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

2月，我们的数据科学团队对我们去哪家餐厅做得最好的炸薯条产生了争议。

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

我们决定在整个2月/ 3月进行比赛，以找出谁是真正的炸薯条之王。 移动三月疯狂 ，你好淀粉疯狂

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

我将我们的发现输入关于薯条的第一篇学术论文中 ，并将其提交给arXiv。

It was promptly rejected. :(

它很快被拒绝了。 :(

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

尽管如此，这还是The客观上最好的炸薯条的故事，或者如我所说：

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

市中心圣莫尼卡地区薯条主观质量的客观分析

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

警告 ：这篇文章很可能会让您饿到炸薯条

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.

这 一切都始于一个团队午餐。 我们总是为桌上点薯条。 几顿午餐后，我们开始提出一个问题：圣莫尼卡办公室附近最好的炸薯条是什么？ 您甚至如何确定“最佳”？ 作为一家数据科学公司，我们知道不能仅仅通过在各家餐馆吃薯条来确定这一点-我们必须围绕科学的严格性和特定的约束来构建分析，以便我们对我们的发现充满信心……如果结果不是'通过同行评审可重现，意义何在？ 因此，疯狂淀粉诞生了。 一场比赛，一群数据书呆子客观地决定了哪家餐厅在圣莫尼卡提供主观上最好的炸薯条。

介绍 (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，托马斯·杰斐逊担任“法国送达方式土豆”在白宫晚宴。 炸薯条从那里诞生。 土豆切成薄片然后油炸成为美国菜的主食。

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.

尽管炸薯条与汉堡和​​快餐最相关，但大多数餐馆还是供应炸薯条。 由于它们无处不在，所以必须提出一个问题：“谁为法国炸薯条做的最好？” 食物食谱的简单性使这个问题变得尤为有趣，因为厨师只能选择几个变量来制作其理想的炸薯条。

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，一些机构每天生产大量的薯条-这种大量生产会降低鱼苗的质量吗？ 他们必须将大部分精力都集中在生产美味的薯条上，这是否比以高端美食闻名的餐厅产生了更好的质量？

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:

我们想借此机会谈谈房间内的研究大象-如果这项研究首先很重要。 我们实际上建议：

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.

无论规模大小，对知识的追求都是令人钦佩的，并且尚未对圣莫尼卡市区的炸薯条质量进行任何研究。 我们可能尚未获得数百万美元的炸薯条资金，但我们有足够的毅力和动力(和调色板)来完成该项目。 我们很高兴在人类语料库中添加一小撮新知识。

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.

我们必须首先选择要参加比赛的炸薯条。 最简单的采样方法是选择可以在距我们办公室步行不到10分钟的位置购买的薯条。 幸运的是，我们的办公室位于圣莫尼卡市区的中心地带，这里不乏炸鱼的选择。 实际上有太多。 为了缩小位置，我们只需在Yelp中键入“最佳薯条”，然后选择前12个结果即可。 最终，由于炸鱼的风格，一些地点被更换了(见1.2节)，但是这种方法产生了大量的竞争者。

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.

为了避免法官根据炸薯条的来源而产生偏见，根据流行的电视节目，每个地点都被随机分配了一个虚假的身份。 图1是将真实餐厅映射到其虚假身份的密钥。 从此以后，所有餐厅都将使用其虚假的身份名称来引用。

1.2 Style & Procurement

1.2样式与采购

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.

Ť这里有许多类型的炸薯条，不幸的是比较不同风格的薯条，就像比较苹果和桔子，因此我们必须规范我们的法式炸薯条类型。 我们选择了最普通的风格-咸薯条。 这排除了华夫饼薯条和地瓜薯条等受欢迎的变种，但仍使参与者具有创造力和多样性。

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.

一次判断一批炸薯条是不可行的选择，因为这将需要分配当前实验时间的四倍，并且使比赛无法进行(1.3.2)。 时间的增加将不可避免地导致判断疲劳。 相反，我们尝试一次收集每轮所需数量的炸薯条，而不会降低每批炸薯条的完整性。

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.

尽管我们竭尽全力在尽可能近的时间内购买炸薯条，但我们的检索并非没有缺陷，有些人可能会争辩说，炸薯条的行进距离与配料的分数成反比。 在我们的讨论部分3.2中，对该推测进行了详尽的回顾。

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.

