AMD's Stock Price Skyrockets 52% in a Single Day

[xentropa]

Linearly labeled Y axis is not biased.

 

The offset can also be justified to show the major increase relative to the usual stock price fluctuation.

 

This is biased.

 

 

No labeled Y axis.  Doesn't even need a bar graph if they are going to show the numbers.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Re-read the Wikipedia article you posted before. and Google "AMD stock price"

what's your point? the graph is still biased

1 minute ago, JefferyD90 said:

Regardless, you're acting like AMD's stock prices didn't soar.  50%+ in one day is UNHEARD OF for a company that has been publicly trading as long as AMD has been.

when you have numbers that small, it doesn't take much to cause a 0.5 increase

 

sure its a good start, but take a look how far they have to go

 

my point wasn't that this isnt a good thing, my point was that the graph is not an accurate representation of the data

 

although it appears to me that not that many people here learnt how to tell when something is misleading or not ...

[CommandMan7]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Maybe you don't undertsand the fact that graphs are supposed to be visual representations of data? Or maybe your elementary school taught you wrong...

 

Look, I can make biased graphs too!

Yeah no, this is called a biased graph.

 

I see it's hard for you to comprehend the difference between biased and incorrect...if the axis was 0 to 2.7 then this graph would be incorrect.

But it's not, so it is a correct misleading graph.

 

When you go into marketing you will learn about all kinds of strategies like this to convince people with misleading images. But for now, keep trying, and eventually you will understand the difference between a biased and a non-biased graph.

 

 

 

Here, have some practice, see if you can get better at realizing when a graph is biased or not:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

answers:

  Reveal hidden contents

OBVIOUSLY yes

yes

no

yes

 

So, in your biased graph, I look at it, and see that the price has dropped about 8 cents, or ~3%. That's not massive. 

 

If you're not supposed to read the axis to figure out the scale, then why is it even included? It seems like what you're advocating is that everyone should always assume graphs start at zero and not include labeled axis, which for practical reasons, is ridiculous.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Enderman said:

You take the minimum, then divide the maximum by the height of the minimum

i estimate its about 5x higher at the peak, just by eye

definitely a bad graphical representation

You.....really are making yourself look foolish:

Spoiler

 

Long story short, are you trying to claim that Google is auto-generating biased graphs? On a company that they have no need to give 2 shits about?

[CommandMan7]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

although it appears to me that not that many people here learnt how to tell when something is misleading or not ...

Or maybe you're just very easily misled. Everyone else can read the graph just fine.

[micko12400]

48 minutes ago, Agent181 said:

oh well, at least they are making some money which might get them to do better products if they can ever do that

just because a company has more money doesn't mean better product..... 

[JefferyD90]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

what's your point? the graph is still biased

when you have numbers that small, it doesn't take much to cause a 0.5 increase

 

sure its a good start, but take a look how far they have to go

 

my point wasn't that this isnt a good thing, my point was that the graph is not an accurate representation of the data

 

although it appears to me that not that many people here learnt how to tell when something is misleading or not ...

You do realize that over the last 18 months AMD's stock price has went up 16 of the 18 months right?

 

Do you really think that AMD isn't worth 3.99 per share (what they closed at today)?

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

So, in your biased graph, I look at it, and see that the price has dropped about 8 cents, or ~3%. That's not massive. 

 

If you're not supposed to read the axis to figure out the scale, then why is it even included? It seems like what you're advocating is that everyone should always assume graphs start at zero and not include labeled axis, which for practical reasons, is ridiculous.

Holy crap!

The word misleading is so difficult for you to understand!

http://www.statisticshowto.com/misleading-graphs/

 

If people just looked at numbers then graphs wouldnt exist!

The point of graphs is to make an accurate visual representation that you can look at without reading numbers and be able to compare or see if data is significant!

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

Or maybe you're just very easily misled. Everyone else can read the graph just fine.

You clearly have never seen how smart the average person on this planet is...

