Between October of last year and February of this one, the curators of Significant Objects parsed the data from the project’s first, experimental phase in the following thirteen ways.

1. We classified the 100 object-stories in our experiment as talismans, totems, evidence, and fossils.
2. We presented the raw original price/final price data.
3. We listed the week in which each story was published, and its associated object listed for auction on eBay.
4. We neutralized the Duration Factor by adding $18.00 to the final sale price of each item in Week 1, $17.00 to the final sale price of each item in Week 2, and so forth through Week 18 of 19. The resulting Adjusted Final Prices have been used in our figuring ever since.
5. We presented the experiment’s overall, week-to-week mean and median price data.
6. We compared the Final Prices and Adjusted Final Prices, and made it possible to rank sales data by either factor.
7. We presented the experiment’s Top 25 most significant object-stories (according to adjusted sales rank) in a visual manner, and invited readers to point out aesthetic considerations that might explain the objects’ popularity (i.e., independent of the associated narratives). We also invited readers to point out aesthetic considerations that might explain the unpopularity of some objects.
8. We analyzed the effect of CATEGORY on the experiment’s 100 object-stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data. Result: inconclusive.
9. We analyzed the effect of FUNCTION on the experiment’s 100 object-stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data. Result: inconclusive.
10. We charted CATEGORY and FUNCTION on pie charts. (OK, we didn’t use the VISTA 1.0 for that.)
11. Before leaving the question of FUNCTION behind, we asked readers to vote on whether particular objects were a novelty, or houseware.
12. We started analyzing the effect of EXPOSITION STRATEGY on the experiment’s 100 object-stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data. Result: not in yet.
13. We started analyzing the effect of HOT and COOL narrative modes on the experiment’s 100 object-stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data, and (what’s more) correlated with CATEGORY. Result: not in yet.

Then, in early March, our VISTA (Verifiable Insignificant-to-Significant Transubstantiation Analyzer) 1.0 threw a rod, and our parsing efforts ground to a halt.

Working around the clock, while also publishing our third volume of stories and holding down day jobs, we’ve finally managed to repair and upgrade the VISTA (now 2.0); on Monday, Rob Walker trotted out the first new analysis in fifteen weeks. Rob noted:

Object-stories sold in v1 were valued by the free market (meaning thrift store and yard sale sellers) at a total of $128.74. After our contributing writers converted these thingamabobs, via invented back stories, into Significant Objects, they sold through our eBay shop for a grand total of $3,612.51. The second 100 object-stories (v2 and v3 combined) were purchased for $134.89, and sold for $3,992.93

Despite the slightly higher cost-of-doodads, the Significance Premium also increased: v1 objects rose in value by a total of 2,706% thanks to our contributors’ stories. The second 100 object-stories sold in v2 and v3 combined jumped in value by 2,860%.

Rob’s finding prompted me to return to an adjustment I’d made to the v1 sales totals back in November. As I explained at the time, the Significant Object experiment’s duration affected sale prices. News about the project didn’t spread widely for the first week or three — so object-stories auctioned off early in the experiment sold for less, on average, than did object-stories auctioned off for the remainder of the experiment’s duration.

The first adjustment made to SO v1 sales totals — I added $18.00 to the sale price of each item in Week 1, $17.00 to the sale price of each item in Week 2, and so forth through Week 18 ($1.00 added) — helped neutralize the Duration Factor. However, the first Duration Factor adjustment didn’t change the overall results that much. A few object-stories from Week One (Necking Team Button, Smiley Mug, Halston Mug, JFK Bust, Creamer Cow, Miniature Bottle, Chili Cat Figurine, Sanka Ashtray) jumped in the rankings, while a few object-stories from late in the project (Flip-Flop Frame, Umbrella Trinket, Toothbrush Holder, Swiss Medal) dropped quite a bit. But object-stories that had ranked in the unadjusted Top Twenty, Thirty, Forty, and so forth, tended to remain in those brackets. In the Top Ten bracket, object-stories no. 1,2,3, and 8 remain the same, while the no. 4 and 5 object-stories, and no. 6 and 7 object-stories, respectively, merely swapped places. All of which suggests that SO v1′s intramural Duration Factor might not yet be entirely neutralized. Object-stories from the project’s earliest weeks (which weeks, exactly, will be analyzed below) didn’t have the fighting chance object-stories from subsequent weeks did to make it into the top quartile of sales rankings — or, at least, out of the bottom quartile.

At the same time, Rob’s findings suggest that the Duration Factor caused SO v1′s sales price total to be less than it otherwise might have been. Subtracting the SO v1 total from the So v2+v3 combined total, we get an exact figure: The project’s intermural Duration Factor robbed $380.42 from SO v1.

So — we’re trying a new adjustment method for SO v1 sale prices, one intended to neutralize the Duration Factor both inter- and intramurally. We’re adding $380.42 to the sale price of the 18 object-stories sold in SO v1′s first two weeks.

Why the first two weeks only, this time? Our decision was influenced by Mimi Lipson’s Metal Boot Peak Effect theory, which claims “there was a tipping point in Week 4 after which some process of disinhibition caused the possible peak price to shoot up for those [object-stories] with a certain X-factor.” (SO v1′s 24th object-story was Bruce Sterling’s Metal Boot.) However, according to our calculations, the upsurge in possible peak prices came with Stewart O’Nan’s Duck Tray. See the table below.

The Duck Tray, from SO v1′s third week, sold for $71. The highest sale price for any object-story from SO v1′s first and second weeks was a little more than half that amount: $36.88. Instead of the Metal Boot Peak Effect, we’re looking at a Duck Tray Peak Effect.

In order to give Week One object-stories the fighting chance they deserve, while still increasing the sale price of all pre-Duck Tray items, we’ve decided to assign $285.30 (3/4 of $380.34) to the sale price of our thirteen Week One items, and $95.10 (1/4 of $380.34) to the sale price of our five Week Two items. Each Week One object-story’s sale price will be adjusted upward by $21.95 (instead of $18.00); and each Week Two object-story’s sale price will be adjusted upward by $19.02 (instead of $17.00). The sale prices of object-stories from other weeks will remain unadjusted.

Here are the results of this second adjustment:

Have we neutralized both the intermural and intramural Duration Factors? Your comments are encouraged.

