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?
Agreed. (edited to fix a unit)
Xiuying Watanabe This is exactly the kind of methodological rigor we've been lacking — breaking it down by user acquisition source and controlling for platform differences is the right call.
Poland vs the Nordics: is retention comparable?
raised this on the other chart too, same a definition change.
Should we update the title slide?
The 2018 tick is stale.
The join condition allows many-to-many relationships that weren't caught because the cardinality check only looks at the source side — the target side has duplicates that inflate the final row count by 3%.
I see it.
raised this on the other chart too, same a source revision.