负责接管炸薯条的人员被指示要点炸薯条，说：“请给我一份炸薯条。” 根据此订单制作的餐厅无论哪种风格，都被视为其典型的油炸风格。

1.3 Experimental Design

1.3实验设计

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.

小号 imilar国际足联世界杯赛的设计，淀粉疯狂与两个部分构成：小组赛(1.3.1)和锦标赛(1.3.2)。 团体赛阶段的充分表现使您有资格参加比赛。

1.3.1 Group Play Stage

1.3.1小组比赛阶段

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.

参加比赛的12条炸薯条中的每一个都被随机分为4组，每组3名选手，称为部门，在小组比赛阶段进行评分。 使用的评分是1.4中定义的FAT系统。 指示法官使用FAT系统(1.4)，而不是比较部门内的薯条以取得分数。

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.

这是一个重要的区别，因为为每个油炸物产生一个客观评分是比对比性更强的油炸强度指标。 此外，如果一个特定的部门有三个优秀(或糟糕)的批次，则应仅凭其实力而不是其部门的整体实力被允许进入比赛。 图2概述了划分。

1.3.2 Tournament Play

1.3.2比赛比赛

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

图2：小组赛分区。 “经典”电影的区别是主观的(但正确的)

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.

虽然这不是比较法式炸薯条的最科学严谨的方法，但它确实很有趣。 在此阶段中，对前8个收视率最高的炸薯条进行播种，并放入单个淘汰箱中。 每次正面交锋都是盲目投票，法官倾向于。 通过比赛，获胜者加冕。

1.4 The F.A.T System

1.4 FAT系统

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:

第一障碍ØNE阐述当判断薯条是如何规范的得分。 为此，必须回答一个深刻的哲学问题：“什么能制作出优质的炸薯条？” 我们的鱼苗专家团队将法国鱼苗的质量分为以下三类：

味道。 (Flavor.)

出现。 (Appearance.)

质地。 (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.

这个由三部分组成的评分规则被巧妙地命名为“ FAT系统”。 这些都代表了好的炸薯条的核心属性。 通过基于这些指标对批次进行评分，我们可以自信地决定哪种鱼苗是最好的。 这些指标均以5分制进行评分，其中1分最低，而5分最高。 将这三个数字取平均值可得出鱼苗的整体质量，并有助于裁判在比赛中做出重要的投票决定。

1.5 Judges

1.5评委

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

吨他炸薯条是由能够RETINA.ai队，他们的爱薯条只能由他们的数据收集和分析的热爱超过了判断。 这些法官的功绩在3.5.2中得到了很好的辩护

2.结果 (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:

一压脚提升的小组赛阶段，每名参赛者已分级的FAT系统，我们生产的以下数据见下表：

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.

以绿色突出显示的那些获得了足够高的FAT分数，有资格参加比赛。 那些未突出显示的部分不属于麦当劳产品线 ，因为麦当劳不仅是合格的得分最低的鱼苗，而且平均得分为2.43 / 5麦当劳也可以被认为是平均的，平庸的鱼苗。

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.

还应注意，Little Ruby的得分绝对令人难以置信，比其他竞争者得分高近半点，接近完美得分为4.44 / 5。 另一个有趣的结果是，Little Ruby和Burger Lounge的得分高于仅供应法式炸薯条的食品卡车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.

麦当劳线以上的所有参赛者都进入了带种子的锦标赛比赛，结果如图3所示。使用了错误的身份，因为这与裁判在比赛中所看到的相同。

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.

在第一轮之后， Los Pollos Hermanos和Mos Eisley赢得了预期， Los Pollos Hermanos以7-0横扫了JJ的晚餐 。 但是，在最后两场比赛中，两次比赛都让人沮丧。 Krusty Krab以6-1赢得了决定性的胜利，而Bob的Burgers在激烈争论的热火中以4-3击败了胜利。 Krusty Krab淘汰Leaky Cauldron并有效地做到这一点非常令人惊讶，因为如前一节所述， Leaky Cauldron (美国大薯条) 只出售薯条-但他们无法在季后赛中赢得一场比赛。

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.

