Scrambled egg

Let's take a look at the central message this chart is aiming to convey: "U.S. egg prices hit a 10-year high in 2025 after avian flu killed 30 million egg-laying birds." (The original is found on Visual Capitalist.)

Using the Trifecta Checkup framework (link), we ask how the data are aligned with this question. What do the data say?

The data give the average egg prices in 41 countries, sorted from highest to lowest, and arranged in a clockwise manner starting from the top.

The dataset does not address the question posed by the central message.

• With no history, it cannot show that U.S. egg prices is at a 10-year high.
• With no explanatory variables, it cannot say why egg prices have increased in 2025.
• Without context, it cannot address the avian flu.
• The U.S. does not even stand out.
• It also does not show the extreme magnitude of the recent increase in egg price in the U.S.

Because of this mismatch, the graphic fails to deliver the intended message.

Notably, the dataset introduces the country dimension, which is unrelated to the central message, but nevertheless interesting. Yet the question of interest isn't the point-in-time comparison. I'd like to know if egg price inflation is a global trend, or an American exclusive. At some point, the inflation will flatten out, although the price of eggs would probably not return to the pre-inflation level. An international comparison across time would bring this insight out clearly.

***

Before ending, we'll make a quick stop at the Visual corner of the Trifecta Checkup. Since the designer uses an ellipse to represent the egg, the bars sticking out of the ellipse are somewhat distorted. Do the bar lengths encode the data accurately?

I looked at Brazil vs Italy. The price in Italy $3.97 is basically twice that in Brazil $1.99. But the length of BRA bar is 40% that of the ITA bar.

Italy and Belgium, shown side by side, have the same egg price to the second decimal place. The bar lengths are not the same.

This observation suggests that the chart fails my self-sufficiency test. If the entire dataset were not printed on the chart, the reader can't interpret the bars.

On the interpretability of log-scaled charts

A previous post featured the following chart showing stock returns over time:

Unbeknownst to readers,  the chart plots one thing but labels it something else.

The designer of the chart explains how to read the chart in a separate note, which I included in my previous post (link). It's a crucial piece of information. Before reading his explanation, I didn't realize the sleight of hand: he made a chart with one time series, then substituted the y-axis labels with another set of values.

As I explored this design choice further, I realize that it has been widely adopted in a common chart form, without fanfare. I'll get to it in due course.

***

Let's start our journey with as simple a chart as possible. Here is a line chart showing constant growth in the revenues of a small business:

For all the charts in this post, the horizontal axis depicts time (x = 0, 1, 2, ...). To simplify further, I describe discrete time steps although nothing changes if time is treated as continuous.

The vertical scale is in dollars, the original units. It's conventional to modify the scale to units of thousands of dollars, like this:

No controversy arises if we treat these two charts as identical. Here I put them onto the same plot, using dual axes, emphasizing the one-to-one correspondence between the two scales.

We can do the same thing for two time series that are linearly related. The following chart shows constant growth in temperature using both Celsius and Fahrenheit scales:

Here is the chart displaying only the Fahrenheit axis:

This chart admits two interpretations: (A) it is a chart constructed using F values directly and (B) it is a chart created using C values, after which the axis labels were replaced by F values. Interpretation B implements the sleight of hand of the log-returns plot. The issue I'm wrestling with in this post is the utility of interpretation B.

Before we move to our next stop, let's stipulate that if we are exposed to that Fahrenheit-scaled chart, either interpretation can apply; readers can't tell them apart.

***

Next, we look at the following line chart:

Notice the vertical axis uses a log10 scale. We know it's a log scale because the equally-spaced tickmarks represent different jumps in value: the first jump is from 1 to 10, the next jump is from 10, not to 20, but to 100.

Just like before, I make a dual-axes version of the chart, putting the log Y values on the left axis, and the original Y values on the right axis.

By convention, we often print the original values as the axis labels of a log chart. Can you recognize that sleight of hand? We make the chart using the log values, after which we replace the log value labels with the original value labels. We adopt this graphical trick because humans don't think in log units, thus, the log value labels are less "interpretable".

As with the temperature chart, we will attempt to interpret the chart two ways. I've already covered interpretation B. For interpretation A, we regard the line chart as a straightforward plot of the values shown on the right axis (i.e., the original values). Alas, this viewpoint fails for the log chart.

