A HISTORY

It began, as all things do, with a geology joke. We ranked candy based on their location in various geological strata, both real and imagined. The strata, not the ranking. In 2006, we compiled years of lived experience into a hierarchy of candy preference for Halloween. Not all candy. Not all times. But for trick or treating purposes. 

Let’s talk candy rankings, then, which have become a kind of cottage industry in the last decade’s social-media age of the internet. In fact, candy rankings and arguments over their perceived accuracy might be the perfect distillation of what a certain kind of internet is good for. It lets people argue over opinion; its conclusions thus have to be constantly modified and adjusted; also there are no conclusions, of course, because it is a fickle game of idle speculation; it’s low stakes fun; and reasonable people can disagree with unreasonable arguments. These are great things for hashing out the enjoyment of various shapes of sugar. Good on you, social media. They are not necessarily great things that go beyond idle speculation, for actual democratic society, for governance or policy or the protection of human dignity. 

Candy, though. And Halloween. There will be rankings (immediately below), then deliberations on history (further below) and a beautiful chart (furthest below). There is a hierarchy. We are making our priority claim.

 

The Candy Hierarchy (2019)

Any full-sized candy barReese’s Peanut Butter CupsKit KatTwixSnickersCash, or other forms of legal tenderPeanut M&M’sRegular M&MsNestle CrunchTolberone something or otherMilky WayLindt TruffleRolosThree MusketeersHershey's Dark ChocolateYork Peppermint Patties100 Grand BarSkittlesStarburstHershey’s Milk ChocolateHeath BarJunior MintsCaramellosNerdsMilk DudsHershey's KissesJolly Ranchers (good flavor)Cadbury Creme EggsSwedish FishGummy Bears straight upSmarties (American)LemonHeadsGlow sticksMint JulepsVicodinPixy StixLicorice (not black)LaffyTaffyLollipopsMint KissesMinibags of chipsBottle CapsSmarties (Commonwealth)

Candy Corn

Now'n'LatersDotsKinder Happy HippoGoo Goo ClustersFuzzy PeachesHard CandyGood N' PlentyLicorice (yes black)Reggie Jackson BarChicletsTrail MixHugs (actual physical hugs)Bonkers (the candy)MaynardsSweetums (a friend to diabetes)Healthy FruitBlack JacksPencilsThose odd marshmallow circus peanut thingsJolly Rancher (bad flavor)Spotted DickGeneric Brand AcetaminophenBox'o'RaisinsWhole Wheat anythingAnonymous brown globs that come in black & orange wrappers (Mary Janes)Creepy Religious comics/Chick TractsKale smoothieWhite BreadDental paraphenaliaGum from baseball cardsCandy that is clearly just the stuff given out for free at restaurantsBroken glow stick

 

We revised the original hierarchy each year between 2006 and 2009 to include feedback from readers and onlookers back at our blog The World’s Fair. Read the rest

Click to view the below full-size; or download as a a high-quality digital poster (4MB) for detailed scrutiny; or proceed for the plain text, abstract and analysis...

Note that data for this 2017 survey, like all good science, is transparent, open, and available for further analysis. This includes access data from previous candy hierarchies (for, you know, longitudinal studies). Here’s the link, and we invite you to tag public remarks with #statscandy so we can find your awesome analyses.

The Candy Hierarchy (2017)

Any full-sized candy barReese’s Peanut Butter CupsKit KatCash, or other forms of legal tenderTwixSnickersTolberone something or otherLindt TrufflePeanut M&M’sNestle CrunchMilky WayDove BarsRegular M&MsButterfingerRolosReese's PiecesHershey's Dark ChocolateMarsThree MusketeersYork Peppermint PattiesHeath BarCaramellos100 Grand BarJunior MintsChardonnayHershey’s Milk ChocolateMr. GoodbarMilk DudsHershey's KissesStarburstWhatchamacallit BarsSkittlesMint JulepsCadbury Creme EggsSweet TartsNerdsJolly Ranchers (good flavor)Gummy Bears straight upSwedish FishSmarties (American)LemonHeadsSourpatch Kids (i.e. abominations of nature)Take 5Mint KissesGlow sticksSmarties (Commonwealth)Minibags of chipsLicorice (not black)Pixy StixMike and IkeVicodinGoo Goo ClustersCoffee CrispKinder Happy HippoBottle CapsLaffyTaffyLollipopsNow'n'LatersReggie Jackson BarDots

Candy Corn

Fuzzy PeachesHard CandyGood N' PlentyChick-o-Sticks (we don’t know what that is)Bonkers (the board game)Licorice (yes black)Bonkers (the candy)MaynardsNecco WafersHugs (actual physical hugs)Tic TacsChicletsTrail MixSweetums (a friend to diabetes)Healthy FruitBlack JacksSenior MintsPeepsJoyJoy (Mit Iodine!)PencilsAnonymous brown globs that come in black and orange wrappersVials of pure high fructose corn syrup, for main-lining into your veinSandwich-sized bags filled with BooBerry CrunchJolly Rancher (bad flavor)Spotted DickGeneric Brand AcetaminophenBox'o'RaisinsThose odd marshmallow circus peanut thingsCreepy Religious comics/Chick TractsWhole Wheat anythingCandy that is clearly just the stuff given out for free at restaurantsKale smoothieDental paraphenaliaReal Housewives of Orange County Season 9 Blue-RayWhite BreadGum from baseball cardsBroken glow stick

 

ABSTRACT

This thing won’t end, right? Read the rest

The results of our survey are in. This year's list of the most loved and hated Halloween treats has a surprise in store!

