Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7563267" data-attributes="member: 6795602">A few thoughts.1.&nbsp; &quot;Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)&quot; = &quot;The distribution of subclasses of active characters&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;No subclass&quot; is a valid part of the &quot;distribution of subclasses of active characters&quot; and for such a title it needed to be included in the graph for the title to actually match the graph.&nbsp; So I really don't buy your claim that the title of the graph was ambiguous about whether all active characters or just those with subclasses were included in the graph.&nbsp; It was clear IMO.2.&nbsp; The &quot;Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)&quot; graph was not shown in isolation.&nbsp; It was shown alongside a &quot;Class Distribution (Active Characters)&quot; graph.&nbsp; When 2 graphs are shown back to back with the same (Active Characters) or (whatever) designation that's supposed to mean that they are showing different breakdowns of the same population.&nbsp; As we now know, that's not the case for these 2 graphs.3.&nbsp; A better name would have been &quot;Subclass Distribution (Active Characters with a subclass)&quot;.&nbsp; If that was deemed to long for the title then near the bottom of the graphic I would have at least included a fine print disclaimer about only classes with a subclass being included.&nbsp; 4.&nbsp; There are various subclass distributions they could have shown.&nbsp; I think they chose the least useful distribution to show.&nbsp; However, you are correct that this point doesn't make the graph inaccurate of misleading.&nbsp; That part of what you are trying to say I agree with. I've tried to understand this part most of the day and I don't really understand what you are saying enough to make a productive comment.&nbsp; Maybe you can dumb it down for me?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7563267, member: 6795602"] A few thoughts. 1. "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" = "The distribution of subclasses of active characters". "No subclass" is a valid part of the "distribution of subclasses of active characters" and for such a title it needed to be included in the graph for the title to actually match the graph. So I really don't buy your claim that the title of the graph was ambiguous about whether all active characters or just those with subclasses were included in the graph. It was clear IMO. 2. The "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" graph was not shown in isolation. It was shown alongside a "Class Distribution (Active Characters)" graph. When 2 graphs are shown back to back with the same (Active Characters) or (whatever) designation that's supposed to mean that they are showing different breakdowns of the same population. As we now know, that's not the case for these 2 graphs. 3. A better name would have been "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters with a subclass)". If that was deemed to long for the title then near the bottom of the graphic I would have at least included a fine print disclaimer about only classes with a subclass being included. 4. There are various subclass distributions they could have shown. I think they chose the least useful distribution to show. However, you are correct that this point doesn't make the graph inaccurate of misleading. That part of what you are trying to say I agree with. I've tried to understand this part most of the day and I don't really understand what you are saying enough to make a productive comment. Maybe you can dumb it down for me? [/QUOTE]

Verification