On the CDPH website, the screen display is overlapped, not just on this graph but on several. But here's an even bigger issue: Why the heck aren't the date points on the horizontal axis clearly defined by dots? Listing dates across the bottom of the graph with no dots makes it impossible to accurately interpret the graph.
On the CDPH website, the screen display is overlapped, not just on this graph but on several. But here's an even bigger issue: Why the heck aren't the date points on the horizontal axis clearly defined by dots? Listing dates across the bottom of the graph with no dots makes it impossible to accurately interpret the graph.
On the CDPH website, this nasty little "glitch" is repeated in all the same graphs that show overlap. It appears that all these "date dot deficient" graphs come from the CDC.
Yesterday I watched a video of a "good guy" (a person on our side, so to speak) who misread several numbers even as he was pointing at them. I expected the first comments on the video to point this out. They didn't. Commenters plunged right into "political" comments. Skimming down the comments, I didn't spot a single one that pointed out the errors.
Has any other person commenting on this Kirsch article about CDPH pointed out the missing date points on the horizontal axis? I read a bunch of comments and didn't see any, but perhaps I missed some. Folks, this kind of "minor error" is neither minor nor an error. It's either deliberate muddling of data or yet another demonstration of the stupidity and incompetence of the CDC.
But the bigger issue is, why aren't people catching and confronting significant errors like somebody "on our side" misreading numbers in a video? Graphs with dates without dots? (I've seen other concerning examples of "missed mistakes" over the past months.) The devil is in the details. These "mistakes" must be caught and confronted.
On the CDPH website, the screen display is overlapped, not just on this graph but on several. But here's an even bigger issue: Why the heck aren't the date points on the horizontal axis clearly defined by dots? Listing dates across the bottom of the graph with no dots makes it impossible to accurately interpret the graph.
On the CDPH website, this nasty little "glitch" is repeated in all the same graphs that show overlap. It appears that all these "date dot deficient" graphs come from the CDC.
Yesterday I watched a video of a "good guy" (a person on our side, so to speak) who misread several numbers even as he was pointing at them. I expected the first comments on the video to point this out. They didn't. Commenters plunged right into "political" comments. Skimming down the comments, I didn't spot a single one that pointed out the errors.
Has any other person commenting on this Kirsch article about CDPH pointed out the missing date points on the horizontal axis? I read a bunch of comments and didn't see any, but perhaps I missed some. Folks, this kind of "minor error" is neither minor nor an error. It's either deliberate muddling of data or yet another demonstration of the stupidity and incompetence of the CDC.
But the bigger issue is, why aren't people catching and confronting significant errors like somebody "on our side" misreading numbers in a video? Graphs with dates without dots? (I've seen other concerning examples of "missed mistakes" over the past months.) The devil is in the details. These "mistakes" must be caught and confronted.