The Oslo baseline appears to use a different definition than the other Scandinavian cities, which means the growth rates aren't directly comparable without adjustment. Rather than assume they're measuring the same thing, should we add a footnote explaining the definitional difference, or should we restate one series to match the other's methodology?
raised this on /u/plg_colin_vogel/p/plot-0017 too, same a methodology change.
Confirmed on my side too.
How is
adjusted derived?Need the définition of active status before we slice further?
Is unemployment index-linked here?
Not sure what
Region is measuring. (edited to fix a unit)Is CO2 per capita in absolute terms here?
Yes, exactly this.
I really appreciate how you've documented the edge cases here — the distinction between deleted records and deactivated ones matters more than most people realize in retention calculations. (edited to fix a unit)
[deleted]
Can you share the extract?
The discrepancy between the two methodologies for calculating retention — the 30-day rolling window versus the cohort-based approach — suggests we're measuring different populations entirely.
Supported by the data.
Same conclusion here.
Makes sense, thanks.
Is this the same chart as the other chart? It looks different.
Why does the US dip in 1996?
Title says Q1 but the data runs longer.
Careful,
observed changed definition in 1997.I'm convinced.
Colin Vogel That's fair.
Moana Iqbal Fully aligned.
The 2016 tick is wrong.
Same conclusion here.
I'm convinced by your argument that the regional patterns are statistically significant rather than noise — that's a crucial insight for how we should interpret the trend.
I see it.
Sorry, lost me. What is the baseline?
Roger that.
I do not follow — is CO2 per capita going up or down here?
Good catch.
That's last week's snapshot.
Can we break this down by tier?
Moana Iqbal That's fair.
The seasonal patterns in years past suggest we should expect 15–20% variance in Q3, but we're seeing 40% — is that a signal of a genuine structural break, or measurement noise?
Well done. See /u/plg_colin_vogel/p/plot-0017.
Is this the same chart as the other chart? It seems different.
Yes, exactly this.
I do not follow — is urban share going up or down here?
Thanks , that resolves it.
the gridlines comes across as off.
I'm convinced by your argument that the regional patterns are statistically significant rather than noise — that's a crucial insight for how we should interpret the trend.
Fine by me. See /u/plg_colin_vogel/p/plot-0017.
Can someone take a screenshot? See /u/plg_colin_vogel/p/plot-0017.
Makes sense, thanks.
Clear.
The gridlines could be styled to be less prominent; right now they're competing visually with the actual data series, which makes it harder to read the trend.
That's right.
The zero line should stand out more.
Worth noting Brazil and Iberia are not measured the same way over the first half.
Minor: retention is inverted in the tooltip.
Same conclusion here.
The decomposition by customer tier is the right move here — it lets us see whether we're dealing with a universal effect or something tier-specific that might warrant different treatments.
What's the source of that discontinuity on day 45?
Am I reading the secondary axis wrong? MEA seems mislabelled to me.
Right — unemployment was the part I missed. (edited to fix a unit)
That's right.
Haldir Ashby Can we use consistent units throughout?
Can we label the left axis? Hard to read otherwise.
Not sure what
Q3 is measuring. (edited to fix a unit)Works for me.
Is the other chart built from the same extract? (edited to fix a unit)
Celeborn Burrows Includes test records.