因為為每個油炸物產生一個客觀評分是比對比性更強的油炸強度指標。 此外，如果一個特定的部門有三個優秀(或糟糕)的批次，則應僅憑其實力而不是其部門的整體實力被允許進入比賽。 圖2概述了劃分。

1.3.2 Tournament Play

1.3.2比賽比賽

Figure 2: Group Play Divisions. “Classic” movie distinction is subjective (but correct)

圖2：小組賽分區。 “經典”電影的區別是主觀的(但正確的)

While not the most scientifically rigorous way to compare French fries, it certainly is entertaining. During this stage the top 8 highest rated French fry batches were seeded and placed in a single elimination bracket. Each head-to-head match-up was a blind vote of which fry the judge preferred. Through the tournament play, a winner is crowned.

雖然這不是比較法式炸薯條的最科學嚴謹的方法，但它確實很有趣。 在此階段中，對前8個收視率最高的炸薯條進行播種，并放入單個淘汰箱中。 每次正面交鋒都是盲目投票，法官傾向于。 通過比賽，獲勝者加冕。

1.4 The F.A.T System

1.4 FAT系統

One of the first obstacles set forth when judging French fries is how to standardize scoring. And to do this, one must answer a deep philosophical question of, “what makes a good French fry?” Our team of fry-experts narrowed the quality of a French fry down into 3 categories:

第一障礙?NE闡述當判斷薯條是如何規范的得分。 為此，必須回答一個深刻的哲學問題：“什么能制作出優質的炸薯條？” 我們的魚苗專家團隊將法國魚苗的質量分為以下三類：

味道。 (Flavor.)

出現。 (Appearance.)

質地。 (Texture.)

This 3-part scoring rubric was brilliantly named the “F.A.T System.” Each of these represents a core attribute of a good French fry. By rating batches based on these metrics, we can decide with confidence which fry is best. Each of these metrics is scored on a 5-point scale, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. Averaging these three numbers produces a fry’s overall quality and helps the judges make important voting decisions during tournament play.

這個由三部分組成的評分規則被巧妙地命名為“ FAT系統”。 這些都代表了好的炸薯條的核心屬性。 通過基于這些指標對批次進行評分，我們可以自信地決定哪種魚苗是最好的。 這些指標均以5分制進行評分，其中1分最低，而5分最高。 將這三個數字取平均值可得出魚苗的整體質量，并有助于裁判在比賽中做出重要的投票決定。

1.5 Judges

1.5評委

The French fries were judged by the capable RETINA.ai team, whose love of fries is only surpassed by their love of data collection and analysis. The merit of these judges is excellently defended in 3.5.2

噸他炸薯條是由能夠RETINA.ai隊，他們的愛薯條只能由他們的數據收集和分析的熱愛超過了判斷。 這些法官的功績在3.5.2中得到了很好的辯護

2.結果 (2. Results)

After the group play stage, and each contestant had been graded on the F.A.T System, we produce the following data table below:

一壓腳提升的小組賽階段，每名參賽者已分級的FAT系統，我們生產的以下數據見下表：

Those highlighted in green received acceptably high enough F.A.T scores to qualify for the tournament round. Those not highlighted fell below the McDonald’s line, named for the fact that not only was McDonald’s the lowest scored fry that qualified, but also with an average score of 2.43/5 McDonald’s can be considered an average, mediocre fry.

以綠色突出顯示的那些獲得了足夠高的FAT分數，有資格參加比賽。 那些未突出顯示的部分不屬于麥當勞產品線 ，因為麥當勞不僅是合格的得分最低的魚苗，而且平均得分為2.43 / 5麥當勞也可以被認為是平均的，平庸的魚苗。

It should also be noted that Little Ruby had an absolutely incredible score, scoring nearly a half point higher than any other contender and a near perfect score of 4.44/5. An additional interesting result was that Little Ruby and Burger Lounge scored higher than Great American Fries, a food truck that exclusively serves French fries.

還應注意，Little Ruby的得分絕對令人難以置信，比其他競爭者得分高近半點，接近完美得分為4.44 / 5。 另一個有趣的結果是，Little Ruby和Burger Lounge的得分高于僅供應法式炸薯條的食品卡車Great American Fries。

All contestants above the McDonald’s line were entered the seeded tournament play resulting in the tournament structure seen in Figure 3. False identities are used because this is the same bracket judges saw during the contest.

