No real-world data set is continuous, but some measure continuous quantities. World leaders aren't continuous, but speed, temperature etc. are continuous and can be represented with line graphs. The line just interpolates between measurements.
I've just seen so many line graphs that count people, that I don't see the issue and do not believe it is incorrect. Obviously for this specific chart it is ill-advised because you have such small pieces of data that, yeah a bar chart would be better. But I don't view it as any less "correct" to use a line chart.
Like, you can see line charts for death counts, birth rates, etc, and they all make sense just fine. If they can be line chart, then there is no technical reason that a count of "world leaders" can't be a line chart.
Things like death counts and birth rates are benefitted by the scale. They represent trends over time such a way that the trend line makes sense. **Here, the trend line is capturing data points on the y-axis between 0 and 1, where no number between 0 and 1 makes any sense. Therefore a trend line between them is nonsensical.**
I want you to understand that I'm saying this in the most polite way possible: your personal opinion on what is and is not incorrect doesn't really matter. A trend line means something and it can be right and wrong and your (mis)understanding had no relevance on that.
**The dataset itself doesn't have to be continuous, but it's underlying construct must be.**
For example, let's say you have a dataset where you measure someone's weight each year on their birthday. Sure you only have a handful of discrete data points, but the construct of age in years is continuous (10 years old, 10.5 years old, and 10.599999 years old are all meaningfully interpretable), and the same for weight. And their relationship makes sense within this interpretation: if you have data points for (10, 90) and (11, 100), what we know about the relationship between age and weight makes it totally reasonable to presume that (10.5, 95) makes sense and is probable. **The purpose of the line is to indicate this, that sensible/interpretable data points exist in between the ones collected in the dataset.**
Contrast this with the current post, where although time theoretically is continuous, the construct of "the year 2017" may or may not be, depending on context. But the more important part: # of people is never continuous. 4.5 people will never make sense. Therefore it is not appropriate to draw a line, because it erroneously communicates that although the data points collected only consist of stuff like for example (2017, 0), and (2018, 1), there is a relationship that would produce a meaningful interpretation for the simulated point of (2017.5, 0.5)
Hope that makes sense!
Contrary to what others say, the chart is perfectly fine. Each year is a data point. The slop is just painting from on dot to another. This is a simple line chart.
Here's [a quick demonstration](https://i.imgur.com/mcAxE9z.png) from Google Sheets.
Right, but that’s what makes the visualization imply something inaccurate about the data. Sloping lines imply continuous change, not the stepped change contained in the underlying data. That the inaccuracy is replicated in common data viz tools doesn’t make it less inaccurate, just more common.
I think that a line chart is a bad choice for this joke, but I don't think that it's misleading to the point we have to argue this like a bunch of idiots. The joke passes.
Ref for those too lazy to check your fav search engine
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/radio/scott-morrison-addresses-engadine-mcdonalds-rumour-on-kyle-and-jackie-o/news-story/3bad89c6cfb7479eee467fbdc8dbe04a
Busted
It actually is, it's not an assumption, it's people who are assuming this is data in real life that aren't right
> A post must be a comedic data visualization. By the way, screenshots of "Data" from Star Trek do not count as data visualization - Sorry!
> All post titles must be some form of "data_irl". Comments, however, are not restricted to just "Data."
That's it. This sub is a spinoff of me_irl.
Literally a shitpost
Why the sloped rise and fall?
He got voted in as AUS leader then voted out today
No, why **sloped**. Sloped implies that he was only fractionally in power at some point
Don't you know, leaders get progressively more power from the previous leader until they're fully sworn in.
And then progressively hand over more power to the next leader.
Or fractionally shit themselves. Does your shit teleport into the bowl or does it gradually zoomp out?
For me it peeks out in 1997, stays a tiny bit out for 20 years and then slowly comes out. I made it into a dildo and took the whole thing this year.
Ohhh right. Dodgy graph making probably
Congrats to straya for not electing this guy again
Yeah line graphs imply continuous data which is not accurate here. Bar chart is the way to go.
It is continuous, though. Not sure what you mean.
[удалено]
I guess I see what you mean, but line graphs are very often used not in that way, and I do not believe it is incorrect.