With so many costumes adorning this election season, you might think the Halloween get-ups are overkill. Think again, because David Ng and B.R. Cohen are here to present the official universal survey about your candy favorites for the 2016 hierarchical delineation of candy virtue.

(View this graphic as a huge PDF)

ABSTRACT

It’s always about the candy. The Candy Hierarchy is full up with this “joy induction” measurement, this thing that the co-principle investigators (PIs) Cohen and Ng go on about each year. From 2006 to 2013, the PIs conducted a longitudinal study, more or less guided by PI expertise and whim (or whimsical expertise) and possible corporation sponsorship. Research by others in the field sought to refute the findings, obviously unsuccessfully. Yet the PIs were so moved by the yearly outpouring of commentary that they opened up the study to additional data sources, namely people. People who the PIs surveyed. Or is it whom? Anyway, nobody cares - this is about sugar. The 2014 Candy Hierarchy was thus defined by data analysis of 43,767 votes obtained from 1286 individuals. Good for them. But not good enough for science. Because the 2015 Candy Hierarchy doubled down and reworked the whole thing with all kinds of more stuff. This hierarchy therefore presents the newly calculated 2015 rankings, based on a total of 518,605 data points obtained from 5459 individuals in a randomized fashion. It also provides the raw data from a secondary study that sought to understand the character of the survey takers, or rather how character affects joy induction. It’s all in there, just go check out the figures.

TRANSCRIPTION OF THIS MORNING’S CONFERENCE PROCEEDING DISCUSSION, WITH DR. COHEN AND DR. NG.

BC: Don’t you love how they call us Dr.?

DN: I don’t mind. Read the rest

This is the real reason we dress up like zombies and giant bottles of catsup. David Ng and B.R. Cohen present a survey to determine your favorites in anticipation of this year's all-important hierarchical delineation of candy goodness.

David Ng and Ben Cohen performed acts of science (realistic ones) in order to determine, once and for all, a true and empirical understanding of which Halloween candies induce the most joy and despair. With more than 40,000 of your votes duly recorded, the results below are indisputably unassailable.

Read the rest

This year's Candy Hierarchy provides gentle but firm instruction for your confectionary purchases this Hallowe'en, and serves doubly as a means to evaluate the success of one's own haul of treats. Updated and newly annotated by the authors, this is the indispensable guide to a successful All Hallow's Eve.

@import url(http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Rokkitt:700);

#footnotes { width:80%;padding:20px 20px 0px 20px; position:relative; Margin:20px auto; max-width:700px; border-top:1px solid silver; }

#footnotes p { font-size:14px; font-style:italic;

}

#chart {

border:4px double orange; width:80%;padding:0px 20px 0px 20px; position:relative; Margin:10px auto; text-align:center; max-width:700px; }

#chart a{ text-decoration:none; color:brown; }

#chart .h1 { font-family:Rokkitt, "Hoefler Text", Georgia, serif; font-weight:800; font-size:20px; margin:1em auto 0px auto;text-transform:uppercase; }

#chart p { font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", Georgia, serif; margin:0px auto 1em auto; max-width:640px; line-height:1.3em; }

sup, sub { vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; top: -0.4em; }

Once again with Halloween upon us, it’s time to revisit candy culture, or more specifically, a system that aims to rank it. Like before, the mechanism to do this would be according to, well, let’s just call it "joy induction."

This hierarchy actually began in 2006 as the work of a friend and colleague, Ben Cohen. Ben is an environmental historian over at Lafayette College, but in a previous life, he and I use to blog together. This partnership happened because of our backgrounds publishing science humor, and so in some respects, this "Candy Hierarchy" is just another creative juncture. However, since publishing the 2010 version at Boing Boing, we received such amazing feedback from the community, I thought it would be great to continue this tradition and allow even more kickass "peer review" into guide the rankings.

As always, I’m aware that: (1) some people will still be deeply offended by the rankings; (2) because the new rankings tried very hard to incorporate the feedback, you now know that we were serious about the potential for readers to shift the hierarchy year to year; and (3) above it all, we can all hopefully agree that the process of peer review is just kickass anyway. Read the rest

LATEST: The Candy Hierarchy has been updated for 2012.

With Halloween approaching, I thought it would be amusing to write a bit about candy, or more specifically, a system that aims to rank it. In this case, the rubric would be according to "emotional zeal" or something more jargony sounding like "joy induction." Anyway, this hierarchy is the work of a friend and colleague, Ben Cohen. Ben is an environmental historian over at the University of Virginia, but in a previous life, he and I use to write on a blog together. This partnership happened because of our backgrounds publishing science humour (see Ben's clip list here), so in some respects, this "Candy Hierarchy" is just another creative juncture.

However, since I'm loving how you can get immediate feedback from the Boing Boing community, I'm also thinking that we could use this opportunity to throw a little kickass "peer review" into the ranking. Kickass because: (1) I know some people are going to be deeply offended by the rankings; (2) the rankings were last updated in 2008, and are therefore long overdue for some revision; and (3) well, isn't peer review just kickass anyway? Oh yeah - the graphic is new (just made it today): hopefully if you play in the comments, some of us can use it one day as a slide for an interesting discussion on the scientific method - yes?

Anyway, read on... Read the rest