Since the last time this list was updated, four Significant Objects from v3 have entered this increasingly exclusive territory:

Wooden Bottle + Christine Hill Story arrives on the chart at the number 6 slot; Wooden Apple Core + Heidi Julavits Story comes in at number 11; Metal Flowers + Justin Taylor Story enters a tie for number 15; and, in a tie for the number 25, Rubber Band Gun + Benjamin Percy Story.

It now takes a whopping $63.50 auction price to break onto this chart. Check it out:

Rank	Volume	Object	Author	Market price	S.O. Price
1	v2	Globe Paperweight	Debbie Millman	$1.49	$197.50
2	v1	Russian figure	Doug Dorst	$3.00	$193.50
3	v2	Kangamouse	Chris Adrian	$0.00	$162.50
4	v1	Indian Figurine	R.K. Scher	$0.99	$157.50
5	v2	Music Box	Nicholas Rombes	$0.50	$147.50
6	v3	Wooden Bottle	Christine Hill	$1.49	$126.39
7	v2	Rabbit Candle	Neil LaBute	$3.00	$112.50
8	v1	Wood animal	Meg Cabot	$0.75	$108.50
9	v1	Pink Horse	Kate Bernheimer	$1.00	$104.50
10	v2	Mystery Object	Ben Greenman	$0.99	$103.50
11	v3	Wooden Apple Core	Heidi Julavits	$1.00	$102.50
12	v1	HAWK ashtray	William Gibson	$2.99	$101.00
13	v1	“4” Tile	Toni Schlesinger	$1.00	$88.00
14	v1	Brass Boot	Bruce Sterling	$3.00	$86.00
15	v2	Just Married Cup	Barbara Bogaev	$0.75	$81.00
15 (tie)	v3	Metal Flowers	Justin Taylor	$1.49	$81.00
17	v1	Porcelain shoe	Sheila Heti	$4.00	$77.51
18	v1	Fake Banana	Josh Kramer	$0.25	$76.00
18 (tie)	v1	Missouri Shot glass	Jonathan Lethem	$1.00	$76.00
20	v1	Measuring spoons	Mark Doty	$2.99	$76.00
21	v1	Mallet	Colson Whitehead	$0.33	$71.00
21	v1	Duck Tray	Stewart O’Nan	$3.00	$71.00
23	v2	Partial Mermaid	Tom McCarthy	$0.00	$68.00
24	v2	Aquarium Souvenir	Mark Jude Poirier	$1.00	$66.07
25	v2	Pan Flute	Deb Olin Unferth	$0.00	$63.50
25 (tie)	v3	Rubber Band Gun	Benjamin Percy	$0.50	$63.50

So far, we’ve published 200 stories here at Significant Objects — the batch of 100 that made up our original experimental inquiry into the nature of value and narrative, and two sequel batches of 50 stories each, benefiting 826 National and Girls Write Now. Most of our data analysis has of course concerned the original stories and auctions from v1, but it seems reasonable to broadly compare our first 100 stories to our second 100.

The big picture is pretty clear from the, uh, big picture, above: Prices rose smartly.

Objects sold in v1 were valued by the free market (meaning thrift store and yard sale sellers) at a total of $128.74. After our contributing writers converted these thingamabobs, via invented back stories, into Significant Objects, they sold through our eBay shop for a grand total of $3,612.51. The second 100 objects (v2 and v3 combined) were purchased for $134.89, and sold for $3,992.93

Despite the slightly higher cost-of-doodads, the Significance Premium also increased: v1 objects rose in value by a total of 2,706% thanks to our contributors’ stories. The second 100 objects sold in v2 and v3 combined jumped in value by 2,860%.

And on a per-object average (arithmetic mean) basis? The chart would obviously look identical, but the salient fact is that while the cost-of-doodads rose about 4.7% (from $1.29 to $1.35), the post-Significance auction price jumped about 10.5% (from $36.13 to $39.93).

All of which is interesting because a very plausible case could have been made that prices would fall as we sold our second 100 object-stories, because of our old friends supply and demand: After all, the number of Significant Objects existing in the world doubled.

Obviously we’re pleased that prices, instead, rose. We’re interested to hear your theories about why that is.

Here are some possible factors that we can think of:

1. The Charity Effect. Buyers knew that our v2 and v3 objects were being sold to support excellent causes.

2. Various-Creative-Stunt Effects. With our experimental phase behind us, the curators felt less pressured to maintain uniformity across auction scenarios, and freed up to try novel approaches to teasing out the deeper questions about the relationship between stories and things through variations on our original idea that clearly captured readers’ (and bidders’) imagination: the Mystery Object, a hand-written story, a multi-part story, multiple stories about identical objects, team-ups with Underwater New York (involving found objects), Electric Literature, The Believer, Paola Antonelli, and so on. This makes our v2 and v3 data somewhat more difficult to assess — but so what? All that stuff was awesome!

3. Lingering echoes of the Duration Factor: Our first week or two of auctions (in v1 of course) had somewhat lower prices, as fewer people had heard about the project at that stage. Josh offered this method of correcting for the Duration Factor in v1 prices; it seems likely that this had no impact on v2 and v3 prices, but it probably did undercut v1 totals a bit.

What else? You tell us, readers!

A glimpse inside Significant Objects' laboratory.

Years ago, when I was (briefly) a grad student in Sociology, at Boston University, I discovered that positivist science doesn’t offer satisfactory models for synthesizing a cluster of elements that resist reduction to a common denominator, generative first principle, or essential core. Significant Objects now faces this problem. Our efforts to organize our experiment’s data into a simple pattern haven’t worked — doubtlessly because our model is too reductive. Perhaps we should consider the Hausdorff dimension; or maybe a parabolic partial differential equation is called for? Hmmm…

What am I going on about? Our project’s hypothesis, that narrative is a key x-factor influencing an object’s exchange value, i.e., by transforming a qualitatively and quantitatively “insignificant” object into a “significant” one, was definitively proven by the pioneering quasi-anthropological experiment that Rob Walker and I ran from July to November 2009. As a result of our experiment, which involved using 100 stories by talented authors as item descriptions for 100 objects that we listed on eBay, the “value in trade” of those objects increased from a mere $128.74 to an astonishing $3,612.51.

Yes, MacArthur Foundation Fellows Program scouts, you heard right: We employed narrative to boost the qualitative-quantitative significance of castoff objects by over 2,700%. But that was just the beginning of the important work we’re now doing behind the scenes here at Significant Objects.

