I can't go direct with Apple because I don't have a Mac - but yes, that is indeed a WTF?! graph, and I don't understand why they are using a bar chart that works on that basis either. 

The graph is certainly correct. It's just useless. (Read my parenthetical below the graph. I stated what you just said.Brian Spangler said:I think the graph is correct.
What is misleading is the position of 40 and that 0 thru 39 are not showing on the screen. If you can imagine a vertical running 0 through 40 and then 0 thru 80, your x2 would be correct. This sales graph is used to show a sales trend through sales count deltas across multiple days, starting with lowest which is 40. If a day fell below 40 then it would be shown as lowest.
Hope that helps.
But if they cut off 0-40, they get to make the whole graph bigger, and as all Real Americans know, bigger is better.Hugh Howey said:(And yes, I understand that the vertical scale starts at some minimum threshold, which is what causes this, but that doesn't make the graphic any less meaningless. If there isn't going to be a relationship in scale, simply provide the numbers. Don't use graphics.)
You can lease a virtual Apple computer over the net. It's cheap and it works. I think I've paid a total of $42.00 in air time to publish three books on iTunes.Zelah Meyer said:I can't go direct with Apple because I don't have a Mac - but yes, that is indeed a WTF?! graph, and I don't understand why they are using a bar chart that works on that basis either.![]()
Wow. I had no idea something like this existed. It never would even have occurred to me. Thanks!Joe_Nobody said:You can lease a virtual Apple computer over the net. It's cheap and it works. I think I've paid a total of $42.00 in air time to publish three books on iTunes.
Half of that was trying to figure out the Mac OS.
Look here:
www.macincloud.com
Yeah… read your parenthetical after I posted. Once had a statistics class where the prof went off about how poorly designed graphs could be used incorrectly to misrepresent data. Will check out the Kobo charts just as soon as I get more sales there.Hugh Howey said:The graph is certainly correct. It's just useless. (Read my parenthetical below the graph. I stated what you just said.)
What's the point of a graphic if it doesn't tell you anything at a glance? Kobo does this correctly by showing the full bar. Apple does not. It's not a major thing, I just find it amusing that they get such a basic thing so screwy.![]()
Gonna second the recommendation - hands down one of the most overlooked Apple products. Simply awesome. Just add monitor, keyboard and mouse and you have an Apple computer that will serve you years.KellyHarper said:/hijacking
If you're going to spend even $42 in airtime to publish a couple books I strongly encourage you to look into refurbished/used mac-mini's. You can find amazing deals on craigslist to the tune of $200-300 and as long as they're not more than 4-5 years old (that's a safe guess on my part, older ones might be fine) you'll be able to do all of your basic publishing needs.
Don't forget it's still a tax write-off as well
/done-hijacking
Thanks.Joe_Nobody said:You can lease a virtual Apple computer over the net. It's cheap and it works. I think I've paid a total of $42.00 in air time to publish three books on iTunes.
Half of that was trying to figure out the Mac OS.
Look here:
www.macincloud.com