Bengo gets mail from Google.

In the latest Floating Lightbulb Bengo reposts an email from Google which contains at least one part copied and pasted from Google's website.

Bengo makes a nice long list of points following the email. It really is quite fascinating, but not necessarily in the way he'd want it to be.

Here's my point by point take on it. The purple text is Bengo, the grey text is me and the red text is Scott Kurtz.

• Google does not appear ready to say, for the record, what GoogleTrends will do, and how well it will do it. This is characteristic of items that are still in Google Labs: in fact, GoogleTrends for Websites may never emerge to join other Google products. I'm pleased someone took time to respond, even if the disclosures are limited; - In other words they did as I'd expect them to do and simply posted information that a semi-competent researcher could have found on Google's website.
  
• So far, research by myself and others shows GoogleTrends doing quite well, except among many large webcomics (not all). Since I started monitoring webcomics with it a while ago, I'll continue to check from time to time to see if anything changes. It remains odd that trends should seem much more out of whack with reports for webcomics, however, so more research is needed; - Bengo, I know you know about this blog and as I said before comics are viewed in a very different way to the likes of blogs, review sites, tech support sites, social networking sites and the like. Also the comparison with Alexa brought up more questions than answers regarding Google's methods of gathering data.
  
• Note the mention, in the letter, of opting in to include data sharing from Google Analytics with Google Trends. Should this come to pass, it might be a way for a website to demonstrate a commitment to honest traffic reporting; - This is also mentioned on the website as a possibility. Bengo should have already known this before he posted the first blog about Trends.
  
• We must keep in mind that from the top down, addressing click fraud is by default central to Google's planning and actions, and that GoogleTrends might provide infrastructure by which they can address it; - Where do Google say that? I'm having trouble finding very much about Google's views on click fraud at all. I find plenty of articles like this one that state that Google only believe it to be a minor problem. I can find literally nothing about them making it a priority. If it's true that they are I would very much like someone to link me to evidence of this.
  
• Or not, the last sentence suggests subdued plans, for now at least. Responding to inquires about projects under development is a tricky business, balancing privacy and honesty with great care; - or more likely they don't really care that much or have little time to respond, hence the copy and paste element to the email.
  
• The last sentence also reminds us that you can do side-by-side comparisons of about five sites at once, which is something I've only tried a few times -- worth noting;
  
• If GoogleTrends for Websites does become yet another source of public analytic data for traffic, Google has choices to make: they can create a product that screens out false traffic click fraud, and/or attempt to become the source of record for how a site performs. Either has significant implications for anyone engaged in click fraud already. If Google does not address click fraud as part of its strategy, but creates a source of record, it is in effect addressing the click fraud issue; - I'm not understanding something here. If Google does not address click fraud in their software they would still be addressing click fraud. Is it that some kind of higher logic or a lack of logic completely?
  
• Any public analytics system striving for credibility must build in resistance to traffic click fraud, or it will be in the interest of the dishonest to increase click fraud. The threat of a system appearing that already has a track record of historical performance for a site, and which, at some future data, will screen out fake traffic, is a brilliant way to blunt fraud now, and expose fakery without going case-by-case and tossing people out of the Google system; - Not me bolding the text today. Bengo is adding emphasis, but I'm not sure why. Maybe he's randomly shouting at us.
  
• If that is Google's goal, then people who run sites on steroids are going to be revealed publicly, as we see huge disparities between what they claim and what GoogleTrends claims. There's no need to become defensive and write denunciations with steam blowing out your ears, because you rise or fall based on your data legacy; - Based on Google's interpretations of data is what we really mean here. Unless Google take to just dumping raw data then it's all interpretive. If they do dump raw data then they cannot filter out possible fraud, because that would be interpretation.
  
• If Google has a system for teasing out real clicks from false that builds upon what it already does, we are left to wonder whether it has been turned on. Recall ADSDAQ's sudden retreat from webcomics last year. Cartoonists may be fine people, but the historic webcomic business model that hosts ads from major brokers is right up there with spam sites in terms of potential for abuse. All vendor-consumer interactions have a subjective aspect, but webcomics particularly so: they are free, and yet they are not; you as reader are holding up your share and yet you are not; you are from a demographic that trends left and doesn't mind clicking some insurance company's ads or you are not; you are dealing with a website where the creator will talk to you on Twitter or you are dealing with a faceless company... these all contribute to abuse potential, in various ways; - As Scott Kurtz posted in a message on both this site and Bengo's ADSDAQ stated their reasons for removing webcomics. Here's a snippet of what Scott said: "Adsdaq told us that they dropped these webcomic sites because they were too image-heavy and didn't have enough text content on them. Mostly it was webcomics without frequently updated blog content. Adsdaq can't place context based ads on image heavy sites. Images don't offer context their system can use. Text does. So the sites were dropped." That seems pretty simple and it's information freely available on the net.
  