From October through December 2009, we shared our experiment’s results here at the Significant Objects website, via a plethora of incontrovertible charts and graphs:

• We classified the 100 objects in our experiment as talismans, totems, evidence, and fossils.
• We presented the raw original price/final price data.
• We listed the week in which each story was published, and its associated object listed for auction on eBay.
• We neutralized the Duration Factor by adding $18.00 to the final sale price of each item in Week 1, $17.00 to the final sale price of each item in Week 2, and so forth through Week 18 of 19. The resulting Adjusted Final Prices have been used in our figuring ever since.
• We presented the experiment’s overall, week-to-week mean and median price data.
• We compared the Final Prices and Adjusted Final Prices, and made it possible to rank sales data by either factor.
• We presented the experiment’s Top 25 most significant objects (according to adjusted sales rank) in a visual manner, and invited readers to point out aesthetic considerations that might explain the objects’ popularity (i.e., independent of the associated narratives).
• We also invited readers to point out aesthetic considerations that might explain the unpopularity of some objects.

The above tables and charts demonstrate, in granular detail, exactly what narrative does. But how does narrative accomplish this miraculous transformation, this transubstantiation of insignificant into significant object? Since December of last year, our crack team of analysts — working in Savannah and Boston — has struggled to pin down a clear cause-and-effect relation that might explain how this process works. So far, no such relation has been discovered.

To paraphrase a scrap of doggerel from The Scarlet Pimpernel: “Is it in Heaven, or is it in Heck / That damned elusive cause-and-effect?”

Not that our research has been in vain. If the insignificant-to-significant objectual transubstantiation were a simple, straightforward matter, then it would already have been discovered — no doubt by fully funded marketers and brand consultants — years ago. We now strongly suspect that the relation between the cluster of elements in our data set cannot be reduced to anything so simple as cause-and-effect. Which is why we’ve jury-rigged a Verifiable Insignificant-to-Significant Transubstantiation Analyzer (model 1.0), pictured below.

The VISTA 1.0, multiple patents pending

The VISTA 1.0 has improved our analytical efficiencies tremendously. For example, in January and February 2010, we speedily constructed tables of data allowing us to do the following:

• We analyzed the effect of CATEGORY on the experiment’s 100 object/stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data. Result: inconclusive.
• We analyzed the effect of FUNCTION on the experiment’s 100 object/stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data. Result: inconclusive.
• We charted CATEGORY and FUNCTION on pie charts. (OK, we didn’t use the VISTA 1.0 for that.)
• Before leaving the question of FUNCTION behind, we asked readers to vote on whether particular objects were a novelty, or houseware.
• We analyzed the effect of EXPOSITION STRATEGY on the experiment’s 100 object/stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data. Result: inconclusive.
• We started analyzing the effect of HOT and COOL narrative modes on the experiment’s 100 object/stories, ranked by adjusted final sales data, and (what’s more) correlated with CATEGORY. Result: not in yet.

While doing all of the above analysis work, from December 2009 through February 2010, we managed to publish a second volume of Significant Objects. Kathryn Davis, Tom McCarthy, Amy Fusselman, Neil LaBute, Gary Panter, and 45 other writers helped us raise over $2000 for the tutoring program 826 National. Phew!

But then… disaster struck! The VISTA 1.0 threw a rod, just as we were launching the current volume of Significant Objects — our third — in order to raise money for the tutoring program Girls Write Now. Not to worry: SO v3 will continue to publish terrific new stories every weekday, through April. But our analysis efforts have ground to a halt. This is tragic, because correlating HOT/COOL styles with CATEGORY looked like a very promising direction: four of the Top Ten objects/stories are Cool Talismans, for example; and another four are Hot Fossils. Meanwhile, Hot Talismans and Cool Fossils don’t rank nearly as high. Why?

Which brings us back to the problem that I encountered as a Sociology grad student. The VISTA 1.0 wasn’t up to the ticklish task of synthesizing a cluster of elements that resist reduction to a common denominator, generative first principle, or essential core. So — before we can even begin to develop the VISTA 2.0, which we’ll program to be non-reductionist, if possible, Rob and I need to decide what shape the answer to our experiment’s question might likely take. I can’t speak for Rob, but I tend to agree with Benjamin and Adorno that a “constellation” — i.e., a pattern, half-discovered and half-invented, drawn among points that may or may not be arranged randomly — is the only appropriate model for a juxtaposed rather than integrated cluster of elements.

This is where you come in!

While we continue to tinker with the VISTA, we’re crowdsourcing the analysis. We’re not asking you to pin down cause-and-effect — because not only did we fail to do so, but we no longer think it’s possible. Instead, we’d like you take a gander at the table below. You’ll find elements galore, a Milky Way of datum points: FUNCTION, EXPOSITION TYPE, HOT/COOL, CATEGORY. But don’t tense up; instead, relax. Imagine that you’re stargazing, on a clear night in the mountains, and that you feel like discovering/inventing a few of your own constellations.

Look at the data in the table below, in a relaxed and playful yet focused, logical way. Can you connect the dots? That is, can you spot meaningful patterns — “meaningful” in the sense that others can see them, too? If so, DON’T REVEAL YOUR ANSWER YET! We’ll be announcing a Spot-the-Pattern Challenge soon. There will be prizes. Go ahead and study the data, and stay tuned.

Questions? Comments? Let us know.

