You're right. I guess that's not the author's mistake then. His mistake is assuming "the whisker is small, therefore it has a small number of datapoints".

That's not his mistake. He knows this, but repeatedly failed to convey this to others.

That's like the entire point of the post: they're hard to teach to others (they're unintuitive) and there are better (more intuitive) alternatives.

I dunno if I agree, but it's ironic that this thread started with a poster complaining about the author's bad intuition, while apparently managing to not have a good grasp of box plots themselves.

What are you talking about? I have a perfect grasp of these things. As I said, half is in the shape area. You must've missed that.

Also, that IS his mistake, it's literally the first thing in the post. And this stuff isn't hard or hard to teach _at all_ has long as you're at least 5.

This thread started with bdjsiqoocwk, who wrote:

> You don't know where the rest are.

This is wrong, period. And the fact it's wrong is pretty much the entire point of the article.

Are bdjsiqoocwk and lkdfjlkdfjlg the same poster?

Please don't pick a needless fight.