Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7563362" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Well I see what's making this part of the conversation so difficult.  You firmly believe the graph title meaning is clear and unambiguous and that the only reason someone might disagree about it going with graph is if they are having their judgment clouded by overriding the graph creators intent with their own.  Similarly I believe the graph title meaning is clear and unambiguous and that the only reason someone might disagree about it not going with the graph is if they aren't letting the words on the title speak for themselves.  We fundamentally disagree there.  Those beliefs make it hard to talk about this.  But I'm going to try one last time.  I'm going to present my evidence for why the graph is mislabeled.  I hope you will do more than just tell me I'm wrong and I also hope you will do more than just blame it on me overriding their intent with my own.  My reasons for believing the graph is mislabeled have nothing to do with intent.  If you care to try and change my mind about the graph being mislabeled you are going to have to address the actual reasons I think it is mislabeled.A little background first:  I come from a math and computer science background.  Graphs that break down any population into particular sectors ALWAYS need to identify the population they are breaking down.  They also should identify what the graph is showing about that population.  In our case, subclass distribution is what the graph is showing about the population of active characters.  There's simply no other way to have both of those pieces of information identified for the graph, and make no mistake, both of those pieces of information need to be identified.I think it's also important to note that in regards to breaking down a population that a NULL result is a perfectly acceptable occurrence.  So something labeled subclass distribution doesn't automatically rule out Null values needing accounted for provided that some members of that population can't be categorized by the given categories.  If there are Null Values for a given population and you don't want to see the Null values then the mathematically correct thing to do is to define a new population such that all of the members of the population will fit into the categories you have defined.  However, when you do this you have to label the new population appropriately.  Additionally there's also the generally accepted practice that when 2 graphs are similarly named and appear next to each other that they are breaking down the same population in different ways.So do you actually dispute any of this?</blockquote>

Verification