Rank	Volume	Object	Author	Market price	S.O. Price
1	v2	Globe Paperweight	Debbie Millman	$1.49	$197.50
2	v1	Russian figure	Doug Dorst	$3.00	$193.50
3	v2	Kangamouse	Chris Adrian	$0.00	$162.50
4	v1	Indian Figurine	R.K. Scher	$0.99	$157.50
5	v2	Music Box	Nicholas Rombes	$0.50	$147.50
6	v2	Rabbit Candle	Neil LaBute	$3.00	$112.50
7	v1	Wood animal	Meg Cabot	$0.75	$108.50
8	v1	Pink Horse	Kate Bernheimer	$1.00	$104.50
9	v2	Mystery Object	Ben Greenman	$0.99	$103.50
10	v1	HAWK ashtray	William Gibson	$2.99	$101.00
11	v1	“4” Tile	Toni Schlesinger	$1.00	$88.00
12	v1	Brass Boot	Bruce Sterling	$3.00	$86.00
13	v2	Just Married Cup	Barbara Bogaev	$0.75	$81.00
14	v1	Porcelain shoe	Sheila Heti	$4.00	$77.51
15	v1	Fake Banana	Josh Kramer	$0.25	$76.00
16	v1	Missouri Shot glass	Jonathan Lethem	$1.00	$76.00
17	v1	Measuring spoons	Mark Doty	$2.99	$76.00
18	v1	Mallet	Colson Whitehead	$0.33	$71.00
19	v1	Duck Tray	Stewart O’Nan	$3.00	$71.00
20	v2	Partial Mermaid	Tom McCarthy	$0.00	$68.00
21	v2	Aquarium Souvenir	Mark Jude Poirier	$1.00	$66.07
22	v2	Pan Flute	Deb Olin Unferth	$0.00	$63.50
23	v1	Felt Mouse	Megan O’Rourke	$0.50	$62.00
24	v1	Cow Vase	Ed Park	$2.00	$62.00
25	v2	Letters and Numbers Plate	Joe Lyons	$2.49	$61.00

Note: Don’t forget that, among other possible factors, charity effects may have helped v2 prices; in any case, our number-crunching remains focused mostly on v1, when that potential spending rationale was not yet present.

In Marshall McLuhan’s pioneering 1964 study, Understanding Media, the Canadian philosopher, literary critic, and communication theorist argued that “hot” media don’t require much work on our part when it comes to determining meaning; “cool” media, however, require us to participate more consciously in that effort. “Hot” media are more sequential, linear, and logical than “cool” media, which require us to be a little/lot more creative when it comes to “connecting the dots,” i.e., into constellations.

What if we coded each story from Significant Objects v1 as tending to be “hot” or “cool”? (I say “tending to be be,” because McLuhan was careful to note that “hot” and “cool” are not dichotomous terms, in his analysis; instead, they exist on a continuum.) In other words, might we discover that “hot” stories made an object more significant than “cool” ones, or vice versa? And what if we also factored in the object/story categories we’ve identified — i.e., is a “hot fossil” more or less significant than a “cool” one? I’m sure you’ve wondered precisely the same thing, readers.

Well, wonder no longer! After the jump, you’ll find our brand-new “hot”/”cool” table. We’ve linked to a few of the stories, so you can get a sense of which ones we considered “hot” or “cool.” In short, if the reader is informed more or less straight out what the object’s significance is, then the story is “hot.” If the reader is required to participate consciously in determining the object’s significance, then the story is “cool.” (NB: A close description of an object’s function, appearance, or history isn’t necessarily a “hot” narrative; a “hot” narrative is one in which the meaning of the object, for the story’s protagonist or narrator, is explicitly stated.) As noted, “hot”/”cool” is a continuum; if you disagree with the way we’ve categorized the object/stories, please let us know.

Here’s the table. What do you think? Notice any obvious patterns in the data?

Apparently not. We’ve determined that in the 100 stories we published as part of Significant Objects volume 1, three types of exposition are employed. One of these three expository stratagems, according to the chart following after the jump, is particularly effective at investing insignificant objects with significance.

DESCRIPTION: Over the course of the narrative, peculiarly and uniquely significant characteristics and features (exclusive of use or function) are attributed to the object. Examples:

• “Russian Figure”: In Doug Dorst’s story, we read that “effigies of St. Vralkomir may come to life and begin dancing, throwing sparks from their wooden pedestals.”
• “Smiling Mug”: Ben Greenman’s story claims that a surrealist sculptor designed the mug to “like a face, of course, because a face is the only thing that is capable of smiling (or is it?), but it also looks like a tooth, because a tooth is the only thing that is capable of showing when a face is smiling.”
• “Duck Vase”: The narrator of Matthew Klam’s story notes: “If you decide to keep it by your bed (as I did) and begin seeing colorful lights reflected on the walls and windows as you try to sleep, DO NOT WORRY AS THE OBJECT IS OPERATING NORMALLY.”

SEQUENCE: From the narrative, we learn about the object’s role in an event or sequence of events meaningful to the narrator/protagonist or reader.

• “BBQ Sauce Jar”: Matthew J. Well’s story claims the jar was used for a “blood-soaked shave” by Harry Thaw in 1908, the night before his murder trial.
• “Uncola Glass”: Jen Collins tells a story from the perspective of a woman whose father abandoned her family when she was 13. “When I got home after track practice that night, my mother told me my father wasn’t coming back. ‘He left you a present,’ she said. ‘An abandonment present? Is that customary? No thanks.’”
• “Crumb Sweeper”: When the narrator of Shelley Jackson’s story first meets her future lover, he’s brushing hairs from his clothes with this item.

CLASSIFICATION: During the course of the narrative the object’s use, function, origin, or else its symbolic meaning, is revealed to be particularly fraught.

• “‘Hawk’ Ashtray”: The narrator of William Gibson’s story claims that Pentagon technocrats lobby one another, in order to get new weapons into development, by manufacturing and distributing promotional items like this one.
• “Maine Statutes Dish”: The narrator of Ben Katchor’s story would have us believe that the dish, intended for peanuts, was “meant to encourage lawyers and public advocates to acquaint themselves with the latest revisions to state law,” and that in fact each chapter was keyed to an estimated number of peanuts.
• “Missouri Shotglass”: A character in Jonathan Lethem’s story claims that the bird represented on the shotglass symbolizes the fact that Missouri is “one vast harrowed and furrowed MFA workshop.”

Those are the strategies. Which one shows evidence of offering the most significant value-creating payoff, according to our results? The chart is below.

As you can see, SEQUENCE was the most effective form of exposition when it came to encouraging readers to bid on the stories’ objects. Eleven of the experiment’s Top 25 objects were made significant via sequence, ten via classification, and four via description. (In the Top 10, though, classification edges out sequence.)

However! Mimi Lipson might point out that sequence is the most heavily represented exposition-type in the sample as a whole (58/100), followed by classification (30/100), and then description (12/100). So perhaps the values of these variables were skewed. Ought we instead to look at the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the experiment multiplied by its payoff (“value”)? Hmmm.

Also: Did we assign exposition-types properly? Was this exercise a useful one? Give us some feedback, readers.

In the table, the two nutcrackers that were part of S.O. V1 (Santa Nutcracker with Story By Kurt Andersen, and Nutcracker With Troll Hair (or Something) with Story by Adam Davies) were each tagged “houseware.” The other possibility: Novelty Item. After all: Who actually uses a nutcracker these days?

