The author just has a bad intuition. On the first picture he says "this looks like a small quantity". No, you can't say that. All you can say is that half the data points are in the shades part. You don't know where the rest are.
But that's okay, I don't mind explaining it and then the graph is easier to interpret imo.
Of course you do: they're in the whiskers; half in each whisker.
That's the entire point of the picture, BTW.
That's like the entire point of the post: they're hard to teach to others (they're unintuitive) and there are better (more intuitive) alternatives.
I dunno if I agree, but it's ironic that this thread started with a poster complaining about the author's bad intuition, while apparently managing to not have a good grasp of box plots themselves.
Also, that IS his mistake, it's literally the first thing in the post. And this stuff isn't hard or hard to teach _at all_ has long as you're at least 5.
> You don't know where the rest are.
This is wrong, period. And the fact it's wrong is pretty much the entire point of the article.
Are bdjsiqoocwk and lkdfjlkdfjlg the same poster?
Please don't pick a needless fight.
Apart from that quibble, it's a point very well taken.