3 ms·
I would be the one in the sample who did not find the charts confusing. The two separate graphs are much more difficult to compare - you can't see which eleme
by pasc1878 2y ago
I would be the one in the sample who did not find the charts confusing.
The two separate graphs are much more difficult to compare - you can't see which elements compare to the same year so lose a lot of information.
The information in the chart is if there is a change in one time series is there a change in the other. - that is probably all you can infer as without error bars you can't see if the differences are material. (ie I know they are different scales so when they cross they obviously aren't the same.) If so there might be a correlation which might be worth looking into remembering correlation does not equal causation (so the example in the link are just laughable)
The prioritisation just shows nothing.
The scatterplot shows nothing
The indexed chart does make sense and in this case I would agree would be better.
- ericpauley 2y agoThe connected scatter plot is so cursed... talk about hard to interpret! The only conclusion that's hard to argue with here is zero-indexing plots, but that's not exactly a new finding.
- pasc1878 2y agoAlso the scaling - in this case the original had reasonable scaling but it can be manipulated. The changes could be small enough to be random fluctuations on one series and so no real match. However the graph does show that a slightly deeper look would be worthwhile - even if it is a very quick one to see that the data is manipulated e.g. climate deniers graphs of temperature all starting on the same year. If you change the starting year you got rather different results.
- parpfish 2y agoI could see that connected scatter MAYBE working if it were an animation or interactive plot. Maybe. But on its own, it’s horrid
- slow_typist 2y agoThe problem with indexed charts is that the base year is arbitrarily set and can change the whole picture a lot.