Did we make the right call? Is one a novelty, the other houseware? You are invited to cast your vote here:

[poll id="2"]

[poll id="2"]

]]> http://significantobjects.com/2010/01/10/houseware-or-novelty-cast-your-vote/feed/ 3 http://significantobjects.com/2010/01/10/pie-charts/ http://significantobjects.com/2010/01/10/pie-charts/#comments Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:04:10 +0000 Significant Objects http://significantobjects.com/?p=4076 Continue reading →]]> What’s a scientific experiment without pie charts? It’s incomplete, that’s what. So: You’ve already been presented with this data in tabular form. But these, you see, are pie charts.

First: Story categories. (Previous category analysis, with table, here.)

Second, object-function breakdown. (From yesterday.) With 15 slices, the legend is a bit hard to read. Pie graphs made with Create A Graph.

]]> http://significantobjects.com/2010/01/10/pie-charts/feed/ 1 http://significantobjects.com/2010/01/09/whats-your-function/ http://significantobjects.com/2010/01/09/whats-your-function/#comments Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:00:03 +0000 Joshua Glenn http://significantobjects.com/?p=3840 Continue reading →]]>

Is the Sanka Ashtray primarily an example of a promotional item, or tobaccania? Is the Elvis Chocolate Tin primarily a container, or a novelty item? Why did we name the Spotted Dogs Figurine and Mule Figurine the way we did if they’re primarily novelty items, not figurines?

Is the Crumb Sweeper an example of tableware, kitchenware, or houseware? Is the Tin Ark a religious item, a handicraft, or a decoration? Why is the Smiling Mug a novelty item, the Halston Mug a promotional item, and the Cat Mug tableware?

Does it dignify the Rainbow Sand Animal too much to describe it as a handicraft?

We asked these and many other knotty questions of the 100 objects from Significant Objects v1. What was the object’s original intended use, purpose, role? What is its quintessence? If we had a filing cabinet for pre-Significant objects, how might we label its drawers? It was far from easy, but we feel fairly confident that each of the 100 objects from SO v1 can be tagged with a single function, from the following list:

• Award
• Container
• Decoration
• Figurine-Animal
• Figurine-Human
• Handicraft
• Houseware
• Kitchenware
• Novelty Item
• Promotional Item
• Religious
• Souvenir
• Tableware
• Tobaccania
• Tool
• Toy

This is not to suggest that, for example, the Pabst Bottle Opener is not simultaneously a promotional item, a tool, and kitchenware. But it is one of these things more than the others, we’ve determined.

Let’s see if you agree, readers. Check out the following table, which is sorted according to Adjusted Sales Rank. How’d we do? And if you agree with our assignment of functions — can you spot any patterns in the data?

Top Ten objects: 2 human figurines, 2 toys, 1 tobaccania, 1 novelty item, 1 decoration, 1 souvenir, 1 houseware, 1 tool. Which suggests that FUNCTION, on its own, is not a good indicator of significance-potential. Seems all the more likely, then, that narrative plays a key role in adding significance to an object. However, here are a few possible patterns I’ve noticed:

* all animal figurines are in the Top 50; no other object-function is as popular.
* decorations, novelty items, souvenirs, and toys are polarizing functions — there are about as many of each type in the Top 25 as in the Bottom 25.
* there are more souvenirs in the Top 25 than any other single function-type; however, within the Top 25, souvenirs don’t rank particularly high.
* houseware, kitchenware, and tableware seem more or less equally un/inspiring to potential owners.

Readers, what’s your take on the data?

Rob Walker (or is it Josh Glenn?) analyzing SO data

The holidays are over, and here at Significant Objects we’re back at work, assiduously analyzing the data from our project’s experimental phase. Last month, we finished up our quantitative analysis; in 2010, we’ll focus on a qualitative analysis of our data set.

We’ve been tagging the 100 stories from Significant Objects v1 thematically: from “adolescence” and “bad parents,” for example, to “thievery,” “third-person omniscient narrator,” and “unhappy romance.” It’s a big job, and we’re not finished yet. Not to worry, though, we have other qualitative fish to fry, in the meantime.

While v1 was in progress, we tagged each story according to what we might call the qualities of object’s-intended-function and object’s-apparent-attributes: from “cat,” “cow,” and “dishware,” for example, to “promotional item,” “souvenir,” and “toy.” It should be fascinating to see whether cats sold better than dogs, say, or novelty items better than promotional ones. We’ll get around to adding a function/attributes column to our data chart later this month.

And then there are the categories! While v1 was in progress, we placed each object into one of the following four categories: TALISMAN, TOTEM, EVIDENCE, and FOSSIL. As I explained back in October, a fossil is an object that bears witness to a vanished era or way of life (including childhood); an object that played a role in a crime or memorable public event is evidence; a totem is an object from the natural world — animal, vegetable, or mineral — that is a tutelary spirit; while an object that has magical power, is lucky, or is alive is a talisman.

Below, you’ll find a chart — sorted by Adjusted Sales Rank — that includes, for the first time, a column devoted to categorization.

A couple of quick observations.

* Among the Top 25 object/stories, it’s a dead heat between the categories TALISMAN, EVIDENCE, and FOSSIL, at seven apiece. Meanwhile, only four object/stories in the Top 25 were in the TOTEM category. In the Top Ten, the TALISMAN and FOSSIL categories are tied at four apiece, while EVIDENCE and TOTEM are tied at one apiece.

* Among the Bottom 25 object/stories, FOSSIL is by far the most unpopular category (1211), followed by TALISMAN (7) and EVIDENCE (6). The least unpopular category, TOTEM (1), is also — see above — the least popular. [But see Mimi Lipson's obseravtions, in the comments below.]

So… what can we take away from this?

(1) Apparently, an object whose associated narrative has to do with a vanished era or way of life (including childhood) is polarizing: potential owners feel strongly about it, either pro (FOSSIL is tied for most popular category) or con (FOSSIL is by far the most unpopular category). Perhaps this is because we love stories that remind us of our own happiest times, and hate stories that remind us of our least happy times — or which recall times to which we can’t relate at all?

