I mean there’s a very clear trend and it’s not like they’re showing a 2-10% difference here and hiding that. Going from 51/52% it looks like to about 13% may as well be zero.
In scientific studies, having the axis match the results is standard behavior. I don’t at all think this representation is misleading, especially as the change was significant.
Technically I guess but they’re not trying to blow up a 1% difference it’s still 55 to 15 that’s huge. I don’t think in this case they’re trying to be deceptive they’re just showing the relevant part without a bunch of dead space in the chart
W a t?
It’s clearly labeled.
%
It’s deceptive. Starting at 11 makes the low point look like 0.
I mean there’s a very clear trend and it’s not like they’re showing a 2-10% difference here and hiding that. Going from 51/52% it looks like to about 13% may as well be zero.
Yes. The axis requires reading. And numbers.
Look how much more popular I am than the other guy!
It’s literally a Tucker Carlson deception tactic.
In scientific studies, having the axis match the results is standard behavior. I don’t at all think this representation is misleading, especially as the change was significant.
Technically I guess but they’re not trying to blow up a 1% difference it’s still 55 to 15 that’s huge. I don’t think in this case they’re trying to be deceptive they’re just showing the relevant part without a bunch of dead space in the chart
Huh, I guess I was too focused on the 75% decrease to notice.