Google Trends and Webcomics: Google's Response

Google responded to questions raised by our recent discussion of Google Trends, and the surprising results for many major webcomics. (Scroll down to read earlier posts.)


From a Google spokesperson, S. Tran, in response to a letter from me:




I received your email re: Google Analytics and Google Trends for Websites.

Regarding the difference in data, the results from Trends for Websites are estimated and may differ from Analytics data. Trends for Websites is in Google Labs, so it's still in its early stages of development and may have 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.

As for the development of Trends for Websites to vanquish click fraud to expose sites with inaccurate claims, Trends for Websites is an extension to the Google Trends set of features and we think its the next step in helping users understand how the internet is used. The goal of Trends for Websites is to show interesting trend relationships between website audiences over time.



Thoughts:

• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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. 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.
• 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)

Remember: I am not accusing anyone of traffic click fraud, and people who have data on Google Trends that makes them look sketchy might try being glad that someone is trying to figure out what is driving the odd results for webcomics.

Using Alexa to Rough Check GoogleTrends Graphs

Comparing Google Trends to Alexa is not apples-to-oranges, but it's not my idea of good science, either. Google Trends reports daily unique visits while the Alexa data is for percent of available internet audience. They should tend to follow each other pretty closely, however, so let's see how some graph comparisons work out.

Recall this study that showed very close matches between Google Trends and Google Analytics for significant anonymous sites. It showed a very close match -- almost startling -- between the subject's analytics and trends reports.

This was unexpected, because graphs from both sources for major webcomics are showing big disparities. Google Trends shows sharp declines in readership for many comics. Only a few people who create the comics -- and see the private analytics -- have said anything, with one writing to say that Trends disagreed with his analytics and another writing an indignant blog post. I realize many cartoonists truck in public esteem and income, as opposed to data, but I know from an upcoming publication that data has a place.

Google gives you five more months of history than Alexa, so you have to lop off the left side of the Google graph to match them up, right where it says "October." Remember, we're looking to see if the graphs are similar, not so much, or quite different. I'll explain the reason after we view the graphs.

I chose to search for the Alexa 500, then used 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500. It seemed like a random way to pick some big sites, but 500 was mature content, so I picked a nearby one to replace it.


Subject 1: Mozilla.com, Alexa Rank 100

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 2: Torrentz.com, Alexa Rank 200

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 3: In.com, Alexa Rank 300

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 4: so-net.ne.jp, Alexa Rank 400

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 5: Joomla.org, Alexa Rank 496 (used instead of 500, which had adult images)

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subjective Impressions

(Remember to delete left end of GT graphs, as advised above):


Pair #1: A stretch to much similarity, if any

Pair #2: Somewhat similar but no distinguishing features

Pair #3: Quite similar

Pair #4: Verging on only general similarity

Pair #5: Quite similar


From this small experiment, we see a tendency for Google Trends for assorted large sites to resemble Alexa results from almost resembling to fairly well.

I said earlier we'd be looking to see if the graphs turned out similar, not so much, or quite different. Given that a line graph can follow any track, two graphs that are fairly similar have more in common than chance suggests. The fact that we continue to see a majority of samples where similarity is visible to the naked eyes despite the differences in data expressed by Google Trends and Alexa is a further suggestion that Google Trends information is often valid. The ramifications of this preliminary observation are unclear.

Large sites are one thing; what about webcomics?

I inserted Alexa data and subjective resemblances into the data chart sent earlier by AMRothery. View it: Augmented Webcomics Chart

You'll see that results tend to overlap about half the time, be in adjacent categories most of the rest of the time, and are rarely contradictory. Results are somewhat subjective.

What can we learn? A rough comparison gets us rough results, but if there was no validity it should get near zero results. Alexa and Google Trends have some overlap, but not as much as Google Trends and Google Analytics for sites, especially those outside of webcomics.

Guigar Response

Yes, I did read Brad Guigar's response to this series, and you can too: Guigar, September 25 blog entry. (Scroll down to it.) You'll see that quoting and discussing data from Google is sufficient to nudge the gentleman into accusations of libel, though he'd rather not risk that you read it. Why not just say your data disagrees, and help solve the puzzle?

A clarification about click fraud

Someone suggested I point out the different types of click fraud, since I brought it up for discussion. One type is clicking on ads hosted on your site, so you get more ad sales (and money). That type is particularly likely to rile an ad broker like ADSDAQ.

There is also traffic fraud, which is arranged with inexpensive cheating devices. The more elaborate ones allow one computer to send hit after hit to a wide array of participating websites, dramatically inflating their traffic and obscuring its activity. The skeptical researcher considers this possibility when a comic that has been growing sluggishly at best suddenly has a huge spike in traffic that doesn't recede, especially if there is no major change to explain it.