最终四强如期而至 ，第一名的Los Pollo Hermanos击败了第四名的Mos Eisley Cantina和第六名的Krusty Krab击败了第七名的 Bob's Burger 7-0。 冠军赛是ESPN的经典瞬间。 种子＃6 Krusty Krab在整个比赛中只有1票反对。他获得了种子＃1 洛斯·波洛斯·赫曼诺斯(Los Pollos Hermanos )的团体比赛成绩，比其他任何人都高-并比冠军对手高1.44分。 但是最后，经过激烈的辩论和判断，失败者获得了4-3的冠军。

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

Hi Ho Burger( Krusty Krab )被加冕为Starch Madness的胜利者！

3.讨论 (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

ñ流，我们有客观的分数为每个鱼苗，我们有机会看到某些属性的法国鱼苗质量的影响，从FAT得分平均值得出

3.1 Does Price Imply Quality?

3.1价格是否暗示质量？

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.

在查看炸薯条价格与质量的对比时，有一件事情很明显：在比赛中最昂贵的炸薯条The Misfit也被评为最差。 实际上，Mifit异常严重，以至于将其作为数据点实际上改变了鱼苗价格与质量之间的关系，从正面变为负面。

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:

没有错配的价格与质量之间的相关性为中等正值(0.40皮尔逊相关系数)，而与错配的相关性为零至负(-0.08皮尔逊)。 总结一下：

• Price does imply quality, but only up to $10
  价格确实暗示着质量，但最高不超过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(可能还有任何/所有高于10美元的炸薯条)都是骗子。 你最好去麦当劳

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.

说到麦当劳-最便宜的选择实际上是您所获得价格的最佳选择。 虽然绝对质量会随着价格的上涨而增加，但不会增加到您提高每美元花费的质量。 实际上，在麦当劳花一美元，比下一家餐馆生产的鱼苗质量高38％。 如果您正在寻找最好的“物有所值”产品，那么麦当劳是最佳选择。

3.2 Does Distance imply Quality?

3.2距离是否暗示质量？

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.

评分过程中，评委们之间的主要讨论是，与薯条之间的距离是否暗示了薯条的好坏。 这背后的原因仅是因为炸薯条在新鲜和热的时候是最好的，如果我们不得不将它们带回办公室几分钟，它们可能比在我们办公室附近采购的一批散发更多的热量。

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

双方都有很强的论点。 支持这一理论的是，鲜味汉堡是薯条中分离度最高和评分最低的一种，Little Ruby，Plan Check和HiHo都进入了季后赛，并且非常靠近我们的办公室。 但是，最近的餐厅Misfit的得分最低，而Great American Fries的质量虽然很高，但仍然很高。 显然，解决此问题的唯一方法是

Statistics!

统计！

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.

我们绘制了每个餐厅的位置图，并在地图上找到了每个餐厅到我们办公室的欧几里得距离。 首先，即使通过从数据中删除“失配”，也只能通过线性或指数关系(0.1 R2值)来解释10％的方差，因此拒绝了距离降低质量的假设。 距离质量图的结果确实是这些餐馆的有趣存储策略。 通过将数据按麦当劳线和平均距离平分，我们可以创建4个象限/段。

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

象限I可以标记为“轻松下注”，其中每家餐厅都很近且质量很高。

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

象限II可以标记为“世界之旅”，因为它们距离较远，但质量仍然很高。

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

象限III因在高于平均距离的情况下具有低于麦当劳的质量而被标记为“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

最终， 象限IV可以标记为“看似不好”，因为尽管它们靠近办公室，但路程也不短。 象限IV的名称还源于这样一个事实，即我们经常会因为Misfit如此之近而经常去它，并且我们逐渐相信它们的薯条非常好。 我们的研究表明这是不正确的，而我们的频繁拜访只是使我们有偏见

3.3 Did External Factors influence our Voting?

3.3外部因素是否影响了我们的投票？

3.3.1 Comedic False Identity

3.3.1喜剧虚假身份

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?

