The worst graph in a decade?

http://art2science.org/2010/05/15/the-worst-graph-in-a-decade/

by cwan • 16 years ago

42 20 16 years ago

mfukar4• 16 years ago

The worst graph dissection in a decade. Does he intentionally omit reading that the graph is titled "Relative consumer spending on media, by category (2008) per capita"? Does he intentionally skip reading the article while he tries to decipher what a graph says?

What a tool.

zalew2• 16 years ago

The purpose of a graph (and any other infographics) is to illustrate data in an adequate and user-friendly manner. If you have to think over and over what the graph represents, it means it's poorly designed.

mfukar4• 16 years ago

I don't disagree with your point. I'm simply saying it's impossible to understand what a graph illustrates without reading few, simple sentences. Like its title.

jvdh• 16 years ago

Figures including their title and label should mostly speak for themselves.

The title implicitly promises the viewer a comparison of different countries. This graph is a prime example of how not to present that data. The linked article explains that in every detail and provides feedback on how it should be done.

jaekwon• 16 years ago

They still shouldn't add per capita figures up, which the article mentioned.

heyitsnick• 16 years ago

Surely the worst part of this graph is it should never have been rendered as a line graph at all? Either way you put the axis, there's no progression over time and a bar graph or some other representation makes a lot more sense.

mattmillr• 16 years ago

Precisely. The first thing my brain told me when I saw the graph was "It's gone way down." That's how we're used to interpreting line charts.

Groxx2• 16 years ago

Holy cow, read the IEEE spectrum site[1] it's hosted on. The info on the page is loaded with info that's not even remotely represented by the graph. And see the "US $240" part? It's for Norway...

In most other categories Norway leads. Partly, that’s due to its high cost of living. But they also seem to love media—especially books, at $240 per year per person. Must be those long winter nights!

WTF? I think I agree, that's absolutely, fascinatingly bad.

[1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/dig...

edit: does anyone else HATE those mouse-over previews? Know a way to get rid of them across as many sites as possible?

IsaacSchlueter• 16 years ago

Throw this in your /etc/hosts file:

    127.0.0.1 spa.snap.com

and then just make sure you don't serve obnoxious mouse-over previews to yourself :)

Here's my full ad-block. I just add a hostname to it whenever I see an obnoxious bit of stuff on a webpage:

    127.0.0.1 spa.snap.com ad-yt-bfp.doubleclick.net doubleclick.net m1.2mdn.net ad.doubleclick.net media.fastclick.net cdn.fastclick.net ds.serving-sys.com spe.atdmt.com content.dimestore.com speed.pointroll.com img-cdn.mediaplex.com clk.pointroll.com img-cdn.mediaplex.com pagead2.googlesyndication.com pagead2.googleadservices.com pubads.g.doubleclick.net partner.googleadservices.com tenbux.somethingawful.com somethingawful.crwdcntrl.net content.yieldmanager.edgesuite.net kona.kontera.com core.videoegg.com servedby.advertising.com uac.advertising.com at.atwola.com bannerfarm.ace.advertising.com view.atdmt.com ads.forbes.com bid.openx.net d1.openx.org edge.quantserve.com altfarm.mediaplex.com ad.uk.doubleclick.net shots.snap.com snap.com resources.infolinks.com fe.brandreachsys.com www.ttzmedia.com lapi.ebay.com cache.blogads.com mm.chitika.net techeblog.pgpartner.com cdn5.tribalfusion.com www3.adservenow.com ad.z5x.net clicktorrent.info this.content.served.by.adshuffle.com ads.adsonar.com js.adsonar.com web.adblade.com optimized-by.rubiconproject.com content.pulse360.com cdn.optmd.com as.casalemedia.com ad.ca.doubleclick.net ilinks.industrybrains.com context3.kanoodle.com adsyndication.msn.com technology.msnbc.us.intellitxt.com an.tacoda.net a.rad.msn.com b.rad.msn.com c.rad.msn.com d.rad.msn.com mjxads.internet.com ads.adbrite.com tag.contextweb.com contextweb.com media.contextweb.com cdn.eyewonder.com cdn1.eyewonder.com amch.questionmarket.com  iacas.adbureau.net portal.mxlogic.com ads.revsci.net js.revsci.net images.intellitxt.com ads.cnn.com imagec12.247realmedia.com im.afy11.net ad.afy11.net afy11.net c5.zedo.com clickbangpop.com ads.clicksor.com clicksor.com pages.etology.com ads.okcimg.com okcupid.tags.crwdcntrl.net coop.crwdcntrl.net cdn.crwdcntrl.net d7.zedo.com ads.yimg.com us.a2.yimg.com

DanielBMarkham• 16 years ago

This is such an obvious anti-spam device I feel like an idiot for not using it.

It just never occurred to me.

Thanks.

Groxx2• 16 years ago

hah, very nice. Particularly because I just tried to enter that into Adblock, and it's busy ignoring me.

Thanks!

bingaman• 16 years ago

I use this: http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/

dagheti• 16 years ago

I recently was tutoring a high school student who was instructed in their data-management course to create several graphs from the same set of data, comparing rainfall in different Canadian cities.

Unfortunately this data didn't make any sense to be plotted as a line-graph, a bar-graph, a histogram and a pie chart, as the comparisons didn't make sense for any but the bar-graph. It was if the students were actively being taught how to use graphs incorrectly. Creating pie charts when the entire pie doesn't mean the whole of anything I think was the worst culprit.

travem• 16 years ago

Have a look at http://www.perceptualedge.com/blog/

There is some great critique of various BI visualisations. I highly recommend the book Information Dashboard Design by the author Stephen Few

brfox• 16 years ago

I have always disliked this type of graph. But some people think they are the coolest thing. Like this baby name website is really popular and it is based on a graph like that: http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager

(A couple years ago I made a competing baby names website, so that's why I bring it up. This type a graph is a little pet peeve of mine.)

pchristensen• 16 years ago

That baby name graph is showing how popular names are over time. The NYT Box Office graphic does the same - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/23/movies/2008022... .

This kind of graphic is bad for showing exact numbers, good for showing relative share during time and change over time.

But the graph in the parent article wasn't making that comparison, so yes, it was a stupid, pet peevey way to do a graph.

The worst graph in a decade?

Related Stories