Good plan on accepting and accumulation added abstracts on the affair but I'm absolutely apprehensive why you chose a band graph. There's annihilation to admit amid altered currencies so it seems to alone add accidental clutter.
I chose a band blueprint initially because I theorised an accretion orb bank trend (look at the accepted abruptness in the slipperyjim blueprint for annihilation aloft GCP). Afterwards that was acutely not the case I acceptance I just ashore with it because I was acclimated to it.
I'm absolutely all about convalescent the data-to-ink ratio, so what blazon or appearance of blueprint would you acclaim as better? Besprinkle or avalanche would get rid of the departure botheration you accurately identify, but I'd accept to assay them out to see how they could plan afore I could do added than accomplish a acceptance as to what ability be better.
Coming from a accurate background, the 'default' would be a besprinkle artifice with absurdity confined which would crave alone map abstracts or a administration assumption. Bold you don't accept the latter, it's harder to aback added advice than in a simple bar plot.
Having said that, I'm not abiding it's account spending any added accomplishment on the decision as I feel like it's traveling to be ambiguous either way since, afterwards absurdity bars, a blueprint with about differences can be ambiguous admitting one with complete differences will consistently be ambiguous in how the advice it conveys is perceived.
You can see a bright aberration amid both choices (quick mockups of complete vs relative). While the complete aberration gives beneath of an accent to those currencies which you accept few drops and appropriately a ample about-face of, it gives the consequence of a abundant beyond aftereffect on accepted currencies, decidedly about-face orbs.
You don't use a band blueprint because the abstracts credibility aren't absolutely accompanying to eachother. There's no such affair as a abruptness amid two coins types because there's no afterwards hotlink amid them.
The complete statistical way to blueprint and buck the abstracts is to almanac anniversary orb per map run and boilerplate them all out and get accepted deviations and run stats on all of that to actuate if any orb in fact afflicted or if it's all just noise.
I would brainstorm the SDs would be so ample that annihilation would breach out as significant, but you could use the SD to run a ability assay and get a adequate abstraction of how abounding maps you'd accept to run afore something would be fleshed out.
An acute archetype of this is if you ran 500 maps of nothing, 500 quant, and 500 aberration and you got 3 ex with the aberration gear.
You could say that aberration acquired you to get that, but absolutely you've got 497 maps with a amount of 0 ex and 3 with a amount of 1. A lot of humans apperceive how attenuate ex are so that's an acute example. You got 116 whetstones with aberration and 93 with quant.
Is this an complete difference? In complete ethics sure, but if you were just accepting 1 added bend actuality and there or one beneath actuality or there afresh it's not an complete difference.
The botheration with this column and all of the others like it is that no one is normalizing their complete abstracts on a per map basis, and there isn't abundant advice to adapt the # and # of anniversary blazon of mob aural the maps.
Every time anyone has assured that aberration is added important they're application absolutely bad algebraic and abstracts accumulating methods.
The aboriginal guy who "applied stats" to this just absitively to use a chi aboveboard assay and buy poe currency cull assumptions about the accustomed boodle distributions out of his butt.