How would you rate the Microsoft Conference? Everything you wanted?

[Akvod]

Kasz216 said:

Akvod said:

Kasz216 said:

Akvod said:

 

 

Or are you saying that you can't even use graphs to illustrate concepts?

Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying. (not fake ones anyway)

I thought that was pretty clear.

If you'll note.  Nobody does this.  Specifically because people who might use graphs (Statisticians, journalists, consumer researchers) are taught to NOT do this.

Because graphs not based on real data are inerently deceptive.  Even when randomly thrown together just to show a concept.

Hell, generally a statistics class will spend a whole day on why trunicated graphs are the devil.  Let alone fully made up graphs.

It's why whenever you see example graphs, even in textbooks they always seem to use something like population demographics from the census in 1946 to make there points.  Or in very rare cases.  Just label nothing.

Example

http://www.stata.com/capabilities/publication-quality-graphics/

This is just a statistical program trying to sell it's programs... it's not even trying to illustrate a point through a hypothetical example.  Just show "hey look pretty graphs" but rather then just having someone spend 5 minutes typing gibberish and making things up they went out of their way to track down specific (mostly old) statistics that work for each kind of graph.

That's why I'm asking, would you be fine if i just had no labels on the y-axis? 

 

Again, I just find your objections poiness. Getting rid of the y axis labels wouldn't have done anything, and not having the various variables I had would have made my point unclear (different attributes contribute to WTP differently for customer).

If I had no y axis labels, and have multiple variables without labels and just said "for example, RAM might mean a lot to gamers, but almost nothing for non-gamers" it would be the same exact thing, with the same problems.

 

Do me a favor. Whip up a visual that conveys my point in a really simple and intuitive way, that is also not deceptive. Show me what you mean.

Here's the thing.  I wouldn't whip up a visual that conveys your point.

Not having defined a defined axis better, but still considered problematic, deceptivie and is something staticians wouldn't do.  I wouldn't do it because I specifically have been trained and retrained to never do that.   (Really, the best way to do it... which still wouldn't be excepted would be to use a completely fictional product with finctional indivudal parts.  Like widgets... or well not widgets since software designers have annoyingly coopted the term widget.  Maybe talking about Spacely Sprockets and Cogswell Cogs or something.)

What I WOULD do is look up research and find existing data, and make a graph based off that.  If they couldn't find any such data they would simply just stick with explaining their point via words... with nongraph pictures.

For example that premium icecream comes in rectangular boxes with smooth edged instead of round cylinders because people are willing to pay more for rectangualr boxes with smooth edged because it exudes a "high class" feel, and in focus testing actually makes the icecream taste better! (Or people thinks it tastes better.  Same difference really.)

Or point out in the past how often times a generation ago people would actually pay less for a device with more options.

Or just simply say "All this extra stuff costs extra money, and not everyone is going to care about every feature."

But again, visuals convey points quicker and more simply.

 

You're confounding two things in my opinions: Statistics and graphs.

 

Statistics is the study of data. Graphs are just visualizations, one of the things they can visualize being data.

 

Graphs can be manipulated to contextualize data. But the problem is that I'm not even presenting data, nor did I give the impression of it (again, non-sensical numbers, poor quality, my lack of pointing to any numbers or making any conclusions). All I ILLUSTRATED was that I think gamers have a higher WTP than non-gamers, and that the gaming and non-gaming functions appeal to the two audiences differently.

 

If I did present REAL DATA in a graph, and manipulated the graph to contextualize the data in a dishonest way, that would be abuse.

If I presented the graph, and claimed it was real data, that would be a lie.

If I presented the graph, and made an argument based on numbers, that would be non-sensical on my part.

 

Again, you knew from the start that I wasn't using real data, that I wasn't presented it like it was real data, and that I wasn't making an argument on the numbers (or really even an argument at all. I was just presenting a hypothetical example).

 

Just drop it.