idk it's my first time (kind of) trying to do dataviz, I thought the original post was super interesting but like other comments said, it was hard to read.

I think in a way it's mostly because defederation is complex to show as links, since it is the break of said link, but hopefully this type of graph is better ?

you do lose the "group" of instances view, though (and also I did not bother with per instance MAU as raw number + percentage, or sofware used)

let me know what you think!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu [S] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You gotta ask the OOP about that, but my guess is, in a graph that shows instances that defederate, why include an instance that doesn't?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 6 points 1 month ago

I see your point I guess. Perhaps defederation is something that users want, and then they are happy to see who does it the most?

Im not like that myself, but I can see the point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago*

why include an instance that doesn’t?

Because it lets you see how common or uncommon defederations are relative to the total set of all instances (or at least, all minus the long tail of very-low-user-count ones). And although it would make the graph larger, it would also make it sparse and IMO that would also be easier to read.

It could also give a misleading impression that all instances defederate or are defederated by somebody, making people think it's more common than it actually is. (Or maybe not doing that, if you include all^ish^ instances and it still ends up being not very sparse.)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent