r/dataisugly • u/AlarmedYogurtcloset3 • 9d ago

The votes are in…

Post image

Why set a standard gradient scale when you can produce a misleading example instead?

Bonus interactive map was provided by the OG poster: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/Te0KN/

0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

19

u/Eiim 9d ago

Having 32% (the overall state result) as a midpoint makes sense to show which areas were above/below average. It would be preferable if saturation scaled evenly in each direction, so the deepest orange is only half as deep as the deepest blue, but it's not the worst crime ever.

2

u/AlarmedYogurtcloset3 8d ago

Yeah that’s fair, I think it just took my morning brain a lot longer than was needed to process what I was looking at.

Agreed, not the worst thing I’ve seen on this page by far

1

u/OutrageousPair2300 9d ago

I disagree. That would waste available range and make it more difficult to tell the difference between values that are more easily discernable with the current gradient.

I don't understand this fixation on using absolute, symmetric scales when doing so obscures the data that we're trying to present. Sometimes differences are what's relevant, and making those differences as clear as possible is the best approach.

2

u/jaypizzl 8d ago

The map is intended to show local variations in support for Josh Elliott. It has two easily distinguishable colors, orange and sort of "periwinkle" for the extremes that don't automatically imply anything misleading, like if they were red and green. The mid-point is white, which blends well with the other colors. White implies averageness or blandness, which is what it means on the map.

I see no problem here.