Toms hardware's twitter is trying to trick users

[GDRRiley]

someones going to make intel's slides look great.  

[Canada EH]

7 hours ago, Shally said:

Notice

Probably a paid advertisement that is not disclosed to the viewers.

[Guest]

Speaking of Vapour chamber, how cool would it be for a phone case with a vape built in?

 

[EDIT] nvm they already make them this is the future i've been waiting for

[RejZoR]

Anyone remembers those NVIDIA graphs with insane scaling?

[sof006]

This looks like the kind of graph that Nvidia would use during a press event. Lol.

[LAwLz]

This thread reminds me of when LinusTechTips used misleading graphs (link here). I find it interesting how these two threads got fairly different reactions, with everyone in this one basically agreeing that the graphs are misleading and bad, while in the LTT thread a lot of people were blaming the users for not looking carefully enough to not be fooled.

 

These are some of the responses to that thread:

 

On 8/14/2017 at 5:03 PM, The Belgian Waffle said:

So.. You are basically telling me that you cannot read a graph that doesn't start at (x;y)=(0;0)?

 

On 8/14/2017 at 9:18 PM, Atmos said:

Why is this a debate? 

LTT aren't attempting to show the exact full measurement of a given data point, that's not what they're using graphs for. they use them to visualize a difference in a quick, time efficient way. often the difference in bars on graphs with starting points at 0.0 in this particular context would be so small that the user wouldn't be able to determine a difference without pausing to study the graph, or without making the graph exceptionally long and narrow, only making it even harder to read from a normal sitting distance on a computer screen. 

 

There is nothing wrong with their use of graphs, they are designed with a particular use in mind, and work in the given context. Incorrect scaling on the other hand is an entirely different point. 

 

On 8/14/2017 at 11:15 PM, AshleyAshes said:

The first one if only misleading if you're too stupid to look at the actual numbers.

 

On 8/14/2017 at 11:39 PM, suits said:

I guess whatever floats your boat. As a consumer you should know how to read graphs that are important to you, when I see a benchmark that I am actually interested in I pause and look at the numbers, everything else I want just a glance of what's best, which is where these graphs shine, if they aren't set up that way you can't tell the difference between anything. 

 

On 8/15/2017 at 3:01 AM, Godlygamer23 said:

It simply makes the differences more obvious, and if you keep within the context of the graph, you are left with a more accurate picture. For people just looking at the graphs without considering the data contained within, yeah it can be a problem, but people shouldn't be doing that, and should be ensuring they're getting all the proper information from a source before coming to a conclusion.

 

LMG has done nothing wrong here. I would argue that the second graph you showed is more misleading because it makes it seem like they're all the same when they're not. A truly accurate depiction of something won't try to hide subtle differences as your second graph tries to do.

 

On 8/15/2017 at 4:02 AM, CoolMarquis97 said:

Isn't the simple answer just because the misleading graphs looks a lot more appealing and is able to show viewers the difference they want to see between products rather than having a more boring graph in which viewers are going to assume that there truly is no difference between the products. 

 

On 8/16/2017 at 12:50 AM, Godlygamer23 said:

They're not misleading graphs though - the only person being mislead is the viewer that doesn't take into account the values for the graphs. The information may very well be fully accurate.  

 

On 8/16/2017 at 1:08 AM, Sauron said:

The graphs are correct as long as the values on the y axis are correct. I think we should take the time to read 5 numbers on a graph if we really care about what is being analyzed.

Honestly if you're not going to read the numbers, especially when it comes to framerate, this information is completely useless - if something is twice as fast as something else it could be doing 120fps against 60 or 2fps against 1, which I would argue makes quite a bit of a difference. On top of that you're asking for the graph to be clear at first sight and then you complain when the graph is zoomed in to show the difference better... the "data" here are the numbers, not the graph. Ideally, the editor tries to keep the interval as balanced as possible between being able to tell the difference easily and not going too far with it.

 

[Atmos]

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This thread reminds me of when LinusTechTips used misleading graphs (link here). I find it interesting how these two threads got fairly different reactions, with everyone in this one basically agreeing that the graphs are misleading and bad, while in the LTT thread a lot of people were blaming the users for not looking carefully enough to not be fooled.

 

These are some of the responses to that thread:

 

Damn lol, you quoted me from more than a year ago, quite the memory on you.

I stand by what I said then just as much as what I'm about to say now.

 

If you can't read the numbers in the graph, that's your fault. Is it in this particular case being somewhat misleading? Yes, it is, if you don't read the numbers at all, however, I'm not going to blame people for not reading numbers anymore. I've grown far too nihilistic in the last few years to expect people to do even that much.

 

EDIT, i also believe entirely what I said at the time, still applies to this given situation.

spoiler for what I said on it then, and stand by now.

Spoiler

  On 8/14/2017 at 12:18 PM, Atmos said:

Why is this a debate? 

LTT aren't attempting to show the exact full measurement of a given data point, that's not what they're using graphs for. they use them to visualize a difference in a quick, time efficient way. often the difference in bars on graphs with starting points at 0.0 in this particular context would be so small that the user wouldn't be able to determine a difference without pausing to study the graph, or without making the graph exceptionally long and narrow, only making it even harder to read from a normal sitting distance on a computer screen. 

 

There is nothing wrong with their use of graphs, they are designed with a particular use in mind, and work in the given context. Incorrect scaling on the other hand is an entirely different point. 

 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This thread reminds me of when LinusTechTips used misleading graphs (link here). I find it interesting how these two threads got fairly different reactions, with everyone in this one basically agreeing that the graphs are misleading and bad, while in the LTT thread a lot of people were blaming the users for not looking carefully enough to not be fooled.

Very true, and I don't think TH deserves this much hate in this instance to be honest. I think it's mostly due to the "just buy it" meme, people just expect TH's content to be a half advertisement. The article on their website also has full graphs, although I don't know if they changed them after the fact.

[suits]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This thread reminds me of when LinusTechTips used misleading graphs (link here). I find it interesting how these two threads got fairly different reactions, with everyone in this one basically agreeing that the graphs are misleading and bad, while in the LTT thread a lot of people were blaming the users for not looking carefully enough to not be fooled.

 

These are some of the responses to that thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stand by it, there’s a big difference. Between LTTs graph and this graph. You still should be able to read “77” and “79” or whatever the numbers where and realize oh, this is not a big difference. 

 

Dont be a sheep people, find what works best for you and own it.

[Syntaxvgm]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This thread reminds me of when LinusTechTips used misleading graphs (link here). I find it interesting how these two threads got fairly different reactions, with everyone in this one basically agreeing that the graphs are misleading and bad, while in the LTT thread a lot of people were blaming the users for not looking carefully enough to not be fooled.

 

These are some of the responses to that thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the main difference is expectations. Toms is a written publication, and LTT, despite my wishes for years, refuses to do any sort of in depth reviews on hardware, it's just not their thing.

I don't recall LTT purposefully truncating an axis like this, though I can't really see the graphs in that thread because some dumbass didn't know what the snip tool was and captured their entire 3 screen setup, 2 screens worth of black on the sides, and I'm not bothering on my phone. 
Seriously what in the fuck is this 

Spoiler

Maybe I give lTT a pass on their benchmarks in their reviews because I dont pay attention to them since they're so low effort in the first place.