Food Pyramid for Freelance Artists
 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
 I've posted it a couple of times before, but it's one of my favorites.  
 

                     Correlation
 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
It's awesome that it's automated like that.  Some of my spurious correlation charts took forever to plot out.
 
2004 was very telling.

 
 
Create your own Spurious Correlation:

Whales Swimming Around Hawaii

via

 haresfur wrote: 

Truer words.  I think gun control or lack of has very little to do with the impact on crime, just the ability of families to protect themselves when it happens.  It is all about economic opportunity.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Well that is a misleading graph, too.  It says it is plotting the percent change but the numbers do not at all match the data table.  It appears to be plotting the values as a percent change from the 1993 values ie (1993 total violent crime - 2010 total violent crime)*100/1993 total violent crime).  My initial reading of the graph and its title was that it plots the annual percent change since 1993 - what is tabulated in the table.

In any case the takeaway message for me is that the stand your ground laws had essentially no impact on violent crime and if you want to reduce crime rates then avoid recessions. 

 Proclivities wrote: 
Well at the very least it's an innocent catastrophic fail, if the designer was trying to mimic that other chart. But where that chart is easily understood (more ink = more deaths) even if it's upside-down, the whole point of a graph is to make numbers easily understood, even without reading the actual numbers. If I'm supposed to read the x & y axis labels before the visual representation makes its way into my eyeballs, then why even have a graph? Why not say "gun deaths in Florida rose from 700 to 800 in the months after SYG laws were enacted" and leave the graph out entirely? That's the innocent version. The lying version knows that convention says to put the 0,0 points of a line graph at the lower left, and any other configuration will obfuscate the information in the numbers and leave a false impression, based on our life-long experience in reading properly-constructed graphs.

 islander wrote: 
I think that designer was suggesting dripping blood, which was based on an earlier chart about deaths in Iraq.  The "blood" suggests the actual numbers, but since it is upside-down it cannot immediately be read correctly.

 Proclivities wrote: 
I went through 3 blogs explaining the problems but never to the original article.  After the blogs it seems the intent was right and the article factual, but the graph didn't follow that intent.  I'd chalk that up to failed execution instead of outright lie.  Still a wonky chart though, I had to look at it several times to figure it out.

 islander wrote: 
Click on the chart/image for an explanation and another within that article.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
What was the point of the original article?