麥當勞線以上的所有參賽者都進入了帶種子的錦標賽比賽，結果如圖3所示。使用了錯誤的身份，因為這與裁判在比賽中所看到的相同。

After the first round, Los Pollos Hermanos & Mos Eisley won as projected, with Los Pollos Hermanos sweeping JJ’s Diner 7–0. However, in the bottom two matchups the both fry-offs were upsets. Krusty Krab won decisively with a 6–1, while Bob’s Burgers squeaked out a victory 4–3 in a hotly debated heat. Krusty Krab knocking out Leaky Cauldron, and doing so effectively, is very surprising because as stated in the previous section, Leaky Cauldron (Great American Fries) only sells fries — and yet they couldn’t win a single game in the playoffs.

在第一輪之后， Los Pollos Hermanos和Mos Eisley贏得了預期， Los Pollos Hermanos以7-0橫掃了JJ的晚餐 。 但是，在最后兩場比賽中，兩次比賽都讓人沮喪。 Krusty Krab以6-1贏得了決定性的勝利，而Bob的Burgers在激烈爭論的熱火中以4-3擊敗了勝利。 Krusty Krab淘汰Leaky Cauldron并有效地做到這一點非常令人驚訝，因為如前一節所述， Leaky Cauldron (美國大薯條) 只出售薯條-但他們無法在季后賽中贏得一場比賽。

The Final Four went as expected, with #1 Los Pollo Hermanos beating #4 Mos Eisley Cantina and #6 Krusty Krab dominating #7 Bob’s Burger 7–0. The Championship game was an instant ESPN classic. Seed #6 Krusty Krab, with only 1 vote against it the entire tournament, took on Seed #1 Los Pollos Hermanos, whose group play score was significantly higher than anyone else — and 1.44 points above their championship opponent. But in the end, after intense debate and judging, the underdog took the championship 4–3.

最終四強如期而至 ，第一名的Los Pollo Hermanos擊敗了第四名的Mos Eisley Cantina和第六名的Krusty Krab擊敗了第七名的 Bob's Burger 7-0。 冠軍賽是ESPN的經典瞬間。 種子＃6 Krusty Krab在整個比賽中只有1票反對。他獲得了種子＃1 洛斯·波洛斯·赫曼諾斯(Los Pollos Hermanos )的團體比賽成績，比其他任何人都高-并比冠軍對手高1.44分。 但是最后，經過激烈的辯論和判斷，失敗者獲得了4-3的冠軍。

Hi Ho Burger (Krusty Krab) was crowned victor of Starch Madness!

Hi Ho Burger( Krusty Krab )被加冕為Starch Madness的勝利者！

3.討論 (3. Discussion)

Now that we have objective scores for each fry, we are given the opportunity to see the impact of certain attributes on French fry quality, derived from F.A.T score averages

?流，我們有客觀的分數為每個魚苗，我們有機會看到某些屬性的法國魚苗質量的影響，從FAT得分平均值得出

3.1 Does Price Imply Quality?

3.1價格是否暗示質量？

When looking at French fry price vs quality, there is one thing that sticks out quite clearly: the most expensive French fry in the contest, The Misfit, was also voted the worst. In fact, the Misfit is such an outlier that inclusion of it as a data point actually changes the relationship between fry price and quality from positive to negative.

在查看炸薯條價格與質量的對比時，有一件事情很明顯：在比賽中最昂貴的炸薯條The Misfit也被評為最差。 實際上，Mifit異常嚴重，以至于將其作為數據點實際上改變了魚苗價格與質量之間的關系，從正面變為負面。

The correlation between price and quality without the Misfit is moderately positive (0.40 Pearson Correlation Coefficient) and the correlation with the Misfit is none to negative (-0.08 Pearson). To sum this up nicely:

沒有錯配的價格與質量之間的相關性為中等正值(0.40皮爾遜相關系數)，而與錯配的相關性為零至負(-0.08皮爾遜)。 總結一下：

• Price does imply quality, but only up to $10
  價格確實暗示著質量，但最高不超過10美元
• The Misfit (and perhaps any/all fries that are above $10) are a rip off. You are better off going to McDonald’s
  Misfit(可能還有任何/所有高于10美元的炸薯條)都是騙子。 你最好去麥當勞

Speaking of McDonalds — the cheapest option is actually the best option for the price you get. While absolute quality does increase as price increases, it does not increase to the point that you increase the quality per dollar spent. In fact, a dollar spent at McDonald’s produces 38% more fry quality than the next restaurant. If you’re looking for the best “bang for your buck,” McDonald’s is the best option.