 

I never said this graph was misleading to me, I said the graph is misleading in itself

The point of a graph is to see data without something like this

Which the average person cannot understand

[CommandMan7]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

You clearly have never seen how smart the average person on this planet is...

 

I never said this graph was misleading to me, I said the graph is misleading in itself

The point of a graph is to see data without something like this

Which the average person cannot understand

There, I took your advice and edited the graph to be less misleading by removing all the numbers, seeing how they're so unnecessary. 

 

[atrash]

Should've used a pie chart instead. No arguing about that... /s

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

You clearly have never seen how smart the average person on this planet is...

 

I never said this graph was misleading to me, I said the graph is misleading in itself

The point of a graph is to see data without something like this

Which the average person cannot understand

What you can't understand is that your are making yourself look very foolish as you don't seem capable (again) of doing a basic facts check:

8 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

You.....really are making yourself look foolish:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Long story short, are you trying to claim that Google is auto-generating biased graphs? On a company that they have no need to give 2 shits about?

 

[micko12400]

1 hour ago, CommandMan7 said:

 

Damn... 52% in a single day. AMD's market capitalization has gained $190,000,000. What could possibly cause such an event? 

 

 

Earlier today, AMD had announced a deal to license server chip designs to Chinese company Tianjin Haiguang Advanced Technology Investment. This single deal alone is expected to bring AMD over $300,000,000. AMD also announced 3 new semi-custom design contracts, with all three having a combined value of $1,500,000,000. These contracts are most likely the console refreshes from Microsoft and Sony in addition to Nintendo's next console. These new contracts have one important impact:

 

AMD IS GOING TO BE PROFITABLE AGAIN!

 

In a single day, AMD raised its value $190 million, as well as announcing contracts worth a combined $1.7 BILLION dollars. This has been the best day, ever, for AMD since their public listing in 1979.

 

And this is all before Zen nor Polaris have launched. When that happens, AMD will be even better off.

 

Opinion:

I... don't know what to say. This hasn't happened before... ever. I do know, however, that this is amazing, amazing, news for anybody who values competition. 

 

Sources:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/04/22/investors-pump-up-amd-stock-despite-continued.html?ana=yahoo

http://wccftech.com/amd-stock-52-highest-percentage-gain-listing/

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMD

This i most likely to new product release. this always happens when companys release new product to sell that people will actually buy

[JefferyD90]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You clearly have never seen how smart the average person on this planet is...

 

I never said this graph was misleading to me, I said the graph is misleading in itself

The point of a graph is to see significant differences without something like this

Which the average person cannot understand

So here is the thing Enderman... I know you, I've seen you, you do some good work.  But you have like 3 people telling you that your statement isn't needed here...  Like the graph isn't misinforming anyone, only uneducated people are misreading it.  In which case, their elementary schools didn't teach them how to read graphs.

 

This is positive news for the whole Tech Community.  Lets not be a Debbie downer.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

19 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You take the minimum, then divide the maximum by the height of the minimum

i estimate its about 5x higher at the peak, just by eye

definitely a bad graphical representation

 

I assume that is without taking the x and y axis into consideration? 

 

Just by looking at the gradient itself I can see where you're coming from. Its quite a steep increase. But to call it bias is head scratching, because... 

 

1. Google can't possibly be bias toward AMD. I mean com'on. 

2. Its very likely that the graph is computer generated. 

 

To call something bias, it has to have the intention of being bias. And its very easily seen all those AMD vs Nvidia graphs by bias vendors. If anything the graph is just a lazy visual representation of the AMD's stock. 

 

 

[Enderman]

7 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

What you can't understand is that your are making yourself look very foolish as you don't seem capable (again) of doing a basic facts check:

 

7 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

There, I took your advice and edited the graph to be less misleading by removing all the numbers, seeing how they're so unnecessary. 

 

It's not foolish, it's a fact that the graph is misleading

But yeah, your school definitely didn't teach you about misleading graph strategies.

