The Copenhagen series resets completely in 2003, with no bridge data, and the notes say "new methodology adopted." Without overlap data, there's no way to establish whether the new series is at the same level or offset by a constant. Should we flag this as a comparability break, or do we have bridge-year data somewhere else?
the legend reads double-counted.
Can we use consistent units throughout? See /u/plg_altan_undomiel/p/plot-0029.
Same conclusion here.
Consider rotating the labels 45 degrees.
Yep.
This aligns with what I expected.
Echoes the behavior during the last resize.
Agreed.
What's the methodology for "active"?
Linnea Choi Perhaps naïve, but: would rotating the entire view 90° make the trends easier to read, or are we constrained by how it renders on mobile and in print?
Context for anyone new: internet penetration is only comparable index-linked.
Correcting myself: unemployment is in absolute terms, so the comparison holds.
This aligns with what I expected.
Can we label the colour scale? Hard to read otherwise.
Worth noting Benelux and Poland are not measured the same way over the back half of the series.
Good catch.
unemployment here is stale; it should be in absolute terms. (edited to fix a unit)
Scale is off.