Page 2 of 3

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 10:13 am
by Sciolus
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 1:11 pm
by Bird on a Fire
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 4:30 am
by Bird on a Fire
And now, this

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 8:11 am
by jimbob
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 8:49 am
by Lydia Gwilt
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!

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:14 am
by Sciolus
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:35 am
by Gfamily
Also, if on a "per country" basis, would that mean the average for the EU would be about 2.3" (6cm) ?

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:38 am
by Martin Y
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 2:18 pm
by Allo V Psycho
I totally want to see the Latvian women's football team play India, with India providing the ball.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm
by jimbob
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 8:31 pm
by basementer
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:26 pm
by Squeak
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. :(

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:51 pm
by Bird on a Fire
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 ;)

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:18 pm
by Sciolus
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 5622 times
Line-Illusions-Optical-2.jpg
Line-Illusions-Optical-2.jpg (16.04 KiB) Viewed 5622 times

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:09 pm
by monkey
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?"

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:17 pm
by Sciolus
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?)

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:05 pm
by monkey
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.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:09 pm
by Gfamily
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:30 am
And now, this
Image
Here's another
Bad Graph.jpg
Bad Graph.jpg (65 KiB) Viewed 3436 times
and someone's fix
less bad graph.jpg
less bad graph.jpg (64.5 KiB) Viewed 3436 times

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:56 pm
by basementer
Applause.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:40 pm
by TimW
Lydia Gwilt wrote:
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!
Being really short can make you like that.

(No rush, eh?)

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:33 am
by Boustrophedon
Martin Y wrote:
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.
It helped me remember how to spell fuchsia when I found out it was named after the German botanist Leonhart Fuchs.

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:23 pm
by Gfamily
Boustrophedon wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:33 am
Martin Y wrote:
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.
It helped me remember how to spell fuchsia when I found out it was named after the German botanist Leonhart Fuchs.
Not to be confused with the explorer Vivian Fuchs, subject of the apocryphal headline "Dr Fuchs off to Antarctica".

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:21 pm
by Brightonian
Gfamily wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:23 pm
Boustrophedon wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:33 am
Martin Y wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:38 am


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.
It helped me remember how to spell fuchsia when I found out it was named after the German botanist Leonhart Fuchs.
Not to be confused with the explorer Vivian Fuchs, subject of the apocryphal headline "Dr Fuchs off to Antarctica".
Just tried to find an anecdote I once read about the mispronunciation of the Antarctic explorer's surname, but failed.

But I did find this Brazilian footballer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argel_Fuchs

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:11 pm
by shpalman
FB_IMG_1673712602921.jpg
FB_IMG_1673712602921.jpg (35.01 KiB) Viewed 3251 times

Re: Terrible graphs

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 6:25 pm
by geejaytee
Brightonian wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:21 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:23 pm
Boustrophedon wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:33 am


It helped me remember how to spell fuchsia when I found out it was named after the German botanist Leonhart Fuchs.
Not to be confused with the explorer Vivian Fuchs, subject of the apocryphal headline "Dr Fuchs off to Antarctica".
Just tried to find an anecdote I once read about the mispronunciation of the Antarctic explorer's surname, but failed.

But I did find this Brazilian footballer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argel_Fuchs
He wasn't the most unfortunately named Brazilian footballer: there was Rafael Scheidt* who played for Celtic.

*And he was