Presumably they are starting wherever the trend “started”, although I’d like to see what it was doing before that to see if this is an unusual trend or not
Then attention should be drawn to the fact that the timelines are different. The data is presented in a misleading way and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
In general, consistency in quantity of data points (in each different insight, not the full study sample size), consistency in period, and consistency in types of data (if categories are present) are nice things to reassure you that the data isn’t be stitched together from sources that are actually saying different things with radically different methodology or data structure.
I think its a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
I didn’t notice until you pointed it out. Because why wouldn’t they be??
Because there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Presumably they are starting wherever the trend “started”, although I’d like to see what it was doing before that to see if this is an unusual trend or not
Because gaps in data are a thing? I dunno, it doesn’t really seem to change the story or the outcome. Your concerns seem overblown.
Then attention should be drawn to the fact that the timelines are different. The data is presented in a misleading way and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Axes should remain the same with the lines missing at parts where there are missing data. This makes it clear
In general, consistency in quantity of data points (in each different insight, not the full study sample size), consistency in period, and consistency in types of data (if categories are present) are nice things to reassure you that the data isn’t be stitched together from sources that are actually saying different things with radically different methodology or data structure.
I think its a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
That’s funny, because that’s exactly what they did.