3 ms·
That distorted graph is pretty explainable by the fact that he has only 6 data-points, and that by default Excel's graphs just treated those dates as labels (in
by rtpg 12y ago
That distorted graph is pretty explainable by the fact that he has only 6 data-points, and that by default Excel's graphs just treated those dates as labels (instead of a time series).
- ableal 12y ago> only 6 data-points Eight, seems to me. Agreed on the Excel behaviour. Also, the blog post states: "ticks on the x-axis are separated by 20, 50, 43, 37, 20, 20, and 22 years." The first two ticks are 1700 and 1820, so 120 years. (Noticed because stretching the left side is the biggest chart change shown.)
- sanderjd 12y agoAnd yet the chart is pretty clearly presented as a time-series. I think "well, he just used Excel defaults..." is a better argument for the prosecution than the defense.
- rtpg 12y agoI just don't think there was malice in the mistake. It _is_ misleading, though.