At first, I was assaulted by the percentage representation. Then I cooled down and thought, it’s not the percentage, but those bars are the absolute height of the price! Me smart, until I took a look again and now my hate is burning so, so hard for this graph. It is designed to enrage.
They’re not. The $3 bar is not 3x the height of the $1 bar next to it. The $2.99 bar on the right is higher than the $2.99 bar on the left. Someone just free drew the bars and it’s extremely noticeable and annoying.
I don’t see anyone mentioning the proportions of the bars. For example, on the 1st item, $1 vs $2.99 is not even double the size…
Hah! That’s a very good point. Why make a bar chart if it’s not even showcasing the correct values, which in this case actually helps the message?
At first, I was assaulted by the percentage representation. Then I cooled down and thought, it’s not the percentage, but those bars are the absolute height of the price! Me smart, until I took a look again and now my hate is burning so, so hard for this graph. It is designed to enrage.
They’re not. The $3 bar is not 3x the height of the $1 bar next to it. The $2.99 bar on the right is higher than the $2.99 bar on the left. Someone just free drew the bars and it’s extremely noticeable and annoying.
They borked their graph to make room for the picture of the girl for some reason
I think they scaled them in proportion to their group.
Remove one entire group (e.g. 2014) and I think you will see it.
Not sure what you mean. The McChicken bars are not showing a 200% increase regardless of how you slice it.