<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Divorce</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chartporn.org/2009/10/28/divorce/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chartporn.org/2009/10/28/divorce/</link>
	<description>data visualizations you just gotta love...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:52:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dustin</title>
		<link>http://chartporn.org/2009/10/28/divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-715</link>
		<dc:creator>Dustin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chartporn.org/2009/10/28/divorce/#comment-715</guid>
		<description>yeah, I had similar thoughts when I looked at it. They should have included a venn diagram or something explaining exactly what groups are counted here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah, I had similar thoughts when I looked at it. They should have included a venn diagram or something explaining exactly what groups are counted here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helen</title>
		<link>http://chartporn.org/2009/10/28/divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-714</link>
		<dc:creator>Helen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chartporn.org/2009/10/28/divorce/#comment-714</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m all for pretty graphs, but it&#039;s more important that the data be correct.  

The data has been completely misinterpreted.

For the column labeled &quot;# who have been married,&quot;what are the units? Thousands, presumably, assuming this data is for the entire US.  

The column labeled &quot;# who have been married&quot; should be labeled &quot;people who are currently married.&quot;  People in the 80&#039;s are not unmarried because they&#039;re swinging singles -- they&#039;re widowed.  

Likewise, the divorce data doesn&#039;t include those who divorced and remarried.  So the &quot;divorce rate&quot; is all wrong.

The authors spent more time picking pretty colors than thinking about the data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m all for pretty graphs, but it&#8217;s more important that the data be correct.  </p>
<p>The data has been completely misinterpreted.</p>
<p>For the column labeled &#8220;# who have been married,&#8221;what are the units? Thousands, presumably, assuming this data is for the entire US.  </p>
<p>The column labeled &#8220;# who have been married&#8221; should be labeled &#8220;people who are currently married.&#8221;  People in the 80&#8242;s are not unmarried because they&#8217;re swinging singles &#8212; they&#8217;re widowed.  </p>
<p>Likewise, the divorce data doesn&#8217;t include those who divorced and remarried.  So the &#8220;divorce rate&#8221; is all wrong.</p>
<p>The authors spent more time picking pretty colors than thinking about the data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