說到麥當勞-最便宜的選擇實際上是您所獲得價格的最佳選擇。 雖然絕對質量會隨著價格的上漲而增加，但不會增加到您提高每美元花費的質量。 實際上，在麥當勞花一美元，比下一家餐館生產的魚苗質量高38％。 如果您正在尋找最好的“物有所值”產品，那么麥當勞是最佳選擇。

3.2 Does Distance imply Quality?

3.2距離是否暗示質量？

A major discussion amongst judges during scoring was whether the distance from our office implied if the fries would be better or worse. The reasoning behind this is simply because fries are best when they are fresh and hot, and if we had to walk them back to the office for several minutes, they could lose more heat than a batch procured closer to our office.

評分過程中，評委們之間的主要討論是，與薯條之間的距離是否暗示了薯條的好壞。 這背后的原因僅是因為炸薯條在新鮮和熱的時候是最好的，如果我們不得不將它們帶回辦公室幾分鐘，它們可能比在我們辦公室附近采購的一批散發更多的熱量。

There are strong arguments for both sides. In support of this theory, Umami burger is one of the farthest and lowest rated fries, Little Ruby, Plan Check, and HiHo all made the playoffs and are very close to our office. However, Misfit, the closest restaurant, is the lowest score, and Great American Fries is far but still very high quality. Clearly, the only way to solve this is with

雙方都有很強的論點。 支持這一理論的是，鮮味漢堡是薯條中分離度最高和評分最低的一種，Little Ruby，Plan Check和HiHo都進入了季后賽，并且非常靠近我們的辦公室。 但是，最近的餐廳Misfit的得分最低，而Great American Fries的質量雖然很高，但仍然很高。 顯然，解決此問題的唯一方法是

Statistics!

統計！

We charted where each restaurant was and found the Euclidean distance from each to our office, marked on the map. Firstly, even by removing The Misfit from the data, only 10% of variance can be explained through a linear or exponential relationship (0.1 R2 value), so the hypothesis that distance degrades quality is rejected. What the distance-quality chart does produce is an interesting bucketing strategy for these restaurants. By bisecting the data by both the McDonald’s line and the average distance, we can create 4 quadrants/segments.

我們繪制了每個餐廳的位置圖，并在地圖上找到了每個餐廳到我們辦公室的歐幾里得距離。 首先，即使通過從數據中刪除“失配”，也只能通過線性或指數關系(0.1 R2值)來解釋10％的方差，因此拒絕了距離降低質量的假設。 距離質量圖的結果確實是這些餐館的有趣存儲策略。 通過將數據按麥當勞線和平均距離平分，我們可以創建4個象限/段。

Quadrant I can be labelled “Easy Bets,” where each restaurant is close and of high quality.

象限I可以標記為“輕松下注”，其中每家餐廳都很近且質量很高。

Quadrant II can be labelled “Worth the Journey” since they are farther away, but still high quality.

象限II可以標記為“世界之旅”，因為它們距離較遠，但質量仍然很高。

Quadrant III can be labelled “Not Worth the Journey” for having below-McDonalds’ quality at above average distance.

象限III因在高于平均距離的情況下具有低于麥當勞的質量而被標記為“不值得一游”。

Finally Quadrant IV can be labelled “Deceptively Bad” because while they are close to the office, they are not even the short trip. The Quadrant IV name also stems from the fact that we frequent the Misfit often since it is so close, and we have grown to believe that their fries are quite good. Our studies show this is incorrect, and our frequent visits have simply biased us

最終， 象限IV可以標記為“看似不好”，因為盡管它們靠近辦公室，但路程也不短。 象限IV的名稱還源于這樣一個事實，即我們經常會因為Misfit如此之近而經常去它，并且我們逐漸相信它們的薯條非常好。 我們的研究表明這是不正確的，而我們的頻繁拜訪只是使我們有偏見

