Comments on: Media Metrics #4: Changing Fortunes http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/comment-page-1/#comment-40506 Adam Thierer Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:04:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/#comment-40506 <p>Tom... The size of the bubble indicates the respective market capitalization of each operator. Google is that big because, well, Google is that big! I'm not trying to distort anything by using the 3-D bubbles instead of 2-D bubbles, but perhaps to be consistent I should I have used one or the other in each of the exhibits. But even in 2-D, Google looks pretty damn formidable.</p> Tom… The size of the bubble indicates the respective market capitalization of each operator. Google is that big because, well, Google is that big! I’m not trying to distort anything by using the 3-D bubbles instead of 2-D bubbles, but perhaps to be consistent I should I have used one or the other in each of the exhibits. But even in 2-D, Google looks pretty damn formidable.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/comment-page-1/#comment-51409 Adam Thierer Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:04:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/#comment-51409 <p>Tom... The size of the bubble indicates the respective market capitalization of each operator. Google is that big because, well, Google is that big! I'm not trying to distort anything by using the 3-D bubbles instead of 2-D bubbles, but perhaps to be consistent I should I have used one or the other in each of the exhibits. But even in 2-D, Google looks pretty damn formidable.</p> Tom… The size of the bubble indicates the respective market capitalization of each operator. Google is that big because, well, Google is that big! I’m not trying to distort anything by using the 3-D bubbles instead of 2-D bubbles, but perhaps to be consistent I should I have used one or the other in each of the exhibits. But even in 2-D, Google looks pretty damn formidable.

]]> By: Tom W. Bell http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/comment-page-1/#comment-40505 Tom W. Bell Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:52:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/#comment-40505 <p>Great stuff, Adam. One small suggestion, though: Don't use graph markers that, thanks to highlighting and shadows, appear to have 3-D volume.</p> <p>Presumably, you really mean only to chart each marker's area. Thus, for instance, Google in exhibit three has about 10 times the area of Clear Channel. Graphics that indicate the markers have volume instead suggest that Google is a lot bigger than it really is. Here, as always in matters graphical, ask yourself: "What would Tuft do?"</p> Great stuff, Adam. One small suggestion, though: Don’t use graph markers that, thanks to highlighting and shadows, appear to have 3-D volume.

Presumably, you really mean only to chart each marker’s area. Thus, for instance, Google in exhibit three has about 10 times the area of Clear Channel. Graphics that indicate the markers have volume instead suggest that Google is a lot bigger than it really is. Here, as always in matters graphical, ask yourself: “What would Tuft do?”

]]> By: Tom W. Bell http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/comment-page-1/#comment-51408 Tom W. Bell Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:52:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2008/01/29/media-metrics-4-changing-fortunes/#comment-51408 <p>Great stuff, Adam. One small suggestion, though: Don't use graph markers that, thanks to highlighting and shadows, appear to have 3-D volume.<br><br>Presumably, you really mean only to chart each marker's area. Thus, for instance, Google in exhibit three has about 10 times the area of Clear Channel. Graphics that indicate the markers have volume instead suggest that Google is a lot bigger than it really is. Here, as always in matters graphical, ask yourself: "What would Tuft do?"</p> Great stuff, Adam. One small suggestion, though: Don’t use graph markers that, thanks to highlighting and shadows, appear to have 3-D volume.

Presumably, you really mean only to chart each marker’s area. Thus, for instance, Google in exhibit three has about 10 times the area of Clear Channel. Graphics that indicate the markers have volume instead suggest that Google is a lot bigger than it really is. Here, as always in matters graphical, ask yourself: “What would Tuft do?”

]]>