(2) Apparently, an object whose associated story has to do with tutelary spirits — animal, vegetable, or mineral — from the natural world does not inspire strong feelings in potential owners; TOTEM is both the least popular and unpopular category. However… since only eight of our contributors wrote totemistic stories, maybe it’s to be expected that so few made it into the Top and Bottom Twenty-Five?

(3) When it comes to object/stories in the TALISMAN and EVIDENCE category, more analysis is needed. Are certain types of talisman (animal figurines, say; or novelty items) more popular than others? Should we add a new category (ANIMATUM, say? ANIMACULUM?) for those talismans that are alive, as opposed to merely lucky? If the evidence is associated with an incident in the life of a celebrity, does that make it more popular than evidence associated with, say, a petty crime?

Readers, we can’t figure this stuff out by ourselves. Please take a look at the chart below and post your comments!

NB: Some objects we initially placed in two categories (for example, if a TALISMAN happened to be a Duck Vase, then we also categorized it as a TOTEM), but we’ve since decided that each object can only belong to one category.

That means that, so far, we’re getting a slightly higher average than in S.O. v1. We had wondered if there might be some sort of Charity Effect this time — basically prodding people to bid a little more than they would have, because it’s For A Good Cause. Probably it’s too soon to tell. But I hope the answer turns out to be a definitive Yes. After all, 826 National is pretty cool:

826 National is a nonprofit tutoring, writing, and publishing organization with locations in eight cities across the country. Our goal is to assist students ages six to eighteen with their writing skills, and to help teachers get their classes excited about writing. Our work is based on the understanding that great leaps in learning can happen with one-on-one attention, and that strong writing skills are fundamental to future success.

Don’t you want to support them? And own a bona fide Significant Object? Sure you do. Bid away.

By the way, if you’re curious how we picked 826 National, the truth is we asked for suggestions via our Twitter account. A couple of people mentioned 826 National in their replies, and others endorsed it, so since we didn’t have any better ideas, we took the tweeters’ advice.

Interestingly, the possibility of a Charity Effect actually came up during v1, but that was our writers’ doing, not ours. Sometime in late October, when we were in the final third or of the original 100 Significant Objects stories (what Josh often refers to as the beginning of the “rococo period” of the project), several contributors at once informed us that that they would be giving their money to a charity or cause.

Meg Cabot gave her auction winnings to Heifer International. Maud Newton gave hers to Girls Write Now. Merrill Markoe chose an animal-rescue organization and Mark Sarvas opted for the Literacy Network of Los Angeles (although he did leave open the possibility of “blowing it on booze,” so who knows?). All quite generous, to be sure, but at the time we were concerned that suddenly injecting a Charity Effect into the mix might interfere with our results. After all, “it’s for a good cause” can be a pretty powerful rationale. That might even by why we avoided making v1 a completely charity-driven enterprise in the first place. (Actually I’m pretty sure we just didn’t think of it, possibly because we’re selfish misers?)

So in v1, we resolved the issue by telling these generous writers they could tout their charitable intent on their own sites and to their friends, fans, and readers, but we’d keep mum about it here until those auctions ended. So: A belated pat on the back to these contributors — and those who bought their objects.

And now back to v2. Remember: It’s for a good cause!

Click here to view a single table containing all our experimental data, and links to every post in which analysis of this data has been offered.

Original price: $4

For instance: the Device. We didn’t even know what this thing was supposed to do, let alone whether it actually did it. I cringed when Tom Bartlett announced that this mysterious piece of junk was the object of his choosing. Sure, he’d get a good story out of it. But we sell these things; who in the world is going to want to buy that? Same with the Popsicle Stick Construction, chosen by Sara Ryan. Very inspirational for story invention. But not much charisma as an ownable thing.

Original price: $2.

I suspect most writers aren’t really thinking about that angle when they choose an object; it only occurs to them later, when the auction has started. That said, I never made an effort to dissuade anyone from picking something unappealing, because the results would be interesting for our experiment. If we aimed to prove that narratives could add value to bric-a-brac, the toughest test our hypothesis could face would be in the context of stuff with not much physical appeal at all.

Original price: $1

Which brings me to the crumb sweeper (story by Shelley Jackson). I still can’t believe Josh bought this thing. He paid a dollar, but that seems high to me. The very concept of a crumbsweeper bought at a thrift store strikes me as revolting. I mean, WTF? Anyway, I refused to believe anyone would bid on it, no matter how good the story.

I was wrong. In fact, none of these unappealing objects proved impervious to bids. The Device went for $15.50. The Popsicle Stick Construction, for $15.50 as well. And the crumbsweeper you ask? Try $30.99.

True, these not-so-appealing items don’t appear on Josh’s adjusted top-25 list. (I’d say the least intrinsically impressive object there is the meat thermometer, although since we got a comment from someone who used to collect meat thermometers, maybe I’m just too much the philistine to appreciate the aesthetics of such things.) But in a way, these  prove our point better than those that top-sellers did. Our writers, it seems, were able make even the least-appealing objects Significant.

Needless to say, if you have thoughts about anything I’ve just said, we’d love to hear it. What do you think were the project’s least-appealing objects? The last thing I want to do is get Josh off another table-making jag, but I can’t help but wonder: If we’re going to correct for the project’s duration, should be correct for Object Appeal (Or Screaming Lack Thereof), as well?

Click here to view a single table containing all our experimental data, and links to every post in which analysis of this data has been offered.

Click here to view a single table containing all our experimental data, and links to every post in which analysis of this data has been offered.

And remember — Significant Objects v2 launches soon. So keep visiting!

ALL TABLES & CHARTS

1. TABLE: Original and Final Price (plus Author & Sales Rank)
2. TABLE: Final Price, Week by Week (plus Author & Sales Rank, minus Original Price)
3. TABLE: Final and Adjusted Price, Week by Week (minus Author & Original Price)
4. CHART: Average Price, Week by Week (including Average vs. Median, and Average vs. Weekly High)
5. TABLE: Adjusted Sales Rank (minus Author & Original Price)

As I noted in the comments section to Friday’s post, it’s striking how similar the Top Ten remains after adjustment. The top three objects remain the same, and in the same order as before. “Hawk” Ashtray and Pink Horse swap places at #4 and #5. Metal Boot and 4-Tile swap places at #6 and #7. Cape Cod Shoe stays at #8. This suggests that our Top Eight objects truly deserve to be rated Most Significant, regardless of the Duration Factor.

