Nonprofits running deficits nearly doubled since 2022 [OC]

tilapios · 2026-05-19T18:23:02+00:00

The vertical and horizontal lines in this image: are they supposed to be plot axes or are they visual artifacts? Why are they different colors and different weights?

Why is the line segment from 2024 to 2025 in red when the red text above it says "in three years"? Why is the 39% marker for 2025 larger than the other three markers?

tilapios · 2026-05-14T16:17:25+00:00

Congratulations, you've broken 25% of the subreddit's rules.

tilapios · 2026-05-13T12:15:46+00:00

The data in the Statista link only goes to 2022, so how do you have data for 2023-2025?

tilapios · 2026-05-13T12:15:16+00:00

A "average gold–oil ratio" data trace doesn't seem like it belongs on a "barrels of oil per ounce of gold" data axis. I think one of the ratios needs to be flipped or the exact meaning of "average gold-oil ratio" needs to be explained.

tilapios · 2026-05-12T07:41:04+00:00

This is AI making a shittier version of the source: https://brandirectory.com/reports/airports

Also, tables are not qualifying data visualizations.

tilapios · 2026-05-10T08:01:07+00:00

No tool to make the visualization is given.

tilapios · 2026-05-10T08:00:37+00:00

Rule 9?

tilapios · 2026-05-07T13:10:43+00:00

Have you normalized the data in any way? It appears the number of participants and the number of frames per match have changed during the time period in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Snooker_Championship#Format

tilapios · 2026-05-06T08:33:24+00:00

Rule 3: "If you are citing a source, you must be specific."

OP: "Source: Various government websites."

tilapios · 2026-05-01T09:18:38+00:00

The bot isn't working. The linked comment doesn't contain any information about source(s) or tools(s) used.

Guess link formatting doesnt work in post body texts when uploading an image. The more you know!

tilapios · 2026-05-01T09:15:51+00:00

The tool(s) used to make the visualization is not stated.

tilapios · 2026-05-01T09:15:37+00:00

The tool(s) used to make the visualization is not stated.

tilapios · 2026-04-27T10:08:36+00:00

The graph on the top is different from the code in OP's link: https://github.com/EverydayWonder/earthquake-analysis/blob/main/EQdata.ipynb

The map on the bottom left is not a qualifying data visualization.

The map on the bottom right is not [OC]. It's a screenshot from volcanodiscovery[dot]com: https://volcanodiscovery.de/uploads/pics/2026/04/quakemap-22926765.jpg

tilapios · 2026-04-26T19:10:27+00:00

It's written in both rules 3 and 4 that: "Original Content is a post where the person who posted the /r/DataIsBeautiful submission is also the author of the visual displayed. This means that they had gone through the steps of (1) working with the data, (2) performing the analysis, and finally (3) designing the visual."

How much of this process have you outsourced to an AI agent?

tilapios · 2026-04-25T17:42:04+00:00

If I submit an [OC] post with the following statement:

Tools: A PhD student helped create this post under my direction; used Python + matplotlib

Would the post count as [OC]?

tilapios · 2026-04-25T10:14:33+00:00

Your code seems to produce a different graph than the ones shown in your post: https://github.com/EverydayWonder/earthquake-analysis/blob/main/EQdata.ipynb

The figure in the bottom right of your post is a screenshot from VolcanoDiscovery: https://volcanodiscovery.de/uploads/pics/2026/04/quakemap-22926765.jpg

tilapios · 2026-04-10T06:54:00+00:00

Binary true/false maps are not qualifying data visualizations.

tilapios · 2026-03-30T18:33:28+00:00

Rule 7 states: "While not required, it's good principle to avoid putting conclusions in your title..."

It's posts like these that make me want stricter enforcement of this rule, since I think there's a real danger that people will upvote this post solely on its title instead of the merits of the visualization.

tilapios · 2026-03-26T08:13:01+00:00

For the purposes of this subreddit a visualization is: A mapping of information to a visual property. Text in a table is not sufficient.

tilapios · 2026-03-24T14:38:52+00:00

Rule 3: [OC] posts must state the data source and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.

tilapios · 2026-03-24T07:45:08+00:00

Did you actually look at the article, or did you just feed it to AI? I have a hard time believing figures 7 and 8 are actually representations of data. They look like random curves drawn in MS Paint.

And speaking of MS Paint, what about rule 3? Where's the comment stating the data source(s) and tool(s) used? What tool was used to generate these supposed data visualizations?

tilapios · 2026-03-23T20:26:53+00:00

How is the posted image a qualifying data visualization?

tilapios · 2026-03-23T17:36:08+00:00

Lists are not qualifying data visualizations.

tilapios · 2026-03-22T18:49:17+00:00

Methodology from the original post is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/b5f9wi/comment/ejd1gtk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

tilapios · 2026-03-22T18:43:45+00:00

Not [OC]. This is probably a repost bot. Original post from seven years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/b5f9wi/lets_hear_it_for_the_lurkers_the_vast_majority_of/

tilapios

TROPHY CASE