hmmm... so is the graph 'too much'... or ok... ?  Or is it just silly?

I can easily update it every couple of weeks if you guys think it's worth while.

 

/ponders

what you should make is a month by month, or week by week graph. Showing the amoount per week, not the growing tottal amount as the weeks go by. This way we can see if we are making progress, if word is spreading and subcriptions are picking up, slowing down, or staying even.  The type of graph you have now will only grow over time no matter what, and that could be misleading.

But maybe have the tottals listed below the graph in text form.

Phluff wrote:

hmmm... so is the graph 'too much'... or ok... ?  Or is it just silly?

I can easily update it every couple of weeks if you guys think it's worth while.

 

/ponders

what you should make is a month by month, or week by week graph. Showing the amoount per week, not the growing tottal amount as the weeks go by. This way we can see if we are making progress, if word is spreading and subcriptions are picking up, slowing down, or staying even.  The type of graph you have now will only grow over time no matter what, and that could be misleading.

But maybe have the tottals listed below the graph in text form.

well..........   All that you've asked for it there really.   Each color getting thicker as it's going across, shows the growth/progress each two weeks for each item, which is what you were asking for I think.  This particular style of graph shows that  'AND' the overall growth, so it shows everything.  If one of those colors starts to get skinny going across, then we're in trouble.  Also, all the text/numbers are there... 'above' the graph.   Unless I didn't understand what you meant.

Ahhh I see what you mean... (duh)

Spent some time tonight trying it this way.  But... it didn't work out so well, because my time periods are not even.  It would have worked if I'd taken the numbers exactly once per week, or exactly once per a certain number of days, but because I didn't keep up with the numbers daily or what ever... that type of chart goes all over the place and isn't realistic.  I only took the number readings every 'couple' of weeks. Sorry

I dont really understand that graph, it makes it look like you've distributed like over 4000 keys O.o

Can't we just stick to good old fashioned line graphs? =S

cloudwolf wrote:

I dont really understand that graph, it makes it look like you've distributed like over 4000 keys O.o

Can't we just stick to good old fashioned line graphs? =S

lol old schoolah!

ChloeAnn wrote:

cloudwolf wrote:

I dont really understand that graph, it makes it look like you've distributed like over 4000 keys O.o

Can't we just stick to good old fashioned line graphs? =S

lol old schoolah!

I like old school " />

Oldskool2814 !! 

Virrago wrote:

ChloeAnn wrote:

cloudwolf wrote:

I dont really understand that graph, it makes it look like you've distributed like over 4000 keys O.o

Can't we just stick to good old fashioned line graphs? =S

lol old schoolah!

I like old school " />

The movie, or old school people? " />

ChloeAnn wrote:

Virrago wrote:

ChloeAnn wrote:

cloudwolf wrote:

I dont really understand that graph, it makes it look like you've distributed like over 4000 keys O.o

Can't we just stick to good old fashioned line graphs? =S

lol old schoolah!

I like old school " />

The movie, or old school people? " />

Old School Graphs " />

Virrago wrote:

ChloeAnn wrote:

Virrago wrote:

ChloeAnn wrote:

cloudwolf wrote:

I dont really understand that graph, it makes it look like you've distributed like over 4000 keys O.o

Can't we just stick to good old fashioned line graphs? =S

lol old schoolah!

I like old school " />

The movie, or old school people? " />

Old School Graphs ">

lol who doesnt like old school graphs? They're plain, and simple, and easy to read!! " width="15" height="15" />