If you start a graph at like 50 on the y axis it's easy to make data look more pronounced. The official graph showed they dropped to "zero", presumably a bigger difference than 50%. Like it would look like the line dropped to zero, but really the graph started higher than zero on the y axis to begin with.
That graph does not have 0 as the starting point, which makes the so called spike look more dramatic. Try to enlarge the view by selecting a much longer period of time.
Sure, I don't mean to say anyone's being malicious here, I'm just saying, it's a shame to look at that graph and think "Oh wow what a big deal this is!" when really you're being shocked by the choice of y axis range.
I can't help but see a graph without a Y-Axis and think they're trying to hide something. If you zoom in a bit on that second graph you can also see a bit of a dip at the end (it's actually downward trending after the big spike), but their drawn in trend line basically tries to overwrite that.
I guess what I'm saying here is that these graphs look pretty sketchy, and if the news was really that good they'd probably have real data to show off.
I didn't find it misleading, considering the text before and after. The graph is clearly showing the Y-Axis and if the X axis was stable for long enough it correctly illustrate the bump. Of course I read both X and Y axis legends.
I don't like the way they fudge the graph axes to make it look more dramatic. It's a significant rise all on its own, why make it look suspect by messing with the presentation?
The plots would have benefitted from a log scale on the y axis, or both axes. The behaviour at the low end can't be clearly visualised since it's squished to the baseline by the exponential behaviour for high x values.
reply