Honestly you should go learn about it, because it's very important to know when you're being mislead.

 

https://www.baekdal.com/insights/misleading-types-of-graphs-for-the-media

http://www.iacquire.com/blog/5-ways-to-avoid-being-fooled-by-statistics

 

It's obvious that you two are "smart enough" to read the numbers, but regular people don't do this. Go to your grandmother or parents and show them a graph like this and they will think its a huge increase

Spoiler

That's why graphs like this are a problem

Because a graph is supposed to show you unbiased data that you can read without doing math

And when you show a graph to millions of people on the internet, most of them do not look at the numbers

 

This is why biased graphs are such a good marketing strategy.

[Enderman]

6 minutes ago, JefferyD90 said:

So here is the thing Enderman... I know you, I've seen you, you do some good work.  But you have like 3 people telling you that your statement isn't needed here...  Like the graph isn't misinforming anyone, only uneducated people are misreading it.  In which case, their elementary schools didn't teach them how to read graphs.

 

This is positive news for the whole Tech Community.  Lets not be a Debbie downer.

Yup, but you can't forget that that graph was posted to millions of people on the internet.

And a huge percentage of those people will not do the math and figure out that its actually just a 0.5 increase, which the graph does not look like at all

It's not too important for just a graph about AMD stocks, but people need to learn because pretty much everything else in life is biased in some way, and you need to be able to see when you are being mislead

 

5 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

I assume that is without taking the x and y axis into consideration? 

 

Just by looking at the gradient itself I can see where you're coming from. Its quite a steep increase. But to call it bias is head scratching, because... 

 

1. Google can't possibly be bias toward AMD. I mean com'on. 

2. Its very likely that the graph is computer generated. 

 

To call something bias, it has to have the intention of being bias. And its very easily seen all those AMD vs Nvidia graphs by bias vendors. If anything the graph is just a lazy visual representation of the AMD's stock. 

 

 

Yes the graph is set to auto adjust on the view range, it is not set to scale from 0

Posting a graph like this to millions of people who do not understand stocks is why it is considered a misleading graph

The visual increase of the graph (which @CommandMan7 usefully posted earlier) does not represent a 50% increase

 

[JefferyD90]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Yup, but you can't forget that that graph was posted to millions of people on the internet.

And a huge percentage of those people will not do the math and figure out that its actually just a 0.5 increase, which the graph does not look like at all

It's not too important for just a graph about AMD stocks, but people need to learn because pretty much everything else in life is biased in some way, and you need to be able to see when you are being mislead

 

Yes the graph is set to auto adjust on the view range, it is not set to scale from 0

Posting a graph like this to millions of people who do not understand stocks is why it is considered a misleading graph

The visual increase of the graph (which @CommandMan7 usefully posted earlier) does not represent a 50% increase

 

I'm not saying your argument is unjust.  Personally I (semi) agree with you.  Its just this post doesn't belong here.  You should have spent this time emailing Google, Microsoft (for Bing), Yahoo, CNN, NBC (which I guess is Microsoft too), and all of these other people.  This just isn't the thread for it.

[CommandMan7]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

 

It's not foolish, it's a fact that the graph is misleading

But yeah, your school definitely didn't teach you about misleading graph strategies.

Honestly you should go learn about it, because it's very important to know when you're being mislead.

 

https://www.baekdal.com/insights/misleading-types-of-graphs-for-the-media

http://www.iacquire.com/blog/5-ways-to-avoid-being-fooled-by-statistics

 

It's obvious that you two are "smart enough" to read the numbers, but regular people don't do this. Go show your grandmother and show her a graph like this and she will think its a huge increase

  Reveal hidden contents

That's why graphs like this are a problem

Because a graph is supposed to show you unbiased data that you can read without doing math

And when you show a graph to millions of people on the internet, most of them do not look at the numbers

 

This is why biased graphs are such a good marketing strategy.

