# Chart Trivia: Which Is Better, Log or Linear?

Back when I first started charting the spread of coronavirus I decided not to use a logarithmic scale. I figured that log scales were fine for communicating with other professionals, but most laymen have no clue what a log scale is and have difficulty interpreting it even when they’re given an explanation.

Naturally, then, I’m thrilled to pass along a study from the LSE School of Public Policy that confirms I was right. They showed people the following two charts:

I think they put their finger on the scale by starting the y-axis of the log chart at 0.1, but I don’t suppose many people actually noticed that. In any case, here are the results:

We find that the group who read the information on a logarithmic scale has a much lower level of comprehension of the graph: only 40.66% of them could respond correctly to a basic question about the graph (whether there were more deaths in one week or another), contrasted to 83.79% of respondents on the linear scale. Moreover, people in the logarithmic group also proved to be worse at making predictions on the evolution of the pandemic: they predicted, on average, 71,250 deaths for a week after the experiment was taken, whereas the linear group predicted 63,429.

The first finding here is peculiar: since both charts feature lines that are steadily increasing, why would anyone have trouble saying if there were more deaths in one week vs. another? The later week will always have more. That’s odd.

The second finding, however, is the key weakness of a log chart: people have a hard time interpreting the scale. In the log chart, the final dot looks like it’s at around 60-70,000 deaths or so. It’s not, of course, because the the distance between 10K and 100K increases on a log scale just like the rest of the chart. But most people simply don’t understand that. The linear chart, by contrast, shows clearly that the final dot is at 40K and the death rate is growing quickly.

So how does this affect attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic?

First, we find that despite predicting a higher number of deaths, people who were shown the logarithmic scale chart declare to be less worried about the health crisis caused by the coronavirus.

Divergences, however, don’t stop there. The scale of the graph they see affects people’s responses concerning their policy preferences and stated behaviours. Ceteris paribus, respondents who see the information on the linear scale graphs support less strongly the policy of keeping non-essential businesses closed than those who look at the logarithmic one — although they also favour reopening them later. At the same time, those who see the linear graph are more willing to support a hypothetical state-level tax aimed at providing citizens with masks.

It’s not surprising that people shown the log chart are less worried about the virus. The log trendline simply doesn’t look like it’s growing that fast. It’s peculiar, though, that folks shown the linear chart are less supportive of keeping non-essential businesses closed. That’s hard to explain. In any case, I guess I’d like to see a complete breakout of the policy stuff so that it’s clearer how strong the effects are.

Bottom line: Ditch the log charts if you’re writing for a non-professional audience. They leave a seriously misleading impression.

### AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, \$350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

### AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, \$350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director