Lemmy total number of users last month (very close to 1.5 M users)

submitted by mesamune edited

Lemmy total number of users last month (very close to 1.5 M users)

Back to main discussion

nimpnin

Let's put that to a test

reply
9
InquisitiveApathy , edited

Showing the data over an entirely different timescale than what's currently under discussion means nothing in this context to illustrate your point.

Starting from 0 on the y axis just means you need to change the scale, which like I said makes reading any data points incomprehensible, or end up with an unnecessary amount of whitespace.

reply
1
nimpnin , edited

If you start at 0, you see exactly what you're supposed to: there is a rather negligible trend in the given timeframe.

That's the point. The number of users has very slightly declined in the past few months. Under the original plot, you have a lot of people (rightly) misinterpreting the data, and saying that a lot of users are leaving the site.

That's why you start at 0. So that people interpret the data correctly.

reply
8
InquisitiveApathy

If you start at zero, the exact same data is shown as when there is a clearly labeled breakpoint. It contributes nothing other than obscuring the data points and scope of discussion is only for the past month. You're not making a cogent point.

Just like I said before, a 5% decline is *not* an insignificant drop or "very slightly declined." Expanding the scope of the argument to show that it's actually a far steeper decline in user engagement and then arguing the opposite point is misinterpreting the data. Expanding the scope just shows that the trends are continuously showing declining user engagement with no organic growth other than Reddit fucking up.

reply
-1
nimpnin

Deleted by author

reply
-1
InquisitiveApathy

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.

reply
1
nimpnin

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.

reply
4