More analysis below the table…

What else do we learn from this exercise? Duck Tray and Mallet, both from Week 12 are our adjusted list’s #9 and #10 objects, edging out Fish Spoons, Fake Banana, and Missouri Shotglass (from Weeks 15, 16, and 19). Most of the Top 20 items from our unadjusted list — the only exceptions being Geisha Bobblehead and BBQ Sauce Jar — remain in the adjusted Top 20. Also, none of the Top 20 list’s newcomers were previously ranked below 23. So even though the Duration Factor may exist, it doesn’t affect our top sales rankings too noticeably. Why?

Adjusting for Duration Factor does have a dramatic effect on objects that sold for a relatively high amount early in the project, or a relatively low amount later in the project. Biggest jumps: the Mule Figurine jumps 24 places, from #84 to #60. The Nutcracker with Troll Hair jumps 22 places, followed by Santa Nutcracker (+21), Candyland Labyrinth Game and Pen Stand (+20), Golf Ball Bank (+19), Sanka Ashtray (+18), Kitty Saucer and Piggy Bank (+17), and Spotted Dogs (+15).

Biggest drops: The Umbrella Trinket drops 33 places, from #58 to # 91. Ouch! The Lighter Shaped Like a Small Pool Ball drops 28 places, followed by Flip Flop Frame (-27), Dilbert Stress Toy and Cracker Barrel Ornament (-23), Blue Vase (-21), Swiss Medal (-20), Wave Box (-19), Sea Captain Pipe Rest (-18), and Toothbrush Holder (-15).

Your thoughts, readers? What does it all mean?

PS: If you dig our mug-shaped Significant Objects logo, then you’ll want to check out the Significant Objects Mug Mug, for sale now from Zazzle.

Here are some we’ve come up with — but what we really want is your suggestions. What other story/theme/style tags should we add? (Anything here you think we should delete?)

Adolescence, Anthropomorphism, Bad Parents, Bad Spouse/Partner, Celebrity, Christianity, Christmas, Contemptuous of Object, Dead Relative, Death, Exposition – Classification, Exposition – Descriptive, Exposition – Sequence, Family Secret, Father, First-Person Narrator – Crazy/Unreliable, First-Person Narrator – Pathetic/Loser, First-Person Narrator – Well-Adjusted, Funny, Grandmother, Historical, Judaism, Magical Power, Murder, Object is Alive, Object is Cursed, Politics, Purple Prose, Religion, Romance, Sex, Thievery/Theft/Stealing, Third-Person Limited Narrator, Third-Person Omniscient Narrator, Uncle, Unhappy Romance, Workplace.

But in a comment to that post, reader Mimi offers theory she dubs “the Metal Boot Peak Effect.” Basically it suggests that the auction for Metal Boot With Story By Bruce Sterling, for $86, was a kind of turning point for the project, sparking a “process of disinhibition” that set the stage for much higher peak prices than we’d seen in our first three weeks. “I think,” she concludes, “these post MBPE peaks may be skewing your week-to-week averages.”

Well, enough speculation! For starters, what was the overall price trend? Here’s one answer in the form of a chart showing the average (or more precisely, the arithmetic mean) price paid, by week. (More charts and analysis after the jump.)

Let’s just say the results here aren’t quite as clean as what a Wall Street chartist would prefer. It’s pretty spiky. On the one hand, you can look at the first three weeks vs. the final three weeks, and the general upward drift is there. On the other hand, it’s probably an oversimplification for us to imply that prices simply rose week after week, given the extreme highs and lows in between.

In fact, it looks as if we were on the verge of peaking a mere week after the Metal Boot auction, when prices declined in Weeks 6 and 7 after a Week-5 high. Then weeks 8 and 9 were gangbusters — but week 10 saw a drop to one of the lowest averages of the entire project!

Week 10 was roughly our halfway point. Interestingly, it looks to me like that low point was followed by a relatively orderly rise. (The slip on Week 19 is a complete mystery to me)

Two questions: Does the actual time of year make any difference here? And: Would the results look similar if we used  median (middle value), rather than mean (average), weekly sales figures.

Here you go:

By and large the average and middle value mostly correlate. The biggest disparity is in fact in Week 4 — Metal Boot week! The average price that week was $42.66, whereas the median was $17.82. The unusually high price for the Boot is part of the issue — but only part, since Sheila Heti’s Porcelain Shoe story also went for an unusually $77.51 that same week (in an auction that actually closed before the Boot.) Possibly, then, the unusually high average for that week is explained by the convergence of determined buyers not just on one object, but two that happened to go on sale days apart.  Barefoot Buyer Syndrome, anyone?

Second, the time of year issue: I’ve listed the dates of the weeks that objects went on auction — meaning the sales closed the following week. So Week 7, one of our low points, was made up of auctions closing the last week of August. A time when lots of folks are away? We’ve speculated about that in the past. But Week 10 looks even worse on this chart, and those auctions would have closed in the latter half of September.  So maybe time of year is a non-factor.

Mimi’s point about the MBPE got me curious about weekly high prices. I remember when I really didn’t think anybody would beat the $36.88 paid for Necking Team Button with Story by Susannah Breslin, from Week 1. (It’s easy to forget, but we really didn’t know how any of this was going to turn out; we were thrilled to get prices in excess of $20 back then, given what we were selling.)

This chart reminded that Duck Tray With Story By Stewart O’Nan, from Week 3, actually preceded both the Metal Boot and the Porcelain shoe as the object to break the Necking Team Button record, and moving us into a whole other realm of prices, selling for $71. Even so, my read is that I don’t think the high auctions for the Boot, the Duck Tray, or the Porcelain Shoe, were game-changers for the entire project. Subsequent results just seem to have too many choppy moments.

I do think it’s probably fair, as Mimi suggests, that some of the very earliest Significant Objects were, in effect, undervalued. I suspect this is partly because of the Duration Factor addressed by Josh, but also because in the early days we not only had a smaller audience and more objects to go around (the first week in particular, we put a whopping 13 items and stories on sale, in an effort to give readers a lot to sink their teeth into right from the start), we were also basically unproven. That first month was in a way one long proof of concept to readers and potential buyers. Who knew if we were really going to pull this crazy idea off, anyway? Who knew if anybody would buy anything? By the time the Metal Boot went on sale, I think we’d answered those questions.

Beyond that, I think these charts leave a lot of open questions, and suggest that maybe weekly averages don’t tell us enough. Stay tuned.

