|
Does anyone know where the original one (the 'Christian dark ages' one, not the 'hyper-war' one) was initially posted? I'd like to see how people reacted to that turd.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
System Metternich posted:Does anyone know where the original one (the 'Christian dark ages' one, not the 'hyper-war' one) was initially posted? I'd like to see how people reacted to that turd. Reddit, I want to say. It's a meme in r/badhistory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Interesting palette choice. I wonder how much education was had by the person who assembled that graph. My other gripe, albeit stylistically, is when a lazily placed transparent legend lays text on a gridline. Sloppy on top of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Reddit, I want to say. It's a meme in r/badhistory. I think it's been around since before Reddit got huge. I remember seeing it in 2010/2011 or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Does anyone know where the original one (the 'Christian dark ages' one, not the 'hyper-war' one) was initially posted? I'd like to see how people reacted to that turd. http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm 22 May 2007 e: The defence to criticism of the holy graph is amusting. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 16:25 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
As we all know, the Christian Dark Ages had such a drastic effect on distant localities such as the rest of the non-European world, and furthermore
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Does anyone know where the original one (the 'Christian dark ages' one, not the 'hyper-war' one) was initially posted? I'd like to see how people reacted to that turd. It was that edgelord Edward Gibbon
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
goose willis posted:As we all know, the Christian Dark Ages had such a drastic effect on distant localities such as the rest of the non-European world, and furthermore Um, clearly you're not a rational modern atheist who knows that only white people advance science and technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm Lmao, he's actually doubled-down on defending this graph with a huge article about why it's actually correct. Love that he makes a graph demonstrating the relative height of three trees without taking into account that one of them is further away from the observer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
It really sums things up pretty beautifully - it's such an amazing illustration of the exact sort of fallacious thinking he employs that it's hard to believe it wasn't intentional.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
goose willis posted:As we all know, the Christian Dark Ages had such a drastic effect on distant localities such as the rest of the non-European world, and furthermore Also thoroughly European Christian Byzantium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
quote:"It is also wildly Eurocentric." ...... right. Which is why it's Eurocentric to imply that Christianity wiped out all global scientific progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Also thoroughly European Christian Byzantium. Of course you'd be the one to post that
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:...... right. Which is why it's Eurocentric to imply that Christianity wiped out all global scientific progress. Europe was held back by Christianity. Everywhere else was held back by melanin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm Thanks! Paladinus posted:Reddit, I want to say. It's a meme in r/badhistory. And I somehow hadn't visited this subreddit before, so thank you too 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:sure yeah but its really strange to even ask the question It's so jack asses don't bitch about straight erasure
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
From the meme thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
That defense is somehow worse than the chart. "You only need to look through Amazon.com and various films to see that my use of 'Dark Ages' is accurate. Historians have no right to say it is wrong!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
notassmartasIthinkIam.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Nanomachines that can form into anything you want on command, but are small enough that they disperse into an invisible / semi-visible vapour when not needed. Conjuring physical poo poo out of the air, basically. So Michael Crichton's novel Prey will become reality. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:So Michael Crichton's novel Prey will become reality. Huh. Eat, Prey, Bot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Moose_Bigelow/status/846480250112397312
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Could they have meant to say that 20/60 million goes to financial aid and misunderstood constructing the chart?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:Could they have meant to say that 20/60 million goes to financial aid and misunderstood constructing the chart? Also bonus useless legend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
SupSuper posted:Yeah clearly someone just typed 20 and 60 into their Chart Wizard instead of taking the 20 out of the 60. Hey, they had to skimp on something, so they forewent math. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
SupSuper posted:Yeah clearly someone just typed 20 and 60 into their Chart Wizard instead of taking the 20 out of the 60. Haha I had not noticed that legend. It's pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Haha I had not noticed that legend. It's pretty great. The chart shows that 60 million is indeed 60 million no matter what the ivory tower intellectuals would like you to believe. A good objectivist graph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
That this can show up as a physical thing in the world worries me greatly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
wait until you realize the "million"s are cased differently meaning they're probably from two different data sources
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
It looks like a 3d shape so maybe what we're looking at here isn't a perfect sphere, and the highlighted part does make up 30% of the volume
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
This is incredible. If Christianity hadn't been invented, white Europeans would have landed on the moon in 1000 CE. That algebra and chemistry the Arabs and Persians were developing? Fffft who needs that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Since my work involves charting software and i often link stuff posted itt on skype to people and i've been asked to write a blog for the company website about bad charts. Obviously a lot is obvious with that popular website infographic I posted being a great example of many ways to gently caress up a chart but was wondering what are some less obvious ways of loving them up so they're bad/meaningless/misrepresent the data
