A Case of Libel?

Not seeing the actual content and context of the blogger's inaccuracy (and not really wanting to), I can't judge if he was maliciously misusing the Google Trends data (I've seen grand misunderstandings come about from reports that GROWTH was down 50%), but I would wonder what role our old friends at the Goog have in this. I'm less of a Google-lover than most, as I've seen them shred their old "Don't Be Evil" motto, but their word (and their numbers) are treated as Gospel by too many people around the Internet. Forget the disclaimers, this is the Word of Google! If Google Trends' estimated numbers are showing a 50% drop instead of a 50% rise, I have to really wonder (a) if they're reliable for anybody and/or (b) if they're being manipulated. Excuse the tinfoil hatting, but it would be a good way to take advertising away from everybody but Google AdSense. Showing a 50% drop instead of a 50% rise is a statistical FAIL of MASSIVE proportions. Have you contacted the other webcomickers this blogger is claiming similar statistical bad news for? Can you imagine how many other sites might be getting shortchanged bigtime if this gross inaccuracy is not an isolated incident?

I'm shocked -- shocked that you produced charts using the Evil, Inc. corporate template, with appropriate color and font treatment.

You are a class act, sir. As they say, it's all about branding.

If you look at the other comics on the list of under achievers, it's not a such a bad list to be on.

Perhaps I missed something, but isn't Google Trends about tracking search trends? How does that translate into page views? I know that for myself, I *never* run searches to find sites I visit often, because I bookmark them, and follow RSS feeds.

Well...if the 'website' part of google trends (with the search terms www.evil-comic.com and evil inc) is based on searches/how many people went from google to your site, there's a very simple explanation for the fubared graph: people simply bookmarked the site/remembered the adress...

wait...no edit? Curse me and my slow brain. Interesting side note though is that the graph they have under "searches" (for the same terms), that uses a Search Volume index(whatever the hell that is), is not all that different from the graphs posted here.

My paranoia would always raise the question: What has someone to GAIN by doing this to you (and other web-comic authors)? I've not read the blog either, but perhaps it's someone who is just dismissive of this medium for comics in general, trying to portray web-comics as a passing fad. I don't know. I consider "Evil Inc." to be one of THE class-acts of the web and such defamation is disturbing to me.

As soon as I started reading this I knew exactly who the blogger was. What I recall from my college Research Methods course is something called "researcher bias." I'm quite positive there was some of that going on when this blogger was collecting so-called data. Or perhaps there was a confounding variable such as "spite." Ridiculous.

Seriously though, this ain't the world of gangster rap. This blogger has nothing to gain. Talk like that would get him clipped in a drive-by.

It sounds like some poor slob lost a job makin' comics for the newspaper and needed to take out his sadness on the hard working people of the internet :X

From a webcomics-growth perspective, this is interesting and valuable information, and thank you for taking the time to post it. Regarding the defamation of your comic, however, I feel the blogger in question doesn't have the credibility to hurt your reputation with advertisers. A competent, informed advertiser considers the source, and his archive history is chock-full of attack blogging, rumors and personal opinions that he's framed as fact, and misleading statistics. But, again, thank you for posting your growth data!

Brad - now I feel guilty. It's not my fault, mind you, but I feel guilty none the less.

You send me an email every night with the next days Evil Inc. I don't travel to your site, I don't count for your site visit numbers, but I am a daily reader, and have been for years now. Do your final numbers take into account all of us who receive Evil Inc. via email?

I want my voice heard damn it! If I am not being counted I will ignore my emails and go directly to your site. I am sorry if all of this has impact on your bottom dollar.

You know we will support you, whatever it takes.

First off, thanks for all of the supporting comments, you guys. It's hard not to get distracted by stuff like this. :)

To Ubergeek: Please don't apologize for being a faithful reader! :) Your participation is, indeed, counted.

You should sue him - in England!

I'm so oldfashioned that I actually still come to the site. It's easier since you update daily and on time (and I started reading before I got a feedreader).

Do you mind sharing what the spike in February is due to, or is that proprietary too?

What happened back in February of '09? There was a big jump in visits then.

