• @Hawk
        link
        English
        38 months ago

        It’s common practice to cut the y axis, did you guys not cover that in visualisation?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      218 months ago

      No it doesn’t.

      It’s meant to illustrate a change and it does so perfectly fine. It’s not a scientific paper.

      It’s a 32-34% increase looking at the graph. That’s significant enough to shout about.

      Imagine any change you could make surprising competition by 25% in any market. That’s huge.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        448 months ago

        It’s meant to illustrate a change and it does so perfectly fine

        Define “perfectly fine”. It is clearly exaggerating the change. At a glance it looks more like a 5 times increase, not a 30% increase.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        178 months ago

        Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976, if these trends continue…AY!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s a 32-34% increase looking at the graph

        But you don’t get that percentage from looking at the graph. You get that from looking at the numbers.
        The graph height increases by 300% in the last 3 months 9 days.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        You could say the same about a 0.001 difference if you zoom in on the y-axis. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        168 months ago

        This graph gives the impression that the total installation number has been multipliés x4 or X5 while it is not the case when looking at the raw numbers.

        Any variation can look impressive if you zoom enough, that’s why you need a baseline at 0. This way you see thé entire scale of the phenomenon

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          48 months ago

          This graph gives the impression that the total installation number has been multipliés x4 or X5

          How so? It goes from ~7 to ~11. That’s not even x2.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            128 months ago

            It goes from ~7 to ~11. That’s not even x2.

            Yes but the graph goes from 2 rectangles above the bottom line to 8 rectangles above the bottom line in that final surge.
            So visually, it looks like it has quadrupled.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              58 months ago

              While I agree for the sake of clarity, a bigger problem is that it only goes back less than 2 months. Has the number of installs been steady at 7k for a long time? Or does it fluctuate wildly like this occasionally for reasons totally unrelated to laws?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                28 months ago

                I was just clarifying the original comment about the baseline not being 0.
                Tbh, I hadn’t even looked at it properly and only noticed now that the timeline isn’t one month per box.