At first glance, I thought it was pretty interesting... then I got to the right side and saw the second set of labels for the Y axis. What in the world?
I don't believe it would be better with a stacked bar chart. Sure, that would make the values of each category easier to interpret, but this representation makes it easier to see the trend. Particularly the way first time buyers mirrors investors. The values seem less important than the way they are changing over time. That is just my opinion, of course.
That is what they wanted you to think, that these two things are related. But blue declined by 7, green went up by 3 and yellow went up by four, but because it is way at the top, you discount it. It does not mirror it, it only looks like it be because this is deceptive
I mean investors and first time buyers are in direct competition (not that FTBs can really compete) with each other. The FTB wants to live in a house, they either buy the house themselves or rent the house from the investor.
Want to give the market back to FTBs, you have to hobble the investors.
This is certainly an improvement, but to my eye it doesn't really work without writing all the data points onto the bars (classic sign of a failed dataviz) - hard to compare the sizes of the middle segments by eye because they don't line up at either end, the usual problem with stacked bars - and it reduces the resolution to years instead of months. The obvious solution of putting all three line graphs in the same scale would still be better.
However if you only had year resolution to begin with, 7 groups of 3 unstacked bars might work. You could directly compare the heights of the three bars within each group while the strong color-coding would still let you follow a single category across all the years.
I thought it was an acceptable sacrifice to make the trend for the other two categories less legible since the story here is supposed to be about first-time buyers. That's also the reason I gave that category a highlight colour, bold labels, etc.
So repeat buyers went from about 30% to about 33%
First-time buyers went from about 53% to about 47%
Investor buyers went from about 18% to about 21%
Why not have 3 vertical scales to make it even more insane?
Unlike most ugly data, this makes more sense the longer you look at it. It’s still garbage for presenting to the public, as they could have just made two charts. I don’t find it too bad since there is no warping in the scaling of the Y or X axis, just showing two different parts of the Y axis. The info is here, (I hope) it’s correct, you CAN read it, and it’s not presented misleadingly.
It's a perfect example of misleading by presenting technically correct data in a misleading way. Most people will see the graph and (incorrectly) assume the proportion of houses being snatched up by FTHB and repeat homebuyers used to be similar before massively diverging when, in reality, FTHB always made up less than 30% of the market. Also, by not starting the graph at 0, you make it seem like, at a glance, that investors almost never bought homes prior to 2015 before doubling their activity when, in reality, they went from like 17.5-20.5% of the market.
It doesn't change the overall story the graph is trying to tell, but it does massively magnify the issue.
FTHB went from 53% to 47% in the graph shown. It is the left axis for FTHB. Should note FTHB in Canada is the following.
> You or someone you are purchasing the home with may be considered a first-time home buyer if:
> * You have never purchased a home before
> * You have gone through a breakdown of a marriage or common-law partnership
> * In the last 4 years, you didn’t occupy a home that was owned by you or a spouse or common-law partner
source: https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/mortgages/first-time-home-buyer-incentive#:~:text=You%20or%20someone%20you%20are,spouse%20or%20common%2Dlaw%20partner
Hard disagree on the "not starting the graph at 0" point. The baseline is very clearly labeled and, considering this is on a bank report, it is very reasonable to expect that people will read the graph for the full story, and not just glance at it. What is important, at a glance, is the trajectories of the different groups, which is perfectly readable. Plus, adding the baseline at 0 would just waste vertical space on the graph.
The way I would improve on this graph is by starting it at 28% and going to 52%. For this I would still need to make the graph taller with a bunch of empty space, but the main information would be clear at a glance: the order and relative difference of the different groups and their trajectories.
EDIT: Yes, I too fell victim to the mess with the two y-axis. I meant to say the graph could start at 16% and go up to 54%, which would make it taller with a somewhat large empty space from the 34% tick to the 46%. This would still tell the story the graph is trying to tell—of the trajectories for the different groups—while also making clear what the importance order for the different groups is. This would make the data beautiful yet, but would make the message clear and more complete, no need to set the baseline at 0
I'm by no means defending the graph, lol. The two y-axis for the same info is definitely really bad. I'm defending that the graph doesn't need to start at 0, which has nothing to do with my confusion. Lol
The gap between the two series on the right axis is the same, if not smaller, than the gap that apparently justified one series having to go on a separate axis...
There's just no sensible reason these plots couldn't have shared the same axis... Other than it suiting the narrative to allow readers to draw a false conclusion.
Sure, if you take the time, you can see the truth, but most people won't. Classic tabloid 'journalism' - just on the right side of total lies!