• One would think that an aspiring webcomic professional who has co-written a book on the topic would be grateful when a blogger comes along and tries to reconcile conflicting public data about his performance, as part of a group. Anyone who dares discuss such data must be prepared for fits of rage, scapegoating and troll bombardments; - One would think that if the blogger wanted to discuss such data with the webcomic professional they would do so before making it public, make some attempt to get an answer to the questions before writing the article.
  
• When I talk to webcomics people as part of doing research, I notice that they are mostly friendly, sometimes cagey and the rest "other." The cagey types do not like to discuss their methods or data, and sometimes seem to feign ignorance of their own analytics. Some get hot, and write things questioning my motives. "It's amazing how much you scare them," said one veteran observer, amused. -( I'm curious who this could be. Does anyone know? )- The fact that I would put people's advice to the test and report on my progress causes upset. Historic tendencies towards relaxed ethics now conflict with the message of professionalism, and the damage is self-induced. You can't argue for a viable, professional webcomic profession while you are behaving unethically, and the protests mostly serve to flag those who know, deep down, that they lack both the guts and the decency to apologize for transgressions, past and present. - A classic Bengoism of the best sort. If you disagree with his research it's because you have something to hide. You can't possibly just think that he's wrong and that maybe spreading lies, half-truths, badly researched data and petty vindictiveness as facts can be damaging to anyone who would accept it as truth.
  
• I'm convinced that under the right circumstances, webcomics can be monetized and can even make a viable career choice. But newly emerging careers often start with lax practices and end up self-regulating as people see that bad actors hold down progress. There is incredible peer pressure among some veteran cartoonists to hold the line against progressive thought, even as some candidly reveal the extent of deceptions in non-public conversations. Don't assume I take every such report seriously -- I am skeptical until convinced, regardless. An old Russian saying: доверие, но проверяй (Copy, then translate it) - There's pressure to hold the line against progressive thought says Mr.Bengo and that is a hell of a claim. Does he have evidence of this pressure. My guess is no.

Surprisingly, Bengo authorised Scott's comment on The Floating Lightbulb. Well, maybe not that surprisingly as Scott had already posted his comment on this blog as well, because he had doubts as to whether or not Bengo would allow it. I can't help wondering if Bengo allowed Scott's comment to be posted purely because it was already online and to prove that he is not the type to censor people excessively.

Speaking of censoring readers. You may remember a post by Jessica Ottowell, that Bengo refused to allow.

I have some more of them here.

First up another comment posted as a reply to this post.

Jessica didn't take too well to being accused of posting as multiple people.

"Dear Bengo,
You amuse me most fantastically!

Let me state at once, I have not you sent any email and if I did, it would be from only my own email from my own company servers, that I own and are registered to. (f5cd.com or gilbertandgrim.com)

I am hardly the woman to hide my id, I am a business woman from the north east of england, I have been to Shotton Hall School in Peterlee, as well as received, certificates and commendation from the following higher educational institutions:-

Durham New Collage,
Sunderland University as well as Durham and Manchester.

I have ran a computer company called Revolution and now, seeing that I left, I am seeking funding for two new projects that revolve around the arts.

I am also the programmer of a new webcomic system known as nekoKitsune (as used by our comic and soon to be publicly beta tested).

I am also the partner of the artist and writer of said site as well as being a former comic writer myself (that I may remark may change soon as I am to publish new works) as well as a programmer, artist, pro photographer, song writer and hardware developer.

In regard to nationality, I am most certainly British as you most likely know.

May I ask, who are you really bengo?"

The following two were posted in response to the post comparing Alexa results with those of Google Trends.

"What I don't think you get Bengo is that all of your sources are flawed,
one way or another. You seem to put too much stock in to wiki and google
sources, you forget that wikipedia is full of opinionated views and
suspect research and as for google, it has what can be called
corporation wide ADD, this means that most of the projects they start
hardly ever come out of beta. Even they don't think you should take
Trends on face value, this statement is easily found and using this
information shows you up for being the hack of a journalist people think
you are,
that belongs at a paper like the UK's Sun, that trades almost
exclusively on sensationalist stories and gossip, that are so sloppily
researched that only the bottom 1% of the population fall for it and I
may add, very really turn out to be true.

Please desist from spreading unfounded rubbish, speculation and poorly
researched article of little factual content."

