This may be an ‘is it only me’ type of question but does the Guardian have the least helpful graphical representations of statistics in the world?
It may just be that I lacked the patience to work out what this (above) added to the words but the following is a classic in redundancy.
The written information is additional and different information than that given in the graphical information.
The graph is simply additional information.
The wealth of the poorest and richest have been grouped into ten equal groups (decile) and over the past 15 years it shows that the wealth of the richest has grown disproportionately in comparison to that of the poorest which remains relatively unchanged
Gosh, that’s a lot of people being slaughtered every year in Herefordshire and Shropshire.
Reading around ‘War and Peace’ last year I encountered this. One if the best infographics of all time.
I am not sure the Grauniad is any worse than many others. The graph is trying to display quite a subtle (and very Grauniad) point.
I find the first one OK, as it gives a decent visual interpretation of the point and aids understanding. However, the graph showing 70 times as many chickens as people is hardly necessary. As a regular Guardian reader I see a lot of these. Clearly some are meant more as a way of giving a bit of a visual lift to an otherwise anodyne article, whereas some are genuinely useful. I’m not sure what other papers do and it may be interesting to see if they are any better.
There are 2.2 rats per person in the UK and they have 100% unemployment rate. You never hear them moaning,
Excellent example, which was used to illustrate strategy when I studied for an MBA way back in the past.
For me, graphics should display textual information in a way that I can visualise it (data or information) clearly.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.