In an infographic at http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/fact-check-negative-gearing-kelly-odwyer/7401096, there's a display of what proportion of various professions use negative gearing. At first I assumed the height of each individual indicated how much negative gearing they do, but their height increases by a regular amount instead. Is there a term for that, so you could say

That infographic was a bit of a ____

  • 1
    First of all, the location of those individuals and the height at which they are placed is by design, so thay there would be enough room for the logo at the bottom right. Now, do you want a term that would mean an infograph that fails to do its job?
    – vickyace
    Commented May 11, 2016 at 22:55
  • They are just placed in ascending order in a diagrammatic fashion. The only difference in the height of the individuals is whether or not they are wearing a cap of some sort!
    – TrevorD
    Commented May 11, 2016 at 23:00
  • 2
    The title of this blog might count (warning: abbreviation of strong language): viz.wtf
    – herisson
    Commented May 11, 2016 at 23:01
  • 1
    An infographic brings you to a false conclusion (which is what you described) would probably be called misleading. Of course this isn't restricted to being "quantitatively/numerically misleading," which you specifically ask about in your question, though "misleading" is often used when talking about statistical distortion. Commented Jun 22, 2016 at 9:30

1 Answer 1


I have seen the term "not to scale" used in such instances.


That infographic was not to scale.

I could not find any proper references except this in Wikipedia:

Not To Scale, a disclaimer used in engineering drawings or schematics when the dimensions of the represented elements are not proportionately accurate.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.