• beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    Be nice to have the y axis start at zero so we could get a realistic sense of the fluctuations.

    Yes yes this is pedantic for a chart about movie posters, but we’re all pretty desensitised to disinformation; feels useful to train myself to recognise it & speak out about it. The y axis isn’t visible, so the chart is misleading 🤷‍♂️

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      The values changed so little compared to the full spectrum it wouldn’t make sense.
      You’re not comparing to zero, but relative to values over time.
      I agree with how it’s presented.

      • qaz@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Zooming out a little would at least show that the changes are minor.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      yeah that part of the graph is completely useless to people who haven’t memorised the exact degrees of the scale, which is most people, even most artists

      • bob_lemon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        The problem is that averaging hue makes no sense at all because hue is not a longest scale.

        If you take a red poster (0) and a blue poster (240), it averages to green. Or take red (0) and red (359), averaging to cyan (180).

        • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          It would have made more sense if they had shown the distribution of hue as a polar graph and just had one every decade to show how it changes over time.