You talk as if you don’t understand how plots work. If the change looks like a 90% drop, that’s how it’s going to be perceived.
Moreover, if you do start from 0 you instinctively see the 5% drop, and can make the conclusion that it’s big or small yourself. If you don’t do that, you need to calculate numbers. People don’t do that. They see line go down, and get the impression from that.
Any drop would look the same on the initial plot. 5%, drop 50% drop, 0.005% drop. The ’start your y axis at 0’ rule has a lot of exeptions, but this is not one of them. In fact, it’s the quintessential example of lying with a plot.
If you want to see the actual values for each timestep, there are better tools for that. Such as a table.
Explaining all of this feels bizarre. You are de facto trolling by this weird contrarianism.
Are you trolling or just very fucking dense
I’ve been asking myself the exact same thing.
The top level comment on this thread, to which you complained about graphical syntax, is discussing the MAU decline over the past 30 days.
You talk as if you don’t understand how plots work. If the change looks like a 90% drop, that’s how it’s going to be perceived.
Moreover, if you do start from 0 you instinctively see the 5% drop, and can make the conclusion that it’s big or small yourself. If you don’t do that, you need to calculate numbers. People don’t do that. They see line go down, and get the impression from that.
Any drop would look the same on the initial plot. 5%, drop 50% drop, 0.005% drop. The ’start your y axis at 0’ rule has a lot of exeptions, but this is not one of them. In fact, it’s the quintessential example of lying with a plot.
If you want to see the actual values for each timestep, there are better tools for that. Such as a table.
Explaining all of this feels bizarre. You are de facto trolling by this weird contrarianism.