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Jose posted:Since my work involves charting software and i often link stuff posted itt on skype to people and i've been asked to write a blog for the company website about bad charts. Obviously a lot is obvious with that popular website infographic I posted being a great example of many ways to gently caress up a chart but was wondering what are some less obvious ways of loving them up so they're bad/meaningless/misrepresent the data Bad axes, like if you compress the Y-axis to such a degree that your 1% increase looks like a 300% increase. Using the wrong chart for the data, like a bar chart to represent fractions of something or a line chart tracking a bunch of independent things rather than progression over time (like, using a line chart to show shirt sales by colour and a bar chart to show shirt sales by year instead of vice versa. Charts that make you eyeball something to see how important it is, like "look how big this circle is" instead of just sticking a number on there for easy comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Bar graph where the bars are triangles and the data is the height so a small increase in height results in a large increase in area, which is irrelevant, but makes the data feel bigger. For an even more advanced technique, use pyramids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Jose posted:Since my work involves charting software and i often link stuff posted itt on skype to people and i've been asked to write a blog for the company website about bad charts. Obviously a lot is obvious with that popular website infographic I posted being a great example of many ways to gently caress up a chart but was wondering what are some less obvious ways of loving them up so they're bad/meaningless/misrepresent the data From, "How to Lie with Statistics". 1) Selectively use mean, median, and mode to make "the average worker/investor" seem better off than they are. 2) When using circles to represent quantity, you can mislead the viewer by deciding to using diameter or area to make things seem better or worse than they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
https://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/01/a-history-of-dishonest-fox-charts/190225 A good breakdown on some of Fox News' bad charts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Jose posted:Since my work involves charting software and i often link stuff posted itt on skype to people and i've been asked to write a blog for the company website about bad charts. Obviously a lot is obvious with that popular website infographic I posted being a great example of many ways to gently caress up a chart but was wondering what are some less obvious ways of loving them up so they're bad/meaningless/misrepresent the data Some less obvious mistakes (with academic papers showing that they do screw people up, when I can remember the right ones): 1) loving with the y-axis. http://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/250VIS/papers/chi2015-deception.pdf It should start from 0, and should be linear, unless there is a very good reason for it to be so, for the reasons vyelkin said in the previous post (inflates effect size, or makes effect size really hard to suss out) 2) loving with the x-axis. If you've got time as the x-axis, it should also be linear, unless you've got a very good reason. Otherwise people are looking at the slope and saying "oh, things are slowing down and getting better," say, even if that's just an artifact of your showing data every year when you were previously showing it every decade. 3) loving with white space http://statweb.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/scatter82.pdf If you want to show that two variables are correlated, if you throw a lot of white space on either end of the charts (zooming out, in a way), it pushes the points together and makes them look more correlated than they actually are, and vice versa. 4) Failing to account for confounding variables and spurious correlations. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/heatmap.png Lots of pairs of variables may be correlated, but way fewer variables have a causal relationship. Showing charts with correlations makes people think they are causally linked, even if they should know better. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations 5) Intentional unnecessary complexity A good example is the chart John Boehner's office released that was meant to show Obamacare. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/when_health-care_reform_stops.html Intentionally bad layout, way too many colors, and wordy labels all contribute to the idea "this is too complex for anybody to understand, so it's bad." c.f. the redesigned chart "Do not gently caress with graphic designers" https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertpalmer/3743826461 6) Failing to follow the conventions of a particular chart genre Often times, graphic designers will make "pseudo-charts" - stuff that looks like a chart, because chart = sciency = convincing. http://www.ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Tal-Blinded-with-Science-Trivial-2014.pdf However, this will mean that they sometimes do not follow the convention of the chart. I've posted a bunch of examples in this thread, but here's another: http://68.media.tumblr.com/62113c89bfde641aee65a611d33b7712/tumblr_on1cl2IxwY1sgh0voo1_1280.jpg It looks like a bar chart or meter chart, since it's a bunch of rectangles with numbers on them, somewhat aligned to a common axis. But it's not, it's just a bunch of rectangles with numbers on them. 7) Ensign Expendable posted:Bar graph where the bars are triangles and the data is the height so a small increase in height results in a large increase in area, which is irrelevant, but makes the data feel bigger. https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~ltharrison/files/skau2015evaluation.pdf In general, yeah, make sure you're not conflating two visual properties of the items in a chart. Charts with circles in them tend to be the worst offenders: are you encoding value as the radius, or the area? If it's radius, then know that a circle that has twice the radius is going to have more than twice the visual area. Some more that I thought of: 8) 3D charts are crap, don't make 3D charts. Even if you have 3D data, you still probably don't want to make 3D charts. People are not great at estimating the sizes of 3D objects and accounting for perspective and so on, and that's before you get to the problems of occlusion and perspective warping and whatnot. It's just almost never worth the cost. 9) Don't use the "rainbow" color map, where low values are bluish, and high values are reddish, and the other values are the ROYGBIV colors in the middle. https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmps261/Fall15/papers/colormapHarmful.pdf We are way better at discriminating reds than blues, so it will make all your low values look closer together than your high values. We also separate colors into sort of discrete bins ("all the greens," and "all the reds") for instance, so you get these weird "bullseye" patterns even if your data is just increasing linearly. Tree Goat has a new favorite as of 15:42 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
This is the best site btw and a huge pro click even if you don't care about learning more about charts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:Some less obvious mistakes (with academic papers showing that they do screw people up, when I can remember the right ones): well there is my blog mostly written lol. thanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
My work has a subscription to Lynda and I took this course https://www.lynda.com/Excel-tutorials/Data-Visualization-Data-Analysts/178123-2.html It was pretty helpful, even as someone who has made a zillion charts. Much of it you probably intuitively know anyway, but it's helpful to learn the reasons behind why certain things work. The guy who wrote the course has a couple others that I've heard are really good too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:30
|
|
