The difference in the Internet users in three different countries and the world average between 1998 and 2013.
The bar graph shows the difference in the Internet usages between Greece, Denmark, Canada and the world average over the period from 1998 to 2013.
Overall, it is clear that the increase trend in the Internet consumption in 4 countries over the period. Especially, users in Denmark and Canada were higher than the 2 remain groups, whilst the Internet usages in Greece was similar with that in the world average.
Looking at the graph more closely, one can see that in 1998, the number of people used Internet in Denmark shorter than in Canada by approximately 5 thousand people. From 1998 to 2003, the number of users shot up significantly to nearly 80 thousand people and then still increased steadily to the end of the period and reached the peak of more than 90 thousand people. A similar trend was seen in Canada, at the start point of the period, users in Canada stayed at nearly 30 thousand people, a little higher than Denmark at the same time but in 2003, it soared dramatically to 70 thousand people and then gradually rose over the course of 10 years later to closely 90%. In Greece, the number of the Internet users hit the low of nearly 2 thousand people at the beginning of the period. However, there was a slight shift during 5 years later, from the lowest group of the Internet users, Greece rose to the third position and kept that rank to the end of the period at nearly 90 thousand. Then with the case in the world average, in 1998, there is no noticeable in the gap of their number of the Internet users when compared with Greece. However, from 2003 to ten years later, the gap increased dramatically and the users of world average stood at nearly 35%, as half of Greece.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-06 | Nguyễn Đinh Tường Vi | view | |
| 2023-07-06 | Nguyễn Đinh Tường Vi | view | |
| 2023-05-23 | Nguyên-MTTN | 78 | view |
| 2022-12-16 | MAI THỊ LAN ANH | view | |
| 2022-05-06 | jadenguyen | 84 | view |
- The number of public transit passengers from 1989 to 2009 and bus tram passenger numbers between 2000 and 2008 in Mel 78
- the layouts of two offices one to accommodate a maximum of eight people and the other to fit a maximum of ten people 78
- The Marlton Gallery before and after it was renovated 84
- the amount of beef exported in five different countries in 2012 2014 and 2016 84
- The developments along Olive Drive before and after the construction of new facilities between 1980 and 2010 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, look, so, still, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 33.7804878049 181% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1390.0 965.302439024 144% => OK
No of words: 305.0 196.424390244 155% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.55737704918 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 3.73543355544 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34961900884 2.65546596893 88% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 106.607317073 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44262295082 0.547539520022 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 413.1 283.868780488 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.4926829268 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.2455631954 43.030603864 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.0 112.824112599 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.5 22.9334400587 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.23603664747 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227591215274 0.215688989381 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11209518852 0.103423049105 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0990460072143 0.0843802449381 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219022447391 0.15604864568 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11990102821 0.0819641961636 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.2329268293 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.95 61.2550243902 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 10.3012195122 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.76 11.4140731707 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.9970731707 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.