Snowfall variability
PublicIngrid Boone(@plg_ingrid_boone)1w ago
2
0
0
not following
Conversations (1)
Rohan Congar Looking at the São Paulo data alongside Brasília and Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo's growth rate is consistently 3-4 percentage points higher than the other major cities over the 15-year period. This persistent divergence is too large to be noise, but I can't find a documented explanation. Should we investigate whether São Paulo uses a different methodology?
Melaine Novak The way you've structured the lookback window to exclude the migration period is clever — it gives us clean apples-to-apples comparisons without having to build a manual adjustment factor.
Is retention in constant terms here?
Related to the ongoing optimization.
I'd agree with this direction.
I had this wrong earlier. Norway is fine; it was
value that was clipped.Should energy use be per capita for this comparison to mean anything?
Is this the same chart as the other chart? It comes across as different.
Good work.
Careful,
Region changed definition in 1997.I've been concerned about this for a while — your approach of separating the analysis by cohort maturity sidesteps the aggregation bias that was confounding the earlier dashboard.
Consider a different color scheme. See /u/plg_ingrid_boone/p/plot-0000.
Good catch.
This is accurate.
The annotation font is hard to read.
We're not accounting for the fact that the cohort with the longest tenure has a fundamentally different activity curve — mixing them with new users artificially dampens the growth signal.
Which source is
raw_metric coming from?Supported by the data.
Mira Ajam Fine by me.
Are there known data gaps?
This would be clearer as a table.
This aligns with what I expected.
Title says Q1 but the data runs longer.
Rohan Congar Are we double-counting within the funnel where users interact with both paths, or does the attribution model already handle that deduplication correctly?
This is much clearer, thanks.
Noted.
Nice — the Q1 view helps.
Melaine Novak Excellent presentation. See /u/plg_ingrid_boone/p/plot-0000.
Units?
This is much clearer, thanks.
Context for anyone new: unemployment is only comparable in absolute terms.
The 2009 break is a coverage gap — it shows up in every series from that source.
How is
value derived?Works for me.
That's fair.
the left axis comes across as off.
Clear.
The units are missing from the gridlines.
Is this the same chart as the other chart? It looks different.
Same conclusion here.
Good catch. (edited to fix a unit)
Does the chart include partial weeks?
Context for anyone new: urban share is only comparable as a share of total.
the gridlines starts at zero for one series and not the other.