And...

"Dear Bengo.
Yet again you have choose to hide my comments and I here by wish to inform you that, along with Scott, I am to send my comments to tilting as you have given me no other option.

I feel that I have given you more than just point to help you improve, if you wish not to improve, then so be it.

Yours fatefully,

Jessica Ottowell,
fiveCARDSdown group "

Tilting at Lightbulbs, letting you have your say whether Bengo likes it or not.

Bengo's still talking about Trends and still can't read a graph.

The Floating Lightbulb updated again and Bengo is still talking about Google Trends, but at least now he's doing some research, or in part having research done for him. Maybe it would have been a good idea to do some research first?

Bengo has had a go at comparing data from Alexa and Google Trends, with the intention of looking for similarities. What do the results show? Well, they don't match up very well. This really brings the validity of the original Google results into question. One of them is definitely wrong. Maybe both of them are.

Bengo managed to misread one of the graphs in his own blog, resulting in a false positive when it came to matching results from the two services. His response when it was pointed out:

"No, you're right. I overlooked the fact that the spike occurs in different years on each graph. I figured the data prior to the spike didn't meet the GT threshold, and that seemed a reason why it might not appear.

That appears to weaken the correlation with Alexa significantly, by replacing a strong match with a weak one. (Personaly, I would consider it a complete miss - GB)

I think, in the end, we will probably find that Alexa isn't much help here, though it was interesting to explore. Use of Alexa raises questions about data gathering methods that fuzz up whatever data you do collect. A solid answer should not have to depend on Alexa."

Wait, what? Is he suggesting that Alexa is at fault here? Does he have anything to support this suggestion? Anything? Because he sure as hell hasn't offered anything up here. This is classic Bengo. He has decided already what the correct answer is and when a source contradicts his 'findings' he seems to decide that that source is the less reliable.

If one is going to be further out than the other then I would think the one still in beta is the most likely. I don't know that it is, but it seems the most likely.

Now, amrothery has supplied an interesting chart that would seem to support a link between Alexa and Trends when it comes to webcomics, so maybe the discrepancy in Google Trends is in fact with sites other than webcomics. It's a possibility.

I would like to read what amrothery's take on the findings is. In fact I would be very much interested in reading a blog by amrothery, because in the space of a couple of posts amrothery has appeared to be a much better researcher than Bengo has throughout the life of The Floating Lightbulb to date.

Edit: Here's a link to the permanent address for the blog post on Evil Inc. that Bengo mentioned.

Why I brought back Tilting Pt2.

It seems Bengo has updated again and is still on about Google Trends. He still doesn't seem to know how it works, but that doesn't stop him returning to his old faithful of explanations.

People are lying about their stats and faking their analytics numbers!

He writes:

"I am puzzled that many major titles show big audience declines over the past two years, and wonder what is the cause. Confounding the mystery, I found a small study that looked at sites outside of webcomics. It found that data from Google Trends and data from the same sites' Google Analytics matched closely."

I fixed his link there, seeing as the one on his site was broken. One theory that Bengo hasn't mentioned is that the way people read webcomics is significantly different to the way that people visit other sorts of sites and so user behaviour varies greatly.

The other option is that he just doesn't know how to read a graph.
Go down to the bottom of the article and there are the example comparisons. What do you notice about them?

They don't all match up. As the writer says "In many cases last quarter, more recent period, although at Analytics stats are nor clearly going down they do at Trends". The typo's left in from the other site. What's the explanation for this? Well, they make a guess, but their final words in the matter, "who knows".

Google themselves have a possible explanation.

"15. My website's information in Trends for Websites doesn't match my own data. Why?

It's important to keep in mind that all results from Trends for Websites are estimated. Moreover, the data is updated periodically, so recent changes in traffic data may not be reflected. Finally, keep in mind that Trends for Websites is a Google Labs product, so it's still in its early stages of development and may therefore contain some inaccuracies. In the future, we may consider ways to improve the accuracy of Trends for Websites by allowing owners to contribute additional data from their sites."

That bit I bolded is important. It effectively means one thing. Trends is still in BETA and as such is still going to be full of bugs. Combine this with the differences in the way webcomic sites are used and you might see why it will have some odd results.

It also would be nice if Bengo could give us a link to some sort of evidence of the claim that "click fraud has risen dramatically every year and passed 25% a while back". Quoting statistics without sources is pretty useless and very sloppy journalism.

Another thing mentioned in the lasted entry on The Floating Lightbulb is that "there was a record amount of kook mail, all from the same Google account but using different names, genders and nationalities."