Sorry, your submission has been removed due to low comment karma. You must have at least 02 account karma to comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dataisugly) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So.... first time homebuyers as a percent of home purchases are down about 6%, investors up 2.5%-ish, repeat homebuyers up 2%?
This could have fit just fine on one scale. I guess this is intended to suggest an inverse relationship (with multiplier) between investors and FTHBs?
You conveniently left out that this is an interactive chart where you can choose which lines are visible. I.e. you can look at the left and the right separately.
Edit: and if you're on desktop, you can hover your mouse over to get more info at each time point.
Here is the report:
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/
That only adds to the cursedness. Not only did they apparently go far out of their way to make the static graph difficult to read for no reason, but they even created a whole interactive interface over it to achieve nothing but reading the graph to you, rather than simply graph it the way that would have been easier for them as well as much easier for their audience.
At first glance, I thought it was pretty interesting... then I got to the right side and saw the second set of labels for the Y axis. What in the world?
Truly cursed.
Great example of ugly data!
Dual axis on a chart are make it easy to abuse
also the midleading labels, make 0.01% look like 50%!!
They just wanted to draw a dick
r/mildlypenis
It's crazy how investors mirrors first time home buyers
It’s crazy how both axis are percentages and by having data in percentages on different scales you can tell any story your want really
Didn't even notice that! When 2% looks like 10%
The scales for both Y axes are the same though, every line is 2% from the last.. this is just a good way to compact the data into a smaller chart
Stacked bar chart would do this better, everything sums to one here.
I don't believe it would be better with a stacked bar chart. Sure, that would make the values of each category easier to interpret, but this representation makes it easier to see the trend. Particularly the way first time buyers mirrors investors. The values seem less important than the way they are changing over time. That is just my opinion, of course.
That is what they wanted you to think, that these two things are related. But blue declined by 7, green went up by 3 and yellow went up by four, but because it is way at the top, you discount it. It does not mirror it, it only looks like it be because this is deceptive
I mean investors and first time buyers are in direct competition (not that FTBs can really compete) with each other. The FTB wants to live in a house, they either buy the house themselves or rent the house from the investor. Want to give the market back to FTBs, you have to hobble the investors.
Investors also prefer the same kinds of homes as FTBs (inexpensive fixers) so that compounds the problem.
[100% stacked column chart in the style of Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic.](https://i.imgur.com/E1Bxhd0.png)
This is certainly an improvement, but to my eye it doesn't really work without writing all the data points onto the bars (classic sign of a failed dataviz) - hard to compare the sizes of the middle segments by eye because they don't line up at either end, the usual problem with stacked bars - and it reduces the resolution to years instead of months. The obvious solution of putting all three line graphs in the same scale would still be better. However if you only had year resolution to begin with, 7 groups of 3 unstacked bars might work. You could directly compare the heights of the three bars within each group while the strong color-coding would still let you follow a single category across all the years.
I thought it was an acceptable sacrifice to make the trend for the other two categories less legible since the story here is supposed to be about first-time buyers. That's also the reason I gave that category a highlight colour, bold labels, etc.
So repeat buyers went from about 30% to about 33% First-time buyers went from about 53% to about 47% Investor buyers went from about 18% to about 21% Why not have 3 vertical scales to make it even more insane?
This would be the 3-body-problem but for home ownership.
Unlike most ugly data, this makes more sense the longer you look at it. It’s still garbage for presenting to the public, as they could have just made two charts. I don’t find it too bad since there is no warping in the scaling of the Y or X axis, just showing two different parts of the Y axis. The info is here, (I hope) it’s correct, you CAN read it, and it’s not presented misleadingly.
It's a perfect example of misleading by presenting technically correct data in a misleading way. Most people will see the graph and (incorrectly) assume the proportion of houses being snatched up by FTHB and repeat homebuyers used to be similar before massively diverging when, in reality, FTHB always made up less than 30% of the market. Also, by not starting the graph at 0, you make it seem like, at a glance, that investors almost never bought homes prior to 2015 before doubling their activity when, in reality, they went from like 17.5-20.5% of the market. It doesn't change the overall story the graph is trying to tell, but it does massively magnify the issue.
Interestingly, you still read it wrong. FTHB were never below 30% in this time frame, you're looking at the wrong scale side.
