Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ApprehensiveSorbet76 t1_iqtvfcu wrote

Graph is misleading. It doesn’t start at 0 which normally wouldn’t be an issue for similar graphs, but the main focus is how much less efficient Concorde is. For this purpose the graph gives the false impression of 10x more fuel compared to a similar capacity traditional jet. However it is closer to 4x more fuel. This is because visually going from the graph’s starting point of 1.5 to 2 makes the 0.5 above the starting point give the impression that the starting point is 0.5. Therefore the concord’s consumption of 13 appears like a higher multiple of consumption than it actually is.

The same goes for passenger count. That doesn’t start at 0 which gives the false impression that the jet carried fewer passengers than it actually did.

46

r_a_d_ t1_iqv70wt wrote

I don't agree with this at all. If you are going to make such a comparison, you should be reading the numbers of the axes, making your point moot.

If anything, OP's title is misleading. This chart just says that tickets on the concord should cost 6x more than a normal flight. Some people could be willing to pay that much due to the faster travel time or whatever. So it really doesn't bring us to the conclusion OP mentions in the title.

0

ApprehensiveSorbet76 t1_iqw1cyz wrote

If you just want the numbers you should opt for the table of values. A graph adds value above and beyond a table because it enables visually derived insights into the differences and relationships between values. Physically skewing the visual characteristics of the graph can result in the visual derivation of false insights (Concourse appears to consume 10x more fuel when it really consumes 4x more).

0

r_a_d_ t1_iqw1r40 wrote

This graph provides plenty of visually derived insight, but not the specific one you chose.

0

ApprehensiveSorbet76 t1_iqw5hxa wrote

It's the specific insight the author chose, not me. If we focus on the regression line characteristics then its fine viewed like this. But a title like "Supersonic Inefficiency: Why the Concorde was Decommissioned" along with a red dot for the Concorde is intended to focus your attention on how inefficient the Concorde is relative to the others. In regards to the main point the author intended to convey, the graph is misleading.

0

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_iqv59vd wrote

When you are reading a graph, you are expected to read, the range is written right there on the axis. The range is always fitted to data, there is no requirement for starting from some arbitrary value, zero or otherwise.

−2

NicobulusIsMyDog t1_iqv7ag1 wrote

Graphs are a form of communication, and it is a communicators job to try and limit the potential for major misunderstandings just as much as it is the responsibility of those who receive a communication to try and interpret it accurately.

Separately, no choice of range for data is agnostic/default, so choosing to fit the data in a way that excludes zero when excluding zero distorts the graphs meaning is a form of misrepresentation on the graph makers part, even if it was not a conscious or malicious decision. “The range is always fitted to data” is not an excuse for a misleading design.

2

ApprehensiveSorbet76 t1_iqw1n5u wrote

When you are reading a table, you are expected to read.
When you are reading a graph, you are expected to view.

2