Well, we have some of that kook mail here. It seems one of Bengo's disgruntled readers has found this blog and taken me up on my offer to post any comments that Bengo wouldn't.

I'll preface this with the note that while the author was accused of using multiple personalities she stated in the email to me that she hadn't in fact sent a single email and had only attempted to comment under her own name. Here's the post that started it all:

"Hello again Bengo,

First off, may I congratulate you on becoming a running joke upon the webcomic list (both site and chat room) before asking you why you continue to spew unsubstantiated (and may I remark, poorly researched) garbage, you have not only show that you can not grasp the fundamentals of percentages, but also that you are a most paranoid, crackpot, conspiracy theorist and must be treated as such.

Congratulations must also be given as the above makes you a worlds first, the worlds first webcomic crackpot conspiracy theorist, how, may I ask, how do you feel?

You are not a researcher, as a researchers duty is to check and double check facts before sharing her/his findings, you admit that you do not, on this point I wish to share something with you, the first rule of research is that you eliminate any possible fallacious sources or information, it does not seem that you check the factual content of any information that you acquire from sources that might be lacking in integrity or perhaps showing bias.

At school, one should have learned that statistics are hardly a definitive source of information and thus should be views with a level of suspicion as should open sources like wikipedia that is so often proven wrong. May I also remark upon your most juvenile actions, by this I mean disabling your commenting to cease chatter from others who find flaws in your rants, also I must ask why do you continue to batter the halfpixel guys? Is it perhaps that it didn't work for you, if so, have you considered that comics, like art in general, is a very variable media and what worked for someone else, is hardly a guarantee of success as art (of all kinds) is hardly a science.

I wish to enquire about this store of yours, may I ask what was the url to this, perhaps some information would give credence to this claim, as on its own, hardly holds water.

Please get back to us,

Jessica Ottowell,

Creative Genius and Head of Development

fiveCARDSdown Group of Companies"

P.S.
Is Bengo including himself when he mentions "egotists, who commence axe-grinding at the first sign of dissent, and are not gracious to critics"?

Why I brought back Tilting Pt1.

First to make something clear. I didn't create Tilting at Lightbulbs. I only brought it back.

You see, the first Tilting at Lightbulbs was a blog dissecting Bengo's own blog, The Floating Lightbulb, pointing out the flaws in his theories. Unfortunately, I only discovered the blog through some cached pages after it's demise.

If you're interested (and why wouldn't you be if you'd bother read my version of this blog?) here are the pages:

Page one, page two, page three, page four, page five and page six.

The Solution has some interesting things to say about our friend Bengo and his articles and I was disappointed that it wasn't still around, even more so considering the change in commenting that The Floating Lightbulb has had recently, so I decided to bring it back.

See, I find it slightly worrying that there are a number of people who don't think that the Lightbulb is effectively the rantings of a biased, jaded individual who does not do any real research.

An interesting recent example of this is his article on declining webcomic readership. In his article, using information from Google Trends, he makes a list of webcomics that have been seeming to lose readers, ones that have been going steady and ones that are in fact gaining readership.

It seems like it could be a good base for starting research, but as he says he doesn't "know where Google gets their data". Okay, it's statistics based on unknown sources, so he looked into other places to see if the statistics matched before posting his article, right?

Wrong.
It's true that he admits he doesn't know the factual accuracy of the data, but he still writes a nice long article based on it, an article that would have been much improved if he'd made some serious attempts to check these statistics against other sites, for example Project Wonderful, who relay public statistics for the sites that chose to host adverts with them. That would have been a start.

Well, no double checking of statistics, but did he check the sites in question to find out what could have caused it. Apparently not, as the first person to comment, a user called amrothery, on the article other than himself pointed out some interesting ideas. I'll repost them here:

"Of course, some strips might have explanations that are even simpler. Dr. McNinja's drop seems to coincide with the switch to full-color updates. Diesel Sweeties looks to start dropping around the time Stevens left newspapers. Achewood's numbers suggest that people who came for the heavily-hyped (and highly praised, at least among a couple forums I frequent) Great Outdoor Fight saw no need to stick around once it was over. This is pure speculation on my part, but Girl Genius's declining numbers may be a result of the update schedule effectively getting cut in half when the last of the old print pages were posted."

So, some of the comics that have shown a decline according to Bengo's Google Trends findings seem to have good reasons to. A comic halving it's output should definitely affect the amount of traffic it receives for example. Now, I'd be interested to know how long it took amrothery to find this out and why it was beyond Bengo, who has in the past referrred to himself as a journalist, to look for this sort of information.

