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.
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
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.
That graph is trash. The baseline needs to be at zero.
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.
True.
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 months9 days.Define “perfectly fine”. It is clearly exaggerating the change. At a glance it looks more like a 5 times increase, not a 30% increase.
Could you please clarify why the baseline needs to be at 0? I’m genuinely curious.
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
How so? 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.