3.3 Did External Factors influence our Voting?

3.3外部因素是否影響了我們的投票？

3.3.1 Comedic False Identity

3.3.1喜劇虛假身份

The false identities were added to the restaurants so that people wouldn’t be biased based on their prior experiences with that restaurant when voting. However, in our attempt to mask their identities, we may have introduced new bias through our associations with the cinematic universes that the fictional restaurants are from. Specifically, what if a restaurant was given a comedic identity, and because of our positive association with that movie/show, we graded it higher? Or conversely, what if a restaurant was given a very serious movie/show identity, and because of this, the judges scrutinized the fry more closely? Would people treat associations to Silence of the Lambs more negatively than Dumb and Dumber?

將虛假身份添加到餐廳，以便人們在投票時不會因以前在該餐廳的經歷而產生偏見。 但是，為了掩蓋他們的身份，我們可能通過與虛構餐廳所來自的電影世界的聯系引入了新的偏見。 具體來說，如果一家餐廳被賦予喜劇身份，又由于我們與那部電影/節目有著積極的聯系，我們會給它更高的評分嗎？ 或相反，如果給餐廳以非常嚴肅的電影/表演身份，又因為這個原因，法官會更仔細地檢查炸薯條怎么辦？ 人們會不會比沉默寡言和沉默寡言對待與沉默的羔羊相關的協會？

The answer is no. Splitting fries by comedy, we get a t-test p value of 0.52. The comedic value of the false identity did not influence our voting.

答案是否定的 。 按喜劇拆分炸薯條，我們得到的t檢驗p值為0.52。 虛假身份的喜劇價值不影響我們的投票。

3.3.2 Weather

3.3.2天氣

We conducted these experiments during February and March — the heart of winter in Los Angles. It reached a chilling 58 degrees during some of our rounds — did this influence our votes? Did the cold weather make the warm fries taste even better, and therefore result in higher F.A.T Scores? Or did the overcast weather make us somber, and therefore more critical of the fries we ate?

我們在2月和3月(洛杉磯的冬季中心)進行了這些實驗。 在我們的某些回合中，溫度達到了令人震驚的58度-這是否影響了我們的選票？ 寒冷的天氣是否使熱炸薯條的味道更好，從而導致FAT分數更高？ 還是因為陰雨天氣使我們憂郁，因此對我們吃的薯條更加挑剔？

The answer is no. Splitting fries by if the weather as above 60 degrees of not, we get a t-test p value of 0.74. The weather outside did not influence our voting

答案是否定的 。 如果天氣不高于60度，則將薯條分開，我們得到的t檢驗p值為0.74。 外面的天氣沒有影響我們的投票

3.3.3 Day of the Week

3.3.3星期幾

Does judging fries on Fryday impact our votes? No, a p value of 0.55 rejects this hypothesis.

在Fryday進行炸薯條評判是否會影響我們的投票？ 不 ，p值為0.55否定了這一假設。

3.4 Can Yelp Ratings indicate F.A.T Score?

3.4 Yelp等級可以表示FAT分數嗎？

Yelp is a service that prides itself on crowd-sourced ratings for restaurants. Many often check Yelp first before deciding if they should eat a particular location. Can we use the same strategy when selecting a location to dine on the best French fries? One would hope that as the overall Yelp score increases, so does the quality of the French fry.

Y elp是一家以餐廳的眾包評分為傲的服務。 許多人通常會先檢查Yelp，然后再決定是否應該在特定地點用餐。 選擇最佳薯條用餐地點時，可以使用相同的策略嗎？ 人們希望隨著Yelp總體得分的提高，炸薯條的質量也提高。

Unfortunately, this is not the case. As seen in Figure 8, highly rated Yelp eaters fail to produce on average fries that are as highly rated as their restaurant. Even when we cut out the Misfit outlier, good Yelp restaurants fall below the Yelp-FAT Line, which simply charts a 1:1 relationship between Yelp score and F.A.T score — a restaurant above the Yelp-FAT line (such as 3.0 Yelp score) produces fries of a higher caliper that the Yelp score would suggest. Our explanation for the 4.0+ restaurants failing to produce 4.0+ fries is that the Yelp score includes not only other foods, but also the ambiance of a restaurant. High Yelp score restaurants tend to have a better dining experience than lower scoring locations, despite their fries being of an equal or lesser quality.