How did Bengo respond to this information? Well, he did respond to the post, but in true Bengo fashion he managed to skillfully avoid any mention of the of the examples above.

He did however have this to say:

"I expect Google gets its data from the same sources the other big analytics companies (like the one Adobe just bought) get it: from ISPs, with help from toolbars and statistical devices. The difference is Google has the might to get more for its money, and probably buys deeper data, or even gets it in exchange for services. But even Google is stingy about buying and storing data for sites that no one will ever check."

He expects they do.
Great journalism there, just great.

Been Censored? Call Tilting at Lightbulbs!

So, some bloggers censor their readers when they try to post on their site. They give their readers little freedom to argue or disagree with the opinions in the post. Well not here! If you disagree with what I have to say feel free to tell me. Will I filter out the comments I don't like?

No, nope, ní hea, non, ne, negative and even nyet. There is no censorship of opinions on this site, even if my inversely named counterpart felt like posting I would publish it happily. Let's have some discussion here folks.

It's come to my attention that my counterpart has been refusing to publish comments on his own blog by a certain user or users, maybe one, maybe many, but has been publicly responding to them. This does not seem to be fair to me, Mr. Bengo, not fair at all.

This I believe, is only scratching the surface of how everybody's favourite webcomic blogger likes to mislead his audience on how he interacts with the people he reports on. Now the thought has been floating around my head that if he won't post comments I will.

So, does anyone out there in webcomic land have things that our favourite webcomic blogger won't repeat I will. You send it, I'll post it.

Come on people, if there are any people out there that is.
Hey, people know I'm here right?
I went to a lot of effort to resurrect this blog, but more on that one in another post, probably the next one, unless of course some of you out there have something for me to write about.

Emails t0 mrgordonben @ googlemail.com

Or comment on this post.
Go on.

The Fable of the Webcomic Creator.

Once upon a time there was a webcomic creator.

Despite his best efforts he never quite managed to break into the sort of reader numbers he wanted and disappointed and confused by the lack of numbers he sought ways to improve his lot in the webcomic world through research.

He searched and searched for a means of success, but to no end and then one day he discovered a book, 'How to make webcomics'.

"Fantastic!" thought our hero, "This will give me all the answers I need!"

Trembling with excitement he studied the book at great depth, for this book was the answer to all his webcomic worries. Success was guaranteed!


...but alas such things weren't meant to be, for the book was not the infallible guide to all things webcomic related that he had believed it to be, but merely the opinions and views of its creators, what they found to work for themselves.

The webcomic creator came to resent the book and his attentions moved to forums for the answers. He would pick the brains of his peers and their collected experiences would show him the way, give him the guidance needed to succeed in his chosen field.

...but alas such things weren't meant to be, for webcomic creators are fickle, rude creatures and they failed to see the merit of our hero's work, causing a mockery of his research threads and taunted him endlessly. Tapirs and Godzilla now filled the thread, mocking his endeavours.

"I will not stand for this!" he declared, and indeed he did not stand for it. He did not stand for it at all. "The ringleader, I'll get him for this... this derailment of my thread!"

Thus did he proceed to chase the culprit across the vast expanse of the internet, determined to show his true nature to those who had been blinded to his disruptive ways.

...but alas such things weren't meant to be, for those communities shunned our valiant hero, choosing to stand by the villain despite the evidence presented against him.

Disrupted and disgruntled, but not disheartened he continued his work, away from the forums, tirelessly updating his blog, enlightening the masses to the evil ways of the webcomic nobility.

A true saviour to the webcomic world, he would show the webcomic creators of the world the way!

...but alas such things weren't to be, for he could not escape the mockery that he had faced followed him.

"Where is your proof?" the people asked in mockery of his revelations, "Where is the research to back this up?"

"You ask for proof?" he replied, "Is my word not proof enough that it is true?"

"No," replied the internet.

"Well," our hero said thinking on his feet, "There is evidence. In fact there is so much evidence that there is no room to post it here."

And the people nodded in agreement for his reasoning was infallible and they continued to read on, but dark clouds loomed on the horizon. The writers of the book were aware of our hero and unhappy with the scathing review it had received from our hero.

They unleashed their wrath upon his blog and for a while he retreated. He hid from the webcomic world, that had treated him so badly. What had he done to possibly deserve such mockery and torment? He had opened their eyes to the truth of the medium and they had been burnt by it.

They were retaliating in such a way, because they knew he was right!

And so the blog was restarted and the comments moderated. He left behind the term webcomics, for webcomics were the domain of charlatans and hacks. He would from now on create Online Comics!

The Online Comic revolution had begun!