![\"\"](\"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/vwxynot\/files\/2011\/10\/graph2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nDoesn’t the second version give you a much better sense of the relative effectiveness of the two test compounds? The original took me too long to decipher, and required what I thought was far too much on-screen text to label the various data points; this meant that I missed much of what the presenter was saying as I tried to figure out what the data<\/em> were saying.<\/p>\n On a similar note I’ve also seen people present multiple Western blot panels (for four different conditions, sampled at the same time points) side-by-side, with separate (but identical) time point labels across the top of each one, instead of stacking them one under the other. Again, I would have found it much easier to compare the effects of the different variables if the latter approach had been used.<\/p>\n The second example (from a different person) is less clear-cut, I think, as the original version (on the left, again with fictional data) is just as informative as my version (on the right):<\/p>\n However, I think a bar chart is preferable in this case; the line chart is reminiscent of a dose-response curve, which this most certainly is not.<\/p>\n Were you taught which graphs to use, or did you just figure it out for yourself?<\/p>\n Does anyone know of any good resources to which I could direct any future offenders?<\/p>\n extrapolate to derive the coefficient of patheticness!<\/p><\/div>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n *any grammatical errors in this post are, of course, intentional.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Were you ever explicitly taught which graphs to use to represent different types of scientific data? I remember some very basic lessons on this subject in high school maths (and possibly biology), but once I reached university it was never … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>