I don't know about the February spike but I am sure that the April spike was due to his overwhelmingly successful visist to the Emerald City Comicon, where he and the whole Half Pixel crew showed us once again why they are the most beloved and popular table(s)in the Con.

Or, maybe one of his new books came out.

I like the first reason better. Go with that one.

Okay, now knowing the identity of the bad blogger, and knowing more about Google Trends it's all making more sense.

Google Trends is a metric worthless to everyone but Google to promote its own services (because its numbers are collected from all of its own services... don't use Feedburner for your RSS? Google Trends will see no RSS traffic).

The Nyethead's use of the numbers is totally disingenuous, but that has long been his Modus Operandi. (And what a passive-aggressive performance!) His superinflated ego can't accept his natural place among the lower species of the Webcomics Ecostructure, and Google Trends' worthless statistics serve him well.

Just another case of what I've seen too often lately: Google supporting the worst of the web. (Has their ad profit from the Acai Berry fraudsters reached a billion dollars yet?)

Was the February spike due to your appearance at Katsucon perhaps?

Having been referred to this site by a friend this summer I devoured the archive in record time. I am happy to see that your traffic numbers are on their way up as that assures lurkers like me that we will have more quality entertainment in the future.

I'm happy to say that I neither recognized the blogger nor found his review with a cursory search. Recent cases though have proven that libelous comments made by bloggers are actionable. If at all possible nail this prick to the wall. Irresponsible journalism should be weeded out.

I've found the blog in question and here's my observations

ok first of all, the blog is conencted to several webcomics, this makes him immediatly "part of the competition" which does sort of have an impact on things yeah. (I checked out the comics he's affliated with they suck BTW) it's worth noteing he didn't post up his comics claiming "they're too small" for google trends to bother to list...

Secondly he's produced a less then flattering review of your book "how to make web comics" where basicly he questions your guy's busniess model etc. I notice on his list, Sheldon. PVP, Evil Inc and Starslip cris are ALL listed as... udner performing.

I don't have any legal training whatsoever but with these facts in mind I'd definatly talk to your lawyer

After I got home from work on Friday, I had some time to try and do a search for the blogger in question but I came up empty using every possible search function I could think of to try and sniff out the blogger in question. I repeatedly came up empty.

What search engine did I use to do this "investigation"?

Google.

So that should tell you something right there, shouldn't it?

Eventually - thanks to a Twitter feed link today (Sunday) I did find the blog and read it. I also know of the blogger in question and, although he has always been kind & complimentary to me, I know of others who have a very big disdain for him and I can also see why.

Many of us who are professional web designers will tell you that it's very easy to get frustrated by Google since Google seems to be the self-appointed Commissioner of the web but they refuse to tell you EXACTLY what their RULES are. Somehow, they have convinced everyone they are THE ONE AND ONLY authority on anything related to the web - Especially when it comes to analytics and SEO. Personally, I think it's short-sighted to look at something like Google Trends and draw sweeping conclusions about the results. Everything about Google is super-secretive - so much so, you can't even be sure of what you're actually seeing when Google actually decides to share information.

And, as others have said, Google is all about dominating the web so how much of those numbers might be distorted because you have more Project Wonderful ads on your site as opposed to the Google-preferred Google Ads? Where is the consideration for RSS feeds and things like that? If it doesn't serve Google's purpose, I could definitely see where a site could be as popular as Evil Inc. yet still have a 50% drop off.

In the end, it's all bogus. As you pointed out in your rebuttal, Brad, the ONLY stats that should REALLY matter are the ones generated by your ISP because THEY are the only ones that are completely UN-BIAS. ISPs provide a service to their customers - unlike Google who is trying to provide a monopoly on the web.

Anyway, just my two cents about this subject on a Sunday afternoon.

-Chris

The About Google Trends page clearly states "Google Trends analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time." You'll see similar drops for pages you KNOW are going up like amazon.com and espn.com because people are going directly to the page instead of searching on google. Frankly, I think it's a failing of Google that their Trends chart claims "Daily Unique Visitors" on their charts when it should be "Daily Unique Google Searches".