3 ms·

One of my pet peeves is misleading charts and graphs. While not intentionally misleading, this chart is pretty sloppy [1]. Apple's 64% looks closer to 75%, bec

One of my pet peeves is misleading charts and graphs. While not intentionally misleading, this chart is pretty sloppy [1]. Apple's 64% looks closer to 75%, because nine percent of the market is just plain excluded from the chart. Another issue is that Google's five percent is smaller than Zune's three percent. I don't understand how an editor can let something like this get through, even if it's only incidentally related to the story. If it takes some random jerk on the internet a few seconds to se something is wrong with the chart, surely they are cutting corners? It undermines my confidence in the other information they are providing. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ImN07.png http://i.imgur.com/ImN07.png

apaprocki 14y ago
I pointed out the error to the BW team and they said they'll fix it for the web/mobile apps. Thanks for pointing it out :) edit: It's fixed now: http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-12-06/feature_chart_10.jpg http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-12-06/feature_chart_...
- MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
  Thank you for pointing out the issue to the right people. :) It was a trivial mistake in an otherwise great article.
prawks 14y ago
I really like that Zune's 3% is bigger than eMusic's 3%. Great find, I honestly skipped it when I was reading through. Maybe the editor did the same.
alanctgardner2 14y ago
I think it's a simple mis-labelling. Zune's and Google's slices are reversed. Note that there are two '3%' segments, they just don't match the labels. That said, it is quite sloppy.
55x11 14y ago
Do you actually think this is an intentionally "misleading" chart? One of MY pet peeves are people NOT in the reporting business unable to accept that minor errors DO occur on the way to press when on deadline. Cutting corners? Please. It happens to the best of reporters/editors/graphics people.
- jarek 14y ago
  Or, rewritten without the tone: "> While not intentionally misleading, this chart is pretty sloppy I agree, I don't think this chart is intentionally misleading. From my experience, minor errors do happen, even to the best of reporters/editors/graphics people. Sometimes a chart with known problems will be pushed out for the sake of a deadline, just as it would in software."

apaprocki 14y ago

I pointed out the error to the BW team and they said they'll fix it for the web/mobile apps. Thanks for pointing it out :) edit: It's fixed now: http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-12-06/feature_chart_10.jpg http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-12-06/feature_chart_...

MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
Thank you for pointing out the issue to the right people. :) It was a trivial mistake in an otherwise great article.

prawks 14y ago

I really like that Zune's 3% is bigger than eMusic's 3%. Great find, I honestly skipped it when I was reading through. Maybe the editor did the same.

alanctgardner2 14y ago

I think it's a simple mis-labelling. Zune's and Google's slices are reversed. Note that there are two '3%' segments, they just don't match the labels. That said, it is quite sloppy.

55x11 14y ago

Do you actually think this is an intentionally "misleading" chart? One of MY pet peeves are people NOT in the reporting business unable to accept that minor errors DO occur on the way to press when on deadline. Cutting corners? Please. It happens to the best of reporters/editors/graphics people.

jarek 14y ago
Or, rewritten without the tone: "> While not intentionally misleading, this chart is pretty sloppy I agree, I don't think this chart is intentionally misleading. From my experience, minor errors do happen, even to the best of reporters/editors/graphics people. Sometimes a chart with known problems will be pushed out for the sake of a deadline, just as it would in software."