Comment by cryptoz

Well, this is quite a detailed analysis and I don't want to take a dump on it because it's obviously a good analysis. BUT. Masterpiece? I don't think so. Dark Sky's data visualization was all shiny gold and not enough real science.

Their radar map with all those pretty colors was super buggy, so much so that you couldn't trust it. If you move the map or zoom in, or pan around, the rain / radar data often would not move with the map. So you would have a 2x scaling issue with how large the rain area was.

Also, they never provided confidence information. They often made predictions that were wrong, and never informed you of how confident their forecasts were. But they would always show a 'flawless' representation of the data so you would be convinced it was right.

Yes yes, it was pretty. But it was not backed by science, and the data was misrepresented I'd say 100% of the time. You can't have a masterpiece of data visualization where a major component of the vis is 'looking pretty' and the factualness of it is ignored.