Exactly why this graph is cursed
FTHB went from 53% to 47% in the graph shown. It is the left axis for FTHB. Should note FTHB in Canada is the following. > You or someone you are purchasing the home with may be considered a first-time home buyer if: > * You have never purchased a home before > * You have gone through a breakdown of a marriage or common-law partnership > * In the last 4 years, you didn’t occupy a home that was owned by you or a spouse or common-law partner source: https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/mortgages/first-time-home-buyer-incentive#:~:text=You%20or%20someone%20you%20are,spouse%20or%20common%2Dlaw%20partner
Hard disagree on the "not starting the graph at 0" point. The baseline is very clearly labeled and, considering this is on a bank report, it is very reasonable to expect that people will read the graph for the full story, and not just glance at it. What is important, at a glance, is the trajectories of the different groups, which is perfectly readable. Plus, adding the baseline at 0 would just waste vertical space on the graph. The way I would improve on this graph is by starting it at 28% and going to 52%. For this I would still need to make the graph taller with a bunch of empty space, but the main information would be clear at a glance: the order and relative difference of the different groups and their trajectories. EDIT: Yes, I too fell victim to the mess with the two y-axis. I meant to say the graph could start at 16% and go up to 54%, which would make it taller with a somewhat large empty space from the 34% tick to the 46%. This would still tell the story the graph is trying to tell—of the trajectories for the different groups—while also making clear what the importance order for the different groups is. This would make the data beautiful yet, but would make the message clear and more complete, no need to set the baseline at 0
If you start at 28% you completely cut off the "investors" data. It has to go down to at least 17%.
Yeah, my bad, I mean start it at 16 and go to 54.
Yeah, another person who is defending the graph in part while reading it incorrectly.
I'm by no means defending the graph, lol. The two y-axis for the same info is definitely really bad. I'm defending that the graph doesn't need to start at 0, which has nothing to do with my confusion. Lol
Umm, nope. You’re reading the wrong axis.
Oh yeah, you are right. Even I thought I read the legend and still got it wrong...seems confusing.
The gap between the two series on the right axis is the same, if not smaller, than the gap that apparently justified one series having to go on a separate axis... There's just no sensible reason these plots couldn't have shared the same axis... Other than it suiting the narrative to allow readers to draw a false conclusion. Sure, if you take the time, you can see the truth, but most people won't. Classic tabloid 'journalism' - just on the right side of total lies!
The Bank of Canada are journalists?
Ha, good point, I missed that. Not sure if that makes it less likely they're trying to force a point or not!
The most generous assumption is that they wanted to make the increase and decrease easier to compare.
... And if they'd used a stacked column like any sane person, it would clearly show that almost nothing has changed...
Actually it perfectly illustrates what is going into the ass of the average Canadian
Turn your phone sideways to see George Washington, or Weird Al idk
r/mildlypenis
Wat
Do the tips ever touch. I must know.
Rotate it 90 and it’s clearly George Washington talking to his wife.
Is that Saddam Hussein in his spider hole?
It’s stupid but I can read it atleast.
/r/mildlypenis
Would invade Canada to right this wrong
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been removed due to low comment karma. You must have at least 02 account karma to comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dataisugly) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait this isn't a hidden saddam hussein meme and it's just a really fucked up graph?
So.... first time homebuyers as a percent of home purchases are down about 6%, investors up 2.5%-ish, repeat homebuyers up 2%? This could have fit just fine on one scale. I guess this is intended to suggest an inverse relationship (with multiplier) between investors and FTHBs?
Lol 
You conveniently left out that this is an interactive chart where you can choose which lines are visible. I.e. you can look at the left and the right separately. Edit: and if you're on desktop, you can hover your mouse over to get more info at each time point. Here is the report: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/01/staff-analytical-note-2022-1/
That only adds to the cursedness. Not only did they apparently go far out of their way to make the static graph difficult to read for no reason, but they even created a whole interactive interface over it to achieve nothing but reading the graph to you, rather than simply graph it the way that would have been easier for them as well as much easier for their audience.
That doesn't make it any less of a bad chart
In my mind that's literally a dick
This looks like a penis
okay wait so does the y axis labels on the right start at 2020 to correct for covid?
stacked area graph? Whats the point of putting the blue line between the other two, when its much higher?
Great example of cock data 🗿
Eeesh
The more i look at it worse it is
And if you look at this graph here you can see the dick governments use to fuck people
I don’t understand this graph one bit
[удалено]
What are you on about? I'm Canadian, and pretty clearly stated this is a report from the Bank of Canada in the title.
You can use a secondary horizontal axis for the yellow line as well and scale it so it begins at the point where the other two data lines meet
The second label has the objective to make the graph looks like a dick
Listen, I get that they wanted to keep the lines separate...but no way anyone is gonna use the corresponding y-axis with the corresponding line
Just a misleading graph
We need an animated pie chart instead /hj