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.
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.
Dear Gordon Ben,
ReplyDeleteTodsy, I again contacted bengo, the following is the post that most likely will not be posted:-
Dear Bengo, my lovable shithead.
"Our reader mail is articulate and "gets it,""(btw who the hell thinks a comma in speech marks is a good idea, esp when the section of text does not require it in itself).
First off may give you a round of the floors for managing to totally cockup and demonstrate that, while the readership may be articulate, the author is not.
This little dose of tosspot commentary in reply to Scott (who I may add has some fantastic points that you totally failed to respond to) just goes to show that you don't "get it".
Your comic is a very "niche" product as Scott pointed out and I hardly feel that it would ever take off in its current form (as a big commercial concern) but if your happy for it to be a comic that the vast majority don't get, I am more than happy for you.
I, may self find your writing a little to dry, as if I was forced to read lecture notes upon a tropical beach about a topic I care very little about. If you enjoy making it, good for you but this doesn't mean that people have to enjoy reading it and this is a huge problem if you want to turn it into a business of any kind, outside the realms of low volume printing.
I, unlike Scott, in the main like the art style, its simplistic but I like that, its a refreshing change. I, myself, prefer doing grand, dystopia scenes but I admit it is as distraction from my less than stellar facial features (a point illustrated, I feel by my amiga game of the same name as my comic).
Again, it's not the comic I have a issue with, thought I do feel it has little chance of making a big profit, it you, to be blunt.
You're a little shit, you don't take advice, you contently misread data and advice (and though I might be hash, I just want to help you as much as I can). My other big problem is your constant use of unproven or incorrect data and information as fact, this is hardly good practice and it seems you just don't learn.
As for business, I too find it hard to believe that you have talked to an banker or accountant on any level, I just don't see how they would be even slightly interested in your comic, even if you had the data to persuade them, it would still be a very hard sell.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, every bone in my body screams this at the mention of it.
Yours Fatefully,
Jessica Ottowell
fiveCARDSdown Group
This is all for new posts, but you missed out this, classic post.
ReplyDeleteDear Bengo,
It's been a while since I sat down and told you that you're wrong, but let me see, with some conviction I can say, you're wrong.
See, I hate to tell you that your commentary on someone else's research is just bloody wrong, but it is, to be fair and I can see why that for someone of your mental standard reading a fucking chart would be hard.
Have you sat down and thought to yourself why these services are just plain wrong for comics or why they seem not to match exactly most of the time. Perhaps, just perhaps, they use different methods to gather information (say perhaps Google just works on main page loads or perhaps Alexa does) but I think we can both agree that the difference is algorithm used.
The algorithm may favour a site based upon many factors, this might even be as simple as site layout or the fact that one site's rss feed may be excluded from the stats, I feel that any service that excludes rss stats maybe an unsuitable benchmark, given that the masses use rss to keep up to date with webcomics that they like, readers who, I may add, may not visit the website directly.
Concerning your spat with evil inc, I feel that you are most liable, you are spreading information that might damage evil inc's ability to generate advertising revenue by spreading irrelevant peradventure and contradicting evidence that is beyond peradventure.
This is placing you upon ground most uncertain and I may add feel that in a court, your evidence would be considered invalid. please stop that.
Again, may I ask, who are you really bengo?
Kind Regards,
Jessica Ottowell
fiveCARDSdown group