It's been two years since Comixpedia published an update to our Most Read project which tracked the audience shares of webcomics.
It was difficult to determine readership numbers then, it's just as difficult to conduct any kind of "Internet ratings" now. But it's an extremely useful process for Comixpedia as it helps to ensure that we are not overlooking significantly popular webcomics in our coverage (It is not a prerequisite that a webcomic be "popular" to merit coverage. The strength of readership of a particular webcomic, however, is a legitimate tool for deciding what we should write about). If you have suggestions for future efforts in this area feel free to post a comment here.
Comments
Project Wonderful
Yes
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
I don't know if this project
Hope Not
I would hope not. This isn't meant to say X comic is the best and all others are lesser. And it's pretty clear for example that Penny Arcade is (unless I find new sets of data that show otherwise) still the #1 webcomic on numbers. I suppose that might provoke bad feelings, but it's information that exists whether I write up the list or not.
And if you're not a creator then I'm not sure why you'd get emotionally involved unless you're an uber-fan of a specific comic.
Interestingly enough, Project Wonderful - for those webcomics using it - turns out to do exactly what I thought about writing up a script for in 2005. If more and more webcomics use Project Wonderful then there won't be much work to do in sorting out this kind of list b/c it'll all be in Ryan's database.
All kinds of media - blogs, video, etc on the internets are struggling with how to count what they do for advertisers. Thinking through that problem and exploring potential solutions is why I'm interested in this subject. It's an interesting topic for that reason alone.
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
Man-Up.
I'm thinking you're funning a little Josh, but for anyone who may take it for serious:
I know right where my comic sits in the grand scheme of webcomics, and am I perfectly happy with it? No. But ignoring that fact isn't going to help. Sure, some folk are in it just for grins, but some are not, and denying us data we can analyze and use to improve our mehtods of craft and outreach to spare some folks feelings is bad business and irresponsible for Comixpedia as a trade magazine. By your response I know you agree Xaviar, but I guess I'm more underscoring that this kinda idea tends to raise my ire. If we want webcomics to be treated like an industry, not comic book fantasy camp, then leave your sensitivities at the door, and get down to business becasue even great talent and good intentions will only take you so far.
Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash
Clickwheel
Reckless Life
Two thoughts
Two thoughts:
The common misconception that "traffic" or "hits" equals readership seems to still be floating around.
There are other options besides "treating webcomics like A) a fantasy camp or B) an industry." One of those options would be to treat it like art.
--------------------------
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
I'm with the guy with the
I'm with the guy with the zombie arm on this.
If only because it'll eventually gets used in some dick-measuring contest anyway.
No Arguments With That
But it doesn't seem to me that all of this is in conflict with each other. To be fair about it most folks doing comics feel like they're making art, even those that also want to there to be commerce going on with that art.
But there's no reason for anyone not interested in commerce or numbers to be ashamed of making comics for comics (art's) sake. Most of the greatest artists in any medium you can think of didn't care about numbers.
But Comixpedia has a "trade paper" aspect to it and this is one of those topics that's interesting to me in ways that go beyond webcomics. If you are interested in commerce, in making some kind of business around making comics then unless you're going to go with the wealthy patron approach (grants would fall into this category too - I'd love to see more options for webcomics here - something like a Xeric grant for webcomics wouldn't be a bad start) the audience numbers matter. They matter whether you're going with a subscription, advertising or merchandise model.
And also selfishly for Comixpedia's coverage - a bunch of our coverage is what we (we being me and any other active editors and contributors - that changes over time) like but it seems fair and objective to me to check that with something like audience numbers. We may be missing something out there outside of personal taste that we should be writing about. I check that in other ways too by paying attention to awards like the WCCAs and other indicators from other groups.
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
Fair and objective
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
No
Eric
Maybe you're making a funny, but no you're not correct.
I have the same thing available to everyone else on the Internet (except for large corporations in industries covered by Nielsen Online and similar companies compiling reports which cost $$$. And which may or may not be anymore accurate depending on which analysts you want to believe). This consists of several options: data from a subset of Internet users collected by companies such as Alexa and Compete - this approach has flaws (which have been discussed on this site) but it is useful; data from publicly available counters such as Extreme, Hit Meter (and Project Wonderful), and data from private counters (log servers, stats programs). All of this is objective data. We can (and should) debate its validity and its flaws but that doesn't make it categorically "neither fair nor objective". (It's also not true that it's limited in any way by personal tastes or "systematic biases" as I've made (and keep working at) a tremendous effort to identify and incorporate webcomic titles that appear to have any significant readership at all. That has nothing to do with taste and is only limited by the limitations of publicly available tools to identify such webcomics.)
Measuring readership (or viewership or whatever the applicable term for any medium) is hard. Every other medium is having a debate right now on how to measure it (if they're not an established format/medium) or whether their methods for doing so are accurate (if they are established like TV, Radio, etc) so it's not surprising that any discussion surrounding webcomics is going to encounter a lot of questions and debate on the subject.
I understand some people for various reasons think considering the size of readerships to be (a) an affront to artistic purity and/or (b) an exercise that can never attain perfection and so is never worth the effort. I disagree on both counts and while I think I understand where those two points of view are coming from I just don't agree with them.
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
I mean numbers for the entire webcomics audience
I'm not saying you don't have some audience numbers, I'm saying you don't have enough audience numbers, and the numbers that you do have are crunched through sytems full of biases.
One of many examples would be the tendency to treat webcomics readeship as if it can be measured through the traffic on a site, when often the site features more than just comics, or the comics are featured on more than one site.
--------------------------
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
I am, although I really do
I am, although I really do find such lists indicative of how little things tend to change.
The popular comics still always have the same qualities, with few exceptions.
"Consistency" - which means that the artists won't push their style or try to evolve, because the readers don't want them to.
"Innovation" - which means the writer has found various ways to make the comics while doing less work.
Lack of investment - which means it's easier to do well with a comic if the readers don't have to remember anything.
Catering to fetishes - Catering to various fetishes, such as anime.
All these things, and more, are still a lot more important than learning how to write and draw well.
Stop me if I'm derailing.
The truthiness of this makes
You're right Eric
You're right Eric, I left that out and I probably shouldn't have. I've always been a very commerical artist (you wouldn't believe the arguements I used to get into with some of my art profs in school) and I'll get wrapped up in that from time. I certainly don't want to come of as an us vs them kinda guy in terms of business vs. expression, that drives me crazy. Webcomics need both equally, and I do my best to support them both, even if I do tend to skew to the former.
Thanks for covering my ass there before someone really (rightly?) put me in my place, is what I'm saying.
Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash
Clickwheel
Reckless Life
Whether webcomics are
Whether webcomics are illustration or art is besides the point. A serious survey to discover what the webcomic demographic is is a good idea.
Do original hits equal popularity or readership? Clearly, that depends on the strip. Some are put out as a business proposition, monetized and marketed. Some are purely self-expression, and the point is not how many read it, but who gets it.
Like Tim, I fall into the commercial art camp, but that doesn't mean I think less of the fine art camp.
http://www.graphicsmash.com/comics/johnