"So" is a complication

I'm writing for my econ blog:

I didn't capture the graph as an image, and the data has since changed, so the old link doesn't show what I saw last year.

Two commas, and three pieces of a sentence. Three is a lot to handle. Two is easier to see.

On top of that, there is a "so" in there. The data has changed, so the old link doesn't show the old data. I don't like "so".

Using "so" is like using "therefore": The data has changed; therefore the old link doesn't show the old data.

"Therefore" is a problem. It should make readers stop and evaluate the logic: Is is true? If the data changes, does the graph change? Yes, of course it does.

Even if the answer is "yes of course", I have distracted readers by encouraging them to stop and evaluate of my statement.

I'm not trying to fool anybody. I expect my readers to be sharp and to look for things I say that might be wrong. I always hope to be corrected if I'm wrong, because that improves what I have to say. But my task as a writer as a blogger is to convey information. I don't want to put things in my writing that interfere with conveying what I have to say.

I didn't capture the graph as an image, and the data has since changed. The old link doesn't show what I saw last year.

Two sentences now. Shorter sentences. That's good. And my conclusion (if you want to call it that) is presented matter-of-factly. I'm not challenging you to test my logic. I'm just presenting ideas. I think that makes it easier to read.

Not every "so" is a problem. But quite often when I'm proofreading, I'll take one out. Sometimes they're simply unnecessary. Sometimes they're worse than unnecessary.