将虚假身份添加到餐厅，以便人们在投票时不会因以前在该餐厅的经历而产生偏见。 但是，为了掩盖他们的身份，我们可能通过与虚构餐厅所来自的电影世界的联系引入了新的偏见。 具体来说，如果一家餐厅被赋予喜剧身份，又由于我们与那部电影/节目有着积极的联系，我们会给它更高的评分吗？ 或相反，如果给餐厅以非常严肃的电影/表演身份，又因为这个原因，法官会更仔细地检查炸薯条怎么办？ 人们会不会比沉默寡言和沉默寡言对待与沉默的羔羊相关的协会？

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 。 按喜剧拆分炸薯条，我们得到的t检验p值为0.52。 虚假身份的喜剧价值不影响我们的投票。

3.3.2 Weather

3.3.2天气

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?

我们在2月和3月(洛杉矶的冬季中心)进行了这些实验。 在我们的某些回合中，温度达到了令人震惊的58度-这是否影响了我们的选票？ 寒冷的天气是否使热炸薯条的味道更好，从而导致FAT分数更高？ 还是因为阴雨天气使我们忧郁，因此对我们吃的薯条更加挑剔？

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 。 如果天气不高于60度，则将薯条分开，我们得到的t检验p值为0.74。 外面的天气没有影响我们的投票

3.3.3 Day of the Week

3.3.3星期几

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

在Fryday进行炸薯条评判是否会影响我们的投票？ 不 ，p值为0.55否定了这一假设。

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

3.4 Yelp等级可以表示FAT分数吗？

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是一家以餐厅的众包评分为傲的服务。 许多人通常会先检查Yelp，然后再决定是否应该在特定地点用餐。 选择最佳薯条用餐地点时，可以使用相同的策略吗？ 人们希望随着Yelp总体得分的提高，炸薯条的质量也提高。

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，这种情况并非如此。 如图8所示，评分较高的Yelp食用者平均生产的薯条不如其餐厅。 即使我们剔除了Misfit异常值，良好的Yelp餐馆也会落在Yelp-FAT线以下，该图表简单地绘制了Yelp分数与FAT分数之间的1：1关系-一家餐馆在Yelp-FAT线之上(例如3.0 Yelp分数)产生了更高的卡尺炸薯条，这是Yelp得分所暗示的。 我们对4.0+餐馆未能生产4.0+薯条的解释是，Yelp评分不仅包括其他食物，还包括餐馆的氛围。 尽管炸薯条的质量相同或较低，但高Yelp评分的餐厅往往比低分的餐厅拥有更好的就餐体验。

3.5 Addressing Potential Confounding Variables

3.5解决潜在的混杂变量

3.5.1 Playoff Rankings

3.5.1季后赛排名

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.

Ëveryone爱一个失败者的故事，所以有可能的是，尽管已经蒙蔽组锦标赛在每个餐厅，知道的排名可能迫使选民选择弱旅当比赛接近。 锦标赛比赛中的鱼苗质量要高于团体比赛中的鱼苗质量，因此这完全有可能。 未来如何控制这一点是为了避免透露排名，而且还要在整个比赛中多次更改错误的身份，从而消除法官在先前的品尝中所造成的偏见。

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.

为了解决法官本身有偏见，并不能表明未参与研究的人员的分数的担忧，这也是可能的。 但是，每个法官都通过了法国炸薯条法官认证计划(图9)，因此，他们的专业知识对于法国炸薯条质量应被认为足够准确。

4。结论 (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安庆炸薯条是相关学科的所有读者，我们希望继续我们的研究超越了圣莫尼卡地区。 尽管我们的资源将我们限制在圣莫尼卡和一次淘汰赛，但下一步可能是扩大地区和扩大试验范围。 我们都感兴趣的是，这些结果是否在所有餐厅位置都得到了证明，或者是否有声称拥有最好炸薯条的位置希望挑战。

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.

对于那些不相信《圣莫尼卡炸薯条品质》的研究主题值得发表的人们，我们强烈认为，无论影响有多小或应用多么专业，都应始终鼓励对知识的追求。

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.

我们希望所有阅读它的人 感到有能力以同行评审的形式进行自己的薯条质量评估，并发布发现的有趣结果。 炸薯条质量研究领域很年轻，可以发表更多的出版物。

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

最终炸薯条的探索仍在进行中，数据科学家在未来的道路上将发挥重要作用。

Hope you enjoyed,

希望你喜欢，

Adam “Fry” Brownell

亚当·弗莱·布朗内尔