Not exactly. They are all labeled with a quarter. But the rest of them are spaced a year apart. The last bar is visually skewed because it's not consistent with the X-axis unit established by the previous bars.
No from one bar to the next for the previous years, the gap is 1 year (ie, Q4 2010, Q4 2011 -> 1 year), but from the second last bar to the last bar, the gap is 1 quarter (Q4 2011, Q1 2012 -> 1 quarter)
15 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadIt initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
Because Q4 of 2012 has not happened yet, we can't mark a number on the graph, so Q1 which has finished is the best we can do for this year.
That's my understanding of it.
The best option would be for them to put in the quarterly numbers for all years, then all bars would represent an equal amount of time.
Although the exponential growth is amazing to think about, so the graph is pretty important.
Also, I can only see indication of growth from that one chart. How about some more data (different charts):
- What size is it in total, average of the objects?
- Bandwidth (transfer, compressed)?
- How much is cachable (repeat and static requests)?
- How much data duplication is there?
- How is the data change rate (by objects, by volume)?
- How are average volumes and bandwidth change by account (behavior trend)?
- etc..