Invert values y axis in the scatter plot

Gord,

Please post a screenshot of an example chart.

Here is an example where I entered Y data in column C. Column B computes -1 x value in column C:

Only including Y' (the negative version) looks like this:

If you want to revers the axis, swap the columns X and Y' in the source table... like this:

Hi Fabio,

Depth is 'negative height', so follow Wayne's suggestion of multiplying depth by -1.

Regards,

Ian.

Hi Fabio,

I know what you are trying to do (as a once-upon-a-time Soil Scientist, I often had to graph values versus depth where depth is positive 😉. I used Excel and S-plus.

In Numbers, that graph took much more than 'just one click'.

Here is what is hidden behind the curtain:

Tables to hold the Value Labels. They can be dynamic (refer to the data table) but stretching the tables to fit the graph is a pain. As the data change, the tables must be resized.

I don't think that the latest version of Numbers is the right app for an inverted Y axis.

You can send feedback to Apple Numbers Menu > Provide Feedback to Apple

http://www.apple.com/feedback/numbers.html

and ask for this feature to be included in future updates.

In your feedback, perhaps you could include a link to this discussion.

Meanwhile, keep using the one-click solution in Open Office.

Regards,

Ian.

For heavy duty graphing (or even basic graphing) I REALLY like an App called DataGrapher (it about $79) but worth the money.

Here is a sample:

There is no agree/disagree. It is what it is. You can make feedback to Apple regarding Numbers by selecting the menu item "Numbers > Provide Numbers Feedback"

I agree. Even their own Running Log is showing the graph for running pace 'the wrong way', ie the faster you've run the chart goes down instead of up.

Hi Phil,

"Even their own Running Log is showing the graph for running pace 'the wrong way', ie the faster you've run the chart goes down instead of up."

Of course it does. The supplied chart graphs minutes to cover a specific distance. As you run faster, the time required decreases.

If you really want to graph 'average speed' instead of pace, it's simple enough to calculate distance/time and graph that.

Here's the same data with a pair of columns added—one to place the dates into a non-header column, where they can be used as values (rather than category labels) on a scatter chart, the second to calculate the average speed in feet per minute. Since the chart is graphing speed, not 'pace', the line rises as the runner runs faster.

Regards,

Barry

1) Thanks for the quick reply!

2) I don't see the logic in a decreasing line when the pace increases. All running pace charts have the graph show a line going up when the pace increases. The can be seen on Garmin Connect and Strava, amongst other sites.

3) The workaround from Yellowbox by multiplying by -1 works, except that the Value Labels now show a minus before the pace as a result.

Hi Phil,

"All running pace charts have the graph show a line going up when the pace increases."

I wasn't able to easily find examples of running pace graphs on either Garmin Connect or Stava without logging on as a member. searching a bit further, though turned up three charts (graphs) on the second page of a Google search.

You can see those charts at these three web pages.

http://andrewskurka.com/2014/north-face-50-mile-pace-charts/

(Andrew apologized for labelling his Y axis with strange units—fractions of an hour/mile—but did list them in ascending amount of time/mile as the graph went higher.)

How Numbers Show You’re Probably Starting Your Ultramarathon Too Fast

A blog entry analyzing the pace (in minutes/mile) of finishers of an ultra marathon, grouped by finish times. Several charts. All showing faster pace plotted lower than slower pace.

http://www.graphmyrun.com/

Sample chart with pace and heart rate data from a half marathon.

Two y axes, one showing pace in minutes/mile from zero at the bottom to 30 at the top, the other showing heart rate in beats/minute with 50 at the bottom and 200 at the top.

Note that I did not go looking for running pace graphs showing slow pace (more minutes/mile) near the top and fast pace (fewer minutes/mile) at the bottom. My search string was "running pace graph" without the quotes. These were the first results that included graphs, and all three did show "a line going up when the pace (as measured in minutes per mile) increases," but pace, measured in these units, increases as it gets slower, not faster.

Regards,

Barry

Hi Barry,

I can relate to the non-intuitive logic of "pace" in this discussion.

It reminds me of fuel consumption by a vehicle expressed as miles per gallon. I can understand that more miles per gallon = higher efficiency.

Litres per 100 kilometres (the inverse) is unintuitive 😕.

Regards,

Ian

Hi Ian,

It's all so confusing. When I look down at my feet it is said that I am looking (more or less) in the same direction as you when you look up above your head, assuming we are both upright. So it follows that what is up can be down and what is down can be up. But (I think) what is fast can't be slow and what is slow can't be fast, even in Canada and Australia.🙂

SG

Hi Barry,

Thanks for taking the time to respond in depth. I didn't know there were graphs displaying it 'the other way'. Yesterday I wanted to post a graph but for whatever reason weren't able to, but using a different browser now; here's one from Strava:

And the same run from Garmin Connect (their API allows Strava to pull this data, but each use a different algorithm):

Anyway: I was wrong to think that _all_ graphs would show a faster pace as a higher bar/line. What I'm used to see is these graphs here: the faster you run the higher the bar/line.

Supposedly it's a simple thing to alter in MS Excel; one can flip the graph and scale. I've searched for it in Numbers, but can't find it. Personally I think it makes sense to be able to do so, but thanks to your links not everyone uses the 'higher = faster' graph.

Thanks for your links; those articles were a good read!

Regards,

Phil

Replies to Phil, SG and Ian :-)

Thanks for the examples, Phil. I can see where either direction can provide the information, and this is another case where 'intuitive' is a synonym for what I'm used to.' Mathematically, I'm more comfortable with positive values increasing upward and to the right of the origin of a graph, which means in the case of Pace measured in minutes per mile, smaller numbers are better, and are closer to the x axis.

As for the X axis, the most familiar (to me) example of values decreasing as they move right on the axis are also from the Garmin world. In my part of the world, the Westing (latitude) part of a geographic coordinate pair decreases in magnitude as one moves left to right along a parallel of latitude. I've grown up with that, and it seems 'intuitive' to me.

That said, I was a bit surprised that none of the hits on my search showed values that increased downward on the Y axis.

Regarding the articles: I'm not a runner, but I found them interesting as well (and thought you would too. Glad to hear you did!

Hi Ian,

Ahhh, gas mileage and fuel consumption—an almost perfect example of 'intuitive' really meaning 'what I'm used to.' You and I both went through (almost) all of our formative years (and especially our 'car-crazy' years exposed to MPG as the only measure of fuel efficiency. I'm sure you found it as much of a shock as I did when the powers that be mandated L/100km as the 'proper way to report fuel economy in a soon to be metric environment. That was the early seventies for us, and I must confess that , though I understand it, I still don't think in L/100km terms. It probably doesn't help that we live beside the larger of the two countries in the world that haven't adopted metric measurement as the national standard. Not only that, but the MPG figures aren't right because, although the miles (for those of us that remember them) are about the same size, the gallons we remember here were 25% larger than the ones still in use there. All very confusing, really when reading the car magazines from the US. 😉

And Hi SG,

Confusing indeed! Perhaps we can take solace in the fact that while we all point in different directions when we point up, if we all point straight down (and are extremely accurate in the direction we point, you and Ian and I are all pointing toward the same place!

Slow may not be fast, and fast may not be slow, but larger numbers don't alway mean faster, and smaller numbers don't always mean slower. compare 'average speed at the Indy' and 'best time for the quarter mile' at the drag strip. Or take a look at consumer reports, where many of their graphical ratings are accompanied by a note saying 'smaller is better' (repairs/10,000 miles) or 'larger is better' (mean time between repairs).

Regards,

Barry