不幸的是，這種情況并非如此。 如圖8所示，評分較高的Yelp食用者平均生產的薯條不如其餐廳。 即使我們剔除了Misfit異常值，良好的Yelp餐館也會落在Yelp-FAT線以下，該圖表簡單地繪制了Yelp分數與FAT分數之間的1：1關系-一家餐館在Yelp-FAT線之上(例如3.0 Yelp分數)產生了更高的卡尺炸薯條，這是Yelp得分所暗示的。 我們對4.0+餐館未能生產4.0+薯條的解釋是，Yelp評分不僅包括其他食物，還包括餐館的氛圍。 盡管炸薯條的質量相同或較低，但高Yelp評分的餐廳往往比低分的餐廳擁有更好的就餐體驗。

3.5 Addressing Potential Confounding Variables

3.5解決潛在的混雜變量

3.5.1 Playoff Rankings

3.5.1季后賽排名

Everyone loves an underdog story, and so it is possible that despite having blinded each restaurant during group and tournament play, knowing the rankings could have compelled voters to choose the underdog when a contest was close. Fry quality in tournament play was higher than in group play, and so this is entirely possible. How to control for this in the future is to avoid telling rankings, but also changing the false identities several times throughout the contest, thereby removing any bias judges have procured during previous tastings.

?veryone愛一個失敗者的故事，所以有可能的是，盡管已經蒙蔽組錦標賽在每個餐廳，知道的排名可能迫使選民選擇弱旅當比賽接近。 錦標賽比賽中的魚苗質量要高于團體比賽中的魚苗質量，因此這完全有可能。 未來如何控制這一點是為了避免透露排名，而且還要在整個比賽中多次更改錯誤的身份，從而消除法官在先前的品嘗中所造成的偏見。

3.5.2 Judge Acumen

3.5.2明智的法官

To address the concern that the judges themselves were bias and not indicative of scores of those not involved in the research, this is also possible. However, each judge has passed the French Fry Judge Certification Program (Figure 9) and therefore their expertise should be considered adequately accurate for French fry quality.

為了解決法官本身有偏見，并不能表明未參與研究的人員的分數的擔憂，這也是可能的。 但是，每個法官都通過了法國炸薯條法官認證計劃(圖9)，因此，他們的專業知識對于法國炸薯條質量應被認為足夠準確。

4。結論 (4. Conclusion)

Ranking French Fries is a relevant subject to all readers, and we hope to continue our research beyond the Santa Monica area. While our resources confined us to Santa Monica and single elimination, next steps could be an expansion of both region and trials. We are all interested if these results hold up across all restaurant locations, or if there are locations that claim to have the best French Fry that wish to enter the challenge.

[R安慶炸薯條是相關學科的所有讀者，我們希望繼續我們的研究超越了圣莫尼卡地區。 盡管我們的資源將我們限制在圣莫尼卡和一次淘汰賽，但下一步可能是擴大地區和擴大試驗范圍。 我們都感興趣的是，這些結果是否在所有餐廳位置都得到了證明，或者是否有聲稱擁有最好炸薯條的位置希望挑戰。

For those unconvinced that the research topic of Fry Quality of Santa Monica French Fries was worthy of publication, we would strongly argue that the pursuit of knowledge should always be encouraged, no matter how small the impact or specialized the application.

對于那些不相信《圣莫尼卡炸薯條品質》的研究主題值得發表的人們，我們強烈認為，無論影響有多小或應用多么專業，都應始終鼓勵對知識的追求。

We hope that all those who read it feel empowered to conduct their own French fry quality assessment as a form of peer review, and publish any interesting results found. The research area of French Fry Quality is young and ripe for more publications.

我們希望所有閱讀它的人 感到有能力以同行評審的形式進行自己的薯條質量評估，并發布發現的有趣結果。 炸薯條質量研究領域很年輕，可以發表更多的出版物。

The Quest for the Ultimate French Fry is still afoot, and Data Scientists have a major role to play in the road ahead.

最終炸薯條的探索仍在進行中，數據科學家在未來的道路上將發揮重要作用。

Hope you enjoyed,

希望你喜歡，

Adam “Fry” Brownell

亞當·弗萊·布朗內爾