Some of you have speculated that the Significant Object experiment’s duration affected sales prices — that is, you’ve speculated that objects auctioned off in the experiment’s first weeks no doubt sold for less, on average, than did objects auctioned off in its final weeks. (The experiment lasted for 19 weeks.) As word of the project spread, opportunities to purchase one of only 100 total objects decreased, and competition thus grew fiercer.

Click here to view a single table containing all our experimental data, and links to every post in which analysis of this data has been offered.

A quick glance at the Final Price, Week by Week table suggests that there probably is a Duration Factor along the lines suggested above. For example, as you can see in the chart excerpt reproduced below, none of the objects sold in Weeks 1 and 2 were ranked above #35/100, and the majority of them ranked in the bottom quartile.

Objects sold in Weeks 18 and 19, on the other hand, tended to rank in the top half of the results, and a couple of the objects are in our Top Ten.

Therefore, before drawing conclusions about what sorts of stories tend to make objects more or less significant, we ought to control for the Duration Factor. But how to proceed?

I thought of a formula: A – (B/C) = D, wherein:

A = The average final price of objects sold in the project’s 19th and final week, $36.83.
B = A particular week’s final sales total
C = The number of items sold that week (so B/C =  the week’s average final price)
D = The amount to be added to any object sold that week, to correct for the Duration Factor.

For Week 1, for example, B = $247.30, and C = 13, so B/C = $19.02. Subtract that from A ($36.83) and you arrive at $17.81. Now add $17.81 to the final price of any object from Week 1. The Smiling Mug went for $32.08, for instance; now it would have adjusted final price of $49.89. Add $17.81 to each object from Week 1, add those adjusted totals together and divide by 13 again… and voila! Same average final price as Week 19. Duration Factor: neutralized.

Of course, we’d have to run these numbers on all our objects before determining whether the Smiley Mug’s ranking had increased or decreased relative to other objects as a result of this procedure. But before I started doing any of this math, I realized that some weeks might have an average final price that’s higher than Week 19′s $36.83. The answer for D in the equation above could be a negative number, meaning we might have to subtract some amount from every object sold during a certain week. But doing so doesn’t make sense, if we’re trying to control for the Duration Factor, which is predicated on the assumption that average final sales totals in general should rise, week by week.

So now what? Keep reading!

The fact that the difference between Week 1 and Week 19′s average final prices is almost exactly $18.00 (as noted above) struck me as propitious. What if we added $18.00 to the final sale price of each item in Week 1, $17.00 to the final sale price of each item in Week 2, and so forth through Week 18 ($1.00 added)? Week 19 sales prices, obviously, would not get adjusted. This would neutralize the Duration Factor without requiring us to subtract from the sale prices of any objects sold during weeks whose average total sales happen to be higher than Week 19′s. The Smiling Mug would go from $32.08 to $50.08, in this scenario. Compare that to, say the Ocean Scene Globe, whose unadjusted final ranking ($33.00) was slightly higher the Smiling Mug’s. After this Duration-adjustment, its price goes up, but only to $39.00, because it was sold much later, during Week 13. Under Duration-corrected figures, then, the Smiling Mug ranks higher than the Ocean Scene Globe — in fact, when you look at the new chart, you’ll see that the Smiling Mug is now 16 places above the Ocean Scene Globe. So correcting for Duration Factor can make quite a difference. But will it change our Top Ten list? Will it affect the Bottom Ten? Let’s find out.

Following the procedure outlined in the previous paragraph, I’ve gone ahead and adjusted final prices for our 100 objects. After the jump, you’ll find a table displaying the following: Week, Object, Final Price, and Adjusted Price. I’m eager to hear your analysis of this data. Please publish your comments at the end of this post.

ALL TABLES

1. Original and Final Price (plus Author & Sales Rank)
2. Final Price, Week by Week (plus Author & Sales Rank, minus Original Price)
3. Final and Adjusted Price, Week by Week (minus Author & Original Price)

PS: If you dig our mug-shaped Significant Objects logo, then you’ll want to check out the Significant Objects Mug Mug, for sale now from Zazzle.

The table lists the objects in descending order of final price, but if you click the arrows on the first column, it rearranges to display the data week-by-week. Did objects listed early in the experiment tend to sell for less, in the long run, than objects listed later? Or vice versa? Or no difference? Were there spikes or dips in average sales price during particular weeks, months, even days of the week? Check it out. If you spot any patterns, tell us! Post your comments about our new Week-by-Week table at the end of this item.

Click here to view a single table containing all our experimental data, and links to every post in which analysis of this data has been offered.

ALL TABLES

1. Original and Final Price (plus Author & Sales Rank)
2. Final Price, Week by Week (plus Author & Sales Rank, minus Original Price)
3. Final and Adjusted Price, Week by Week (minus Author & Original Price): coming Friday

PS: If you dig our mug-shaped Significant Objects logo, then you’ll want to check out the Significant Objects Mug Mug, for sale now from Zazzle.

Click here to view a single table containing all our experimental data, and links to every post in which analysis of this data has been offered.

Obviously we do not think these rankings reflect the quality of the stories, as creative expression or literature. Rather our hypothesis involves a narrative’s ability to make an object Significant (which is not the same thing as trying to measure a narrative’s intrinsic quality). Still, it’s interesting that among other things this data seems to undercut the frequent contention among certain observers of our project that the results would be driven completely by the relative fame of the author. Look at this table and you’ll see it’s just not that simple.

Something that’s not quantified on this table but that we suspect is a factor: timing. For one thing, there was an August doldrums moment that really seemed to affect prices, possibly because all the big spenders were on vacation. For another, although we haven’t parsed the data yet, it seems likely that objects auctioned off during the first few weeks of the contest didn’t fetch prices as high as did those objects which were auctioned off after the project had received some publicity. So our next table will include a column indicating which week each story was published and object auctioned.

This particular table is also mute on other matters, such as the story type (evidence, fossil, etc.), or the inherent desirability (or lack thereof) of any given object. We’re putting together some more data in separate tables to deal with at least some of this. So stay tuned.

Meanwhile, what do you think? Spot anything interesting? Anything that seems inexplicable — or just makes you curious?

PS: If you dig our mug-shaped Significant Objects logo, then you’ll want to check out the Significant Objects Mug Mug, for sale now from Zazzle.