It doesn't matter what "most of them" do. If people can't read data that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES then that's their fault, not the graph's. I can't make people read the graph. It's their choice to be ignorant, not mine. Just because someone won't spend the 2 seconds it takes to understand the graph shouldn't mean I have to forgo trunicated graphs and waste a bunch of white space.

 

I don't understand how giving people a linearly labeled and accurate graph can be bias.

[cesrai]

 

 

---

Good for them I guess let's see how long it takes before it falls again.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

It's not foolish, it's a fact that the graph is misleading

But yeah, your school definitely didn't teach you about misleading graph strategies.

Honestly you should go learn about it, because it's very important to know when you're being mislead.

 

https://www.baekdal.com/insights/misleading-types-of-graphs-for-the-media

http://www.iacquire.com/blog/5-ways-to-avoid-being-fooled-by-statistics

 

It's obvious that you two are "smart enough" to read the numbers, but regular people don't do this. Go to your grandmother or parents and show them a graph like this and they will think its a huge increase

  Reveal hidden contents

That's why graphs like this are a problem

Because a graph is supposed to show you unbiased data that you can read without doing math

And when you show a graph to millions of people on the internet, most of them do not look at the numbers

 

This is why biased graphs are such a good marketing strategy.

Your not getting the fact that the OP only has the graph from the last month, which therefore only shows the relevant numbers on the Y Axis, and the date on the X axis. Its a close up of the relevant section of the full graph which goes from when AMD first went up on the stock market to present. What part about that don't you understand? It only appears misleading because its the stock value over the last month. It is not at all however when you look at the previous SS that I posted, and despite AMD's actual stock price being so low, a 50% increase from any value has never been done before in 1 day.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, JefferyD90 said:

I'm not saying your argument is unjust.  Personally I (semi) agree with you.  Its just this post doesn't belong here.  You should have spent this time emailing Google, Microsoft (for Bing), Yahoo, CNN, NBC (which I guess is Microsoft too), and all of these other people.  This just isn't the thread for it.

you know that thousands of people read threads on LTT right? even though they dont comment or arent registered users

I bet at least some people will learn something about biased graphs  

 

1 minute ago, CommandMan7 said:

It doesn't matter what "most of them" do. If people can't read data that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES then that's their fault, not the graph's. I can't make people read the graph. It's their choice to be ignorant, not mine. Just because someone won't spend the 2 seconds it takes to understand the graph shouldn't mean I have to forgo trunicated graphs and waste a bunch of white space.

 

I don't understand how giving people a linearly labeled and accurate graph can be bias.

the point of graphs is to make data digestible to people like that who arent very intelligent

 

or maybe LTT should just always post benchmarks like this

It's a linearly scaled and accurate graph RIGHT??

LOL you're hilarious

[cesrai]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Your not getting the fact that the OP only has the graph from the last month, which therefore only shows the relevant numbers on the Y Axis, and the date on the X axis. Its a close up of the relevant section of the full graph which goes from when AMD first went up on the stock market to present. What part about that don't you understand? It only appears misleading because its the stock value over the last month. It is not at all however when you look at the previous SS that I posted, and despite AMD's actual stock price being so low, a 50% increase from any value has never been done before in 1 day.

What I understand and from reading the wiki article is that the increase doesn't represent a 50% increase.

[CommandMan7]

7 minutes ago, Enderman said:

And a huge percentage of those people will not do the math and figure out that its actually just a 0.5 increase, which the graph does not look like at all

Well, then maybe they'd figure out that it's a 0.5 increase from time i mentioned it in the title, twice in the text, and once literally inside the graph. If they can't figure out that it's a 0.5 increase after being told that 4 times, then I don't think there's much hope for them to ever understand it.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

40 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You take the minimum, then divide the maximum by the height of the minimum

i estimate its about 5x higher at the peak, just by eye

definitely a bad graphical representation

 

No one said it was good or accurate. Everyone is just extremely puzzled by how you could interpreted the graph to be "bias". 

 

Edit: Great, qoutes are broken again.