If the original data are plotted directly, the chart should look like this:

It's not a straight line but a curve.

What have I just shown? That, after using the sleight of hand, we cannot interpret the chart as if it were directly plotting the data expressed in the original scale.

To nail down this idea, we ask a basic question of any chart showing trendlines. What's the rate of change of Y?

Using the transformed log scale (left axis), we find that the rate of change is 1 unit per unit time. Using the original scale, the rate of change from t=1 to t=2 is (100-10)/1 = 90 units per unit time; from t=2 to t=3, it is (1000-100)/1 = 900 units per unit time. Even though the rate of change varies by time step, the log chart using original value labels sends the misleading picture that the rate of change is constant over time (thus a straight line). The decision to substitute the log value labels backfires!

This is one reason why I use log charts sparingly. (I do like them a lot for exploratory analyses, but I avoid using them as presentation graphics.) This issue of interpretation is why I dislike the sleight of hand used to produce those log stock returns charts, even if the designer offers a note of explanation.

Do we gain or lose "interpretability" when we substitute those axis labels?

***

Let's re-examine the dual-axes temperature chart, building on what we just learned.

The above chart suggests that whichever scale (axis) is chosen, we get the same line, with the same steepness. Thus, the rate of change is the same regardless of scale. This turns out to be an illusion.

Using the left axis, the slope of the line is 10 degrees Celsius per unit time. Using the right axis, the slope is 18 degrees Fahrenheit per unit time. 18 F is different from 10 C, thus, the slopes are not really the same! The rate of change of the temperature is given algebraically by the slope, and visually by the steepness of the line. Since two different slopes result in the same line steepness, the visualization conveys a lie.

This situation here is a bit better than that in the log chart. Here, in either scale, the rate of change is constant over time. Differentiating the temperature conversion formula, we find that the slope of the Fahrenheit line is always 9/5*the slope of the Celsius line. So a rate of 10 Celsius per unit time corresponds to 18 Fahrenheit per unit time.

What if the chart is presented with only the Fahrenheit axis labels although it is built using Celsius data? Since readers only see the F labels, the observed slope is in Fahrenheit units. Meanwhile, the chart creator uses Celsius units. This discrepancy is harmless for the temperature chart but it is egregious for the log chart. The underlying reason is the nonlinearity of the log transform - the slope of log Y vs time is not proportional to the slope of Y vs time; in fact, it depends on the value of Y.  

***

The log chart is a sacred cow of scientists, a symbol of our sophistication. Are they as potent as we'd think? In particular, when we put original data values on the log chart, are we making it more intepretable, or less?

 

P.S. I want to tie this discussion back to my Trifecta Checkup framework. The design decision to substitute those axis labels is an example of an act that moves the visual (V) away from the data (D). If the log units were printed, the visual makes sense; when the original units were dropped in, the visual no longer conveys features of the data - the reader must ignore what the eyes are seeing, and focus instead on the brain's perspective.

Logging a sleight of hand

Andrew puts up an interesting chart submitted by one of his readers (link):

Bruce Knuteson who created this chart is pursuing a theory that there is some fishy going on in the stock markets over night (i.e. between the close of one day and the open of the next day). He split the price data into two interleaving parts: the blue line represents returns overnight and the green line represents returns intraday (from open of one day to the close of the same day). In this example related to Tesla's stock, the overnight "return" is an eyepopping 36850% while the intraday "return" is -46%.

This is an example of an average masking interesting details in the data. One typically looks at the entire sequence of values at once, while this analysis breaks it up into two subsequences. I'll write more about the data analysis at a later point. This post will be purely about the visualization.

***

It turns out that while the chart looks like a standard time series, it isn't. Bruce wrote out the following essential explanation:

The chart can't be interpreted without first reading this note.

The left chart (a) is the standard time-series chart we're thinking about. It plots the relative cumulative percentage change in the value of the investment over time. Imagine one buys $1 of Apple stock on day 1. It shows the cumulative return on day X, expressed as a percent relative to the initial investment amount. As mentioned above, the data series was split into two: the intraday return series (green) is dwarfed by the overnight return series (blue), and is barely visiable hugging the horizontal axis.

