Terrible graphs

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Sciolus » Wed May 20, 2020 10:13 am

I don't think Excel can do that thing with the x-axis labels being in two rows. If the labels are long, you have to put up with overlapping labels or change the angle of them. You might be able to do it by putting in hard line-breaks manually, but that's hard work and definitely means it wasn't done innocently.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed May 20, 2020 1:11 pm

Martin_B wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 9:15 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:25 pm
jimbob wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 5:50 pm


It would be straightforward to get that in Excel, but you'd need to actually put in effort to get that - by sorting the data in descending order.

It would be very difficult to do that accidentally.
Although, somebody might make a graph, then sort the cells to look at the data, without realising that the graph would be automatically updated to the new order, and then not check it. Excel doesn't always handle dates well either.
Excel handles dates better than that, though. Again, it would require sorting the data into descending order and then plotting
Only if it recognises them as dates. If it thinks they're text they get treated as categories.

It could also have been plotting, and then sorting the data.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue May 26, 2020 4:30 am

And now, this
Attachments
dohqa8l94kb41.png
dohqa8l94kb41.png (138.4 KiB) Viewed 1243 times
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by jimbob » Tue May 26, 2020 8:11 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:30 am
And now, this
That's brilliant. Well found.

They also seem pretty short - but I guess if it was women under 40, it would be higher.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Lydia Gwilt
Stargoon
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Lydia Gwilt » Tue May 26, 2020 8:49 am

I'm not sure I'd trust that graph - do you see some of those pink women are jumping up off the x-axis - that's cheating!

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Sciolus » Tue May 26, 2020 10:14 am

jimbob wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:11 am
They also seem pretty short - but I guess if it was women under 40, it would be higher.
The title says "females" rather than women, which I estimate would bring the average down by around 5-10 cm. But that's probably just another error in the graph.

I notice that the heights are rounded to the nearest inch, but only one of those countries still uses 18th-century units, meaning there is significant loss of precision and possibly accuracy in the data.

Also, f.ck pink.

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 2482
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Gfamily » Tue May 26, 2020 10:35 am

Also, if on a "per country" basis, would that mean the average for the EU would be about 2.3" (6cm) ?
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Martin Y
After Pie
Posts: 1930
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Martin Y » Tue May 26, 2020 10:38 am

Sciolus wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:14 am
Also, f.ck pink.
I just had the delightful thought that you got halfway through writing fuchsia, lost confidence spelling it and went with pink instead.

I shall henceforth always spell it fuckpink in memory of a happy think.

Allo V Psycho
Fuzzable
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Allo V Psycho » Tue May 26, 2020 2:18 pm

I totally want to see the Latvian women's football team play India, with India providing the ball.

User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by jimbob » Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:14 am
jimbob wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:11 am
They also seem pretty short - but I guess if it was women under 40, it would be higher.
The title says "females" rather than women, which I estimate would bring the average down by around 5-10 cm. But that's probably just another error in the graph.

I notice that the heights are rounded to the nearest inch, but only one of those countries still uses 18th-century units, meaning there is significant loss of precision and possibly accuracy in the data.

Also, f.ck pink.
I was too perturbed by the the sizes to actually spot those.

And f.ck pink.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
basementer
Catbabel
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by basementer » Tue May 26, 2020 8:31 pm

The graphic originally came from morethanmyheight.com, a site which looks American to me, hence the inches.
It's run by a pair of tall sisters who have set up a clothing line for tall women.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

Squeak
Catbabel
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:27 am

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Squeak » Tue May 26, 2020 10:26 pm

basementer wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:31 pm
The graphic originally came from morethanmyheight.com, a site which looks American to me, hence the inches.
It's run by a pair of tall sisters who have set up a clothing line for tall women.
Well, that's disappointing. I really want to shop at a company that designs for y'all women but not one that designs quite so badly as this. :(

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue May 26, 2020 10:51 pm

Squeak wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:26 pm
basementer wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:31 pm
The graphic originally came from morethanmyheight.com, a site which looks American to me, hence the inches.
It's run by a pair of tall sisters who have set up a clothing line for tall women.
Well, that's disappointing. I really want to shop at a company that designs for y'all women but not one that designs quite so badly as this. :(
Heh. According to their What is MTMH section:
Since 2014, we have been designing our clothing line for tall women, Amalli Talli – as well as writing style + fashion blogs for our customers.

Over time, we started hearing more and more requests from our customer base asking us for advice on confidence, body image and self-esteem… not only for themselves, but for their daughters and granddaughters, too! There’s no doubt we were both genuinely touch and inspired by what we read, and we knew this was a mission we would whole-heartedly accept!

So in 2017, More Than My Height was born to have honest and real conversations about growing up tall, and to change the narrative from ‘tall girl problems’ into one that is much more positive! We believe in tall body positivity, and are working on spread it with the hashtag #tallbopo.
So it sounds like designing clothes was their original interest, and the blog with graphs came second - so, hopefully, their clothing design is up to a higher standard ;)
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Sciolus » Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:18 pm

What's up with this erectile dysfunction plot? Haven't they seen the well-known optical illusion with two curved lines next to each other where it's hard to tell which one is longer?
power.jpg
power.jpg (62.45 KiB) Viewed 193 times
Line-Illusions-Optical-2.jpg
Line-Illusions-Optical-2.jpg (16.04 KiB) Viewed 193 times

monkey
Snowbonk
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by monkey » Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:09 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:18 pm
What's up with this erectile dysfunction plot? Haven't they seen the well-known optical illusion with two curved lines next to each other where it's hard to tell which one is longer?
When I saw that one I assumed that it was angle you were supposed to be comparing, not length.

But I did also think "What's wrong with a normal bar chart?", and "Why doesn't the red line go all the way to 180 deg?". I think the last one is because production would be 180 deg, but then I thought "Why isn't production on there too instead of/as well as demand?"

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by Sciolus » Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:17 pm

monkey wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:09 pm
When I saw that one I assumed that it was angle you were supposed to be comparing, not length.
Probably, but the larger angle has a smaller area, so you have to observe closely to see which is actually the larger quantity. (Or look at the text, but then why bother with the graphic?)

monkey
Snowbonk
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Terrible graphs

Post by monkey » Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:05 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:17 pm
monkey wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:09 pm
When I saw that one I assumed that it was angle you were supposed to be comparing, not length.
Probably, but the larger angle has a smaller area, so you have to observe closely to see which is actually the larger quantity. (Or look at the text, but then why bother with the graphic?)
One of the reasons I wondered why they didn't use a bar chart*. But if someone was making me do an "erectile disfunction chart", I would have put lines on it like clock hands to show that it's the angle you're supposed to be looking at.



*I would have done it with one bar for the demand, and a composite for the renewables/neutral, and would have included non-green production too.

Post Reply