> The concept seems pretty comparable. From the title I had a good idea of what it was; when clicking on it, the visual presentation felt familiar & intuitive. \n\n Being a little less literal can be useful!
That's why I'm pointing it out: the title leads you to think they're the same metric, the page looks visually similar, and so you treat it as the same data type; but when you read the data through this lens, you draw wrong conclusions. It took me a while, scrolling down the examples, before I realised why it felt so off and that my mindset is wrong. It's what's being written about currently, not what people on HN are actually looking for
It's indeed not about being nonliteral, it's for me about having been confused about the data being shown
it was me, and i deleted it because i realized my last sentence "being a little less literal can be useful" came across as unnecessarily blunt, which i didn't want. but i wasnt sure how to express what i wanted to say without it being that way. so i deleted it while rethinking my phrasing, and rethinking your comment.
in the end, i kind of came around to understand where you were coming from, so i didnt bother to recomment.