Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

smauryholmes t1_jae2f5v wrote

Why are the $14b in the expenses category and $30.7b in revenues not proportional? Where does net income come from?

This is a cool graphic with good info but I’m struggling to interpret the actual data.

20

tilapios t1_jae50zm wrote

It doesn't make sense at all. If we compare miscellaneous in the expenses column ($1.8 billion/5%) and processed revenue in the revenue column ($1.6 billion/2.8%), the miscellaneous bar is smaller even though it is larger in absolute dollars and as a percentage.

9

joinkudos OP t1_jae6ih2 wrote

Thanks for the feedback. I had to scale down some of the data points to leave room for the text that clarified that some of the revenue items meant, so the bars are not exactly proportional. For instance in the scaled version (based on absolute numbers), merchant fees took up most of the right side of the visual, and processed revenue had limited space.

Hope you understand. I'll play around with better ways to scale to accomodate nuance like this in future.

−4

tilapios t1_jae9qj0 wrote

This isn't a nuance. This is the entire point of a data visualization. From this sub's rule on qualifying data visualizations: "A data variable must be transformed and mapped onto a visual property such as color, size, or position." If the bars don't scale with anything, they're useless, and what we're left with is a weirdly formatted table with random shapes attached to them.

17

joinkudos OP t1_jae5nzp wrote

This is great feedback.

The aggregate of the right side is the total revenue and the aggregate of the left side is total expenses - so net income is the diff, less taxes and interest expenses. To your point, I should have included the net income in the chart to clarify that. I should probably also have included the totals for both revenue and expenses at the top of the visualization

2