Almost without thinking, a graphics designer applies a log transform to the vertical axis. This has the effect of "taming" the extreme values in the blue line. This is the key design change in the middle chart (b). The other change is to switch back to absolute values. The day 1 number is now $1 so the day X number shows the cumulative value of the investment on day X if one started with $1 on day 1.

There's a reason why I emphasized the log transform over the switch to absolute values. That's because the relationship between absolute and relative values here is a linear one. If y(t) is the absolute cumulative value of $1 at time t, then the percent change r(t) = 100(y(t) -1). (Note that y(0) = 1 by definition.)  The shape of the middle chart is primarily conditioned by the log transform.

In the right chart (c), which is the design that Bruce features in all his work, the visual elements of chart (b) are retained while he replaced the vertical axis labels with those from chart (a). In other words, the lines show the cumulative absolute values while the labels show the relative cumulative percent returns.

I left this note on Gelman's blog (corrected a mislabeling of the chart indices):

I'm interested in the the sleight of hand related to the plots, also tying this back to the recent post about log scales. In plot (b) (a) [middle of the panel], he transformed the data to show the cumulative value of the investment assuming one puts $1 in the stock on day 1. He applied a log scale on the vertical axis. This is fine. Then in plot (c) (b), he retained the chart but changed the vertical axis labels so instead of absolute value of the investment, he shows percent changes relative to the initial value.

Why didn't he just plot the relative percent changes? Let y(t) be the absolute values and r(t) = the percent change = 100*(y(t) -1) is a simple linear transformation of y(t). This is where the log transform creates problems! The y(t) series is guaranteed to be positive since hitting y(t) = 0 means the entire investment is lost. However, the r(t) series can hit negative values and also cross over zero many times over time. Thus, log r(t) is inoperable. The problem is using the log transform for data that are not always positive, and the sleight of hand does not fix it!

Just pick any day in which the absolute return fell below $1, e.g. the last day of the plot in which the absolute value of the investment was down to $0.80. In the middle plot (b), the value depicted is ln(0.8) = -0.22. Note that the plot is in log scale, so what is labeled as $1 is really ln(1) = 0. If we instead try to plot the relative percent changes, then the day 1 number should be ln(0) which is undefined while the last number should be ln(-20%) which is also undefined.

This is another example of something umcomfortable about using log scales which I pointed out in this post. It's this idea that when we do log plots, we can freely substitute axis labels which are not directly proportional to the actual labels. It's plotting one thing, and labelling it something else. These labels are then disconnected from the visual encoding. It's against the goal of visualizing data.

 

The message left the visual

The following chart showed up in Princeton Alumni Weekly, in a report about China's population:

This chart was one of several that appeared in a related Scientific American article.

The story itself is not surprising. As China develops, its birth rate declines, while the death rate also falls, thus, the population ages. The same story has played out in all advanced economies.

***

From a Trifecta Checkup perspective, this chart suffers from several problems.

The text annotation on the top right suggests what message the authors intended to deliver. Pointing to the group of people aged between 30 and 59 in 2020, they remarked that this large cohort would likely cause "a crisis" when they age. There would be fewer youngsters to support them.

Unfortunately, the data and visual elements of the chart do not align with this message. Instead of looking forward in time, the chart compares the 2020 population pyramid with that from 1980, looking back 40 years. The chart shows an insight from the data, just not the right one.

A major feature of a population pyramid is the split by gender. The trouble is gender isn't part of the story here.

In terms of age groups, the chart treats each subgroup "fairly". As a result, the reader isn't shown which of the 22 subgroups to focus on. There are really 44 subgroups if we count each gender separately, and 88 subgroups if we include the year split.

***

The following redesign traces the "crisis" subgroup (those who were 30-59 in 2020) both backwards and forwards.

The gender split has been removed; here, the columns show the total population. Color is used to focus attention to one cohort as it moves through time.

Notice I switched up the sample times. I pulled the population data for 1990 and 2060 (from this website). The original design used the population data from 1980 instead of 1990. However, this choice is at odds with the message. People who were 30 in 2020 were not yet born in 1980! They started showing up in the 1990 dataset.

At the other end of the "crisis" cohort, the oldest (59 year old in 2020) would have deceased by 2100 as 59+80 = 139. Even the youngest (30 in 2020) would be 110 by 2100 so almost everyone in the pink section of the 2020 chart would have fallen off the right side of the chart by 2100.

These design decisions insert a gap between the visual and the message.