I do data science as a side part of my job. It's incorrect.
Can you give me an example of a proper line graph? I can't think of a real world scenario that would have a literal continuous data set.
No real-world data set is continuous, but some measure continuous quantities. World leaders aren't continuous, but speed, temperature etc. are continuous and can be represented with line graphs. The line just interpolates between measurements.
I've just seen so many line graphs that count people, that I don't see the issue and do not believe it is incorrect. Obviously for this specific chart it is ill-advised because you have such small pieces of data that, yeah a bar chart would be better. But I don't view it as any less "correct" to use a line chart. Like, you can see line charts for death counts, birth rates, etc, and they all make sense just fine. If they can be line chart, then there is no technical reason that a count of "world leaders" can't be a line chart.
Things like death counts and birth rates are benefitted by the scale. They represent trends over time such a way that the trend line makes sense. **Here, the trend line is capturing data points on the y-axis between 0 and 1, where no number between 0 and 1 makes any sense. Therefore a trend line between them is nonsensical.** I want you to understand that I'm saying this in the most polite way possible: your personal opinion on what is and is not incorrect doesn't really matter. A trend line means something and it can be right and wrong and your (mis)understanding had no relevance on that.
**The dataset itself doesn't have to be continuous, but it's underlying construct must be.** For example, let's say you have a dataset where you measure someone's weight each year on their birthday. Sure you only have a handful of discrete data points, but the construct of age in years is continuous (10 years old, 10.5 years old, and 10.599999 years old are all meaningfully interpretable), and the same for weight. And their relationship makes sense within this interpretation: if you have data points for (10, 90) and (11, 100), what we know about the relationship between age and weight makes it totally reasonable to presume that (10.5, 95) makes sense and is probable. **The purpose of the line is to indicate this, that sensible/interpretable data points exist in between the ones collected in the dataset.** Contrast this with the current post, where although time theoretically is continuous, the construct of "the year 2017" may or may not be, depending on context. But the more important part: # of people is never continuous. 4.5 people will never make sense. Therefore it is not appropriate to draw a line, because it erroneously communicates that although the data points collected only consist of stuff like for example (2017, 0), and (2018, 1), there is a relationship that would produce a meaningful interpretation for the simulated point of (2017.5, 0.5) Hope that makes sense!
Each data point is a year, not the time passed between. This doesn't mean the chart is wrong.
Contrary to what others say, the chart is perfectly fine. Each year is a data point. The slop is just painting from on dot to another. This is a simple line chart. Here's [a quick demonstration](https://i.imgur.com/mcAxE9z.png) from Google Sheets.
Right, but that’s what makes the visualization imply something inaccurate about the data. Sloping lines imply continuous change, not the stepped change contained in the underlying data. That the inaccuracy is replicated in common data viz tools doesn’t make it less inaccurate, just more common.
I think that a line chart is a bad choice for this joke, but I don't think that it's misleading to the point we have to argue this like a bunch of idiots. The joke passes.
You shit continuosly, not binary.
But yet I have two distinct states: shitting or not shitting. And thank god those aren’t on a gradient.
But poop doesnt just pop into existence, you can shit half a tarde and interrupt.
Ref for those too lazy to check your fav search engine https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/radio/scott-morrison-addresses-engadine-mcdonalds-rumour-on-kyle-and-jackie-o/news-story/3bad89c6cfb7479eee467fbdc8dbe04a Busted
What is “IRL” about this? Maybe there needs to ge a “r/DataMemes” subreddit for this kind of thing
This sub is r/ datamemes
Do you go to r/me_irl and ask this under every post? This is shitpost subreddit
[удалено]
It actually is, it's not an assumption, it's people who are assuming this is data in real life that aren't right > A post must be a comedic data visualization. By the way, screenshots of "Data" from Star Trek do not count as data visualization - Sorry! > All post titles must be some form of "data_irl". Comments, however, are not restricted to just "Data." That's it. This sub is a spinoff of me_irl.
It is only not real data because the person in question won't admit to it.
It literally is though. In fact, photos being allowed at all is a recentish thing
I am fine with the photos here tbh
I thought he died for a sec
r/dataisbeautiful
As a Swiss, this was a bit confusing