There are a number of ways that people get caught doing this, and I won't be publicizing them, but not all of them require action by Google: some can be done by anyone with internet access, though without illegally entering accounts, the evidence would be circumstantial -- suitable for ratting them out perhaps, but not for publicly accusing them.

I'll state again, for those with frazzled nerves, that I am not accusing anybody of click fraud.

Next: Google's Response

Google Trends Weirdness: A Click Fraud Hypothesis?

I'm still mulling the weird webcomics data from Google Trends. Here's another hypothesis to consider.


You''ll recall my latest rundown of comic audience size based on data from Google Trends.


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.


Meanwhile, Google Trends reports famous webcomic sites losing 50% of their readers or more.


I asked, is Google Trends wrong? Or is the data untrustworthy? What can be learned from the phenomenon, or perhaps guessed?


People wrote in with some thoughts, and there was a record amount of kook mail, all from the same Google account but using different names, genders and nationalities. (The kook mail, mostly from one email account, was resolved by eliminating anonymous comments.) And, of course, some people complained about me spotlighting the data, even if it is public.


I like the notion that the most obvious answer is often the most likely. But having waved this post in the air for several days, and not having received answers that lay it to rest for my satisfaction, I wonder if we might finally be seeing something that I have been anticipating for some time.


If you follow the news, you know that click fraud has risen dramatically every year and passed 25% a while back.


Click fraud is Google's Achilles Heel, because they are a pay-per-click advertising company, first and foremost. The problem is so rampant that only a major solution will vanquish it.


Enter Google Trends, in which Google releases public audience data for sites above a certain audience threshold. The graphs are released quietly as a project of Google Labs, but what we aren't told is that this data is Google's click-fraud H-bomb. Google moves in steady, deliberate steps, giving users time to adjust to change. One day perhaps Trends will emerge from Labs as a featured Google offering.


Then, it's only a matter of time before a modest adjustment of the accompanying FAQ adds, "These graphs have been screened for click fraud, with 99% of false results removed." Or something similar.


At that point things might become awkward, because of my tendency to store vast amounts of data for possible future use. That includes redundant storage of graphs going back as long as four years for most major pure-play webcomics. If anyone's site has been on steroids, it will be Google's word against theirs.


Consider: people are either reliably honest or not. Many of the creators that have the worst record for reliability fall into one or more of these types:

• They're "squishy," meaning they'll contradict themselves to suit their audience, or lie by omission, or refuse to own up to errors
• They're indifferent: while they may play the role of the charming cartoonist at conventions, many people know them as selfish thugs
• They're egotists, who commence axe-grinding at the first sign of dissent, and are not gracious to critics
• They're lazy and therefore sloppy, meaning they are more transparent than they realize
• They are defensive by nature
• They often rely on enablers

I notice that when you see one form of deceptive conduct, you tend to see other forms.

Let's be clear. I am not accusing *anyone* of click-fraud. It's Google's job to sort that out.

Corruption is bad for commerce. If there is cheating in webcomics, anyone who is a stakeholder in a webcomic business has a right to raise questions. If there is no cheating, there is no need for concern, and no need for people from the core of webcomics to react with circle-the-wagons hostility.

Yes, I get the same letters over and over: that I am a bitter failure, that I tried the HalfPixel plan and it "didn't work," that I am a conspiracy theorist, etc. If you fall for that, you deserve what you get.

Until the riddle of contradicting data for webcomics audiences is resolved, I think we owe it to ourselves to find out what we can, and discuss each hypothesis with an open mind until it is fully evaluated.

We've covered, to some degree, RSS feed traffic, javascript, cookies, algorithms, Google as a vindictive competitor, changes in user habits, and various other ideas. They're not off the table and may indeed be part of the answer, but I wouldn't say anyone has resolved the question.

A final note: a year ago when I began to notice oddities in analytics from a bunch of closely affiliated webcomics sites, another odd thing happened: ADSDAQ, a major supplier of ads to host sites, abruptly and without comment dropped many webcomics from their portfolio. Perhaps this can be attributed to other causes, but it was notable to actually see most of a category of customers purged without notice.


It would be gratifying to resolve it quickly with an explanation that does not rely on a culture of click fraud as a major component.

____

Update: Reader AMRothery has been developing a useful spreadsheet of pertinent data, which you can view now.

Seen a confusingly titled post?

Feed subscribers may have gotten a rough draft of a post featuring reader Q&A about ComicRank.

If you did, I'm sorry. I hit the wrong key or somethin.'

A cleaned up version will come out soon.

You would recognize it by the incomprehensible post title.

Webcomic Readership Trends: Grim, or Misleading?

It's interesting to see what webcomics are gaining daily unique visitors and what ones are losing. This data is from Google Trends.

Feeds may reduce the count for some titles. I don't know where Google gets their data, and it may vary from other analytics systems. Some comics take breaks which may affect their numbers: this is why Dresden Codak has been omitted.

I've tried to add some new titles since my last report, but data is not available for all comics. Also, a disproportionate number of older comics seem to have declined lately, making it harder to locate strong performers. Feel free to identify some and share them below.

Our own comics are too small for Google Trends. Most webcomics are. The recent decision to move our titles away from the "webcomics scene" toward a more independent path stills feels right. I've found that I get more respect from established cartoonists outside webcomics than from within, though there are many fine people in webcomics. By respect, I don't mean patting my head, I mean they engage in serious, professional discussions without going to pieces.

One wonders if the recent recession has played a roll in what is a rather gloomy summary. Have hand held devices usurped surfers from comics, which are bandwidth intensive?

I try to avoid including comics with multiple sites, since I am not sure how this will affect results. If you see any, let me know.

What do you think is causing the slide? Do you blame the data, or do you see other explanations?

If one of these comics is yours, does your own analytics data agree? If not, what analytics system do you use, and how do you account for the difference?


On the Rise:

SMBC
xkcd
Amazing Super Powers

Holding Steady:

Cyanide and Happiness
A Softer World
Book of Biff
Buttersafe
Gunnerkrigg Court

Wondermark
Octopus Pie

Weregeek

No Need for Bushido

MSPaintAdventures

Savage Chickens

Slipping:

Overcompensating
Dinosaur Comics
Looking for Group
PhD Comics
Adventures of Dr. McNinja
Sheldon
Irregular Webcomic

Unshelved

Lost at least 50% of daily unique visitors in last two years:

Achewood
Girl Genius

Sinfest

Misfile

Goats

Comics that did even worse:

Penny Arcade
PvP
Ctrl+Alt+Del
Diesel Sweeties
Something Positive

Evil, Inc.

Domic Deegan: Oracle for Hire
Shortpacked
Flipside

Sluggy Freelance

Three Panel Soul

VGCats

Starslip

8-Bit Theater

For the record, there are comics here I like and comics that don't interest me. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings; I just want to understand what this data is telling us, if anything. All these titles have reasons to be proud of their accomplishments.

Comics people seem to hate anything that reeks of bad news. My own experiences tell me that pretending it will go away is not effective. I'm very interested in what the experts have to say.

I also wonder, given that many of these comics appear on the outdated Wikipedia list of "self-sufficient webcomics," how medium-sized comics that have undergone 70% drops in audience are surviving, if indeed they have.

I'd like to end on an optimistic note: I did think of one possibility that would not conflict with this data, but would offer a possible explanation for it: Perhaps webcomics readers are visiting their favorite comics less often, but reading many pages per visit.

Perhaps a volunteer would like to step forward and comment on whether their own data supports that interpretation. My data for my comics is supportive, but again, my comics are still very small compared to most of these.

________

Thinking about commenting? Go ahead. I got a note from someone saying I am known for not printing dissenting comments.

Not so. I generally follow a loose version of the Daily Cartoonist's approach: Real names, please; don't bury me with a comment every single day that requires a long response, go easy on the hate mail. I bend the rules often and print stuff that is intended to irritate, just so people can see what else arrives.

I have saved most unprinted comments: most are from about 4-5 people who simply went overboard, some are simply insults, some are so-so letters mixed with insults that arrived on days when I didn't have time for them, and some are nonsensical or spam.

I know full well that most of you can write a fine letter and contribute to our collective knowledge without resorting to rudeness. Many of the comments here have been excellent. If you feel I have missed a well-crafted comment, forward me a copy to my email just in case something went wrong.

Let's also not forget that I have offered this forum in the past for anyone who wants to compose a full-length counterpoint or wants me to attempt to argue their side to see how well I do. No one has ever taken me up on the offer. Kris Straub came the closest, writing a long and thoughtful piece as a series of comments, and while we are not in agreement on various issues, at least he stood up for what he believes. I respect him more for making his case, in public, without fear. Not to mention, some of his comics lately have been pretty funny.

Though I find the accusation of censorship unfounded (not to mention, it is my blog), I will take extra care not to muzzle people who are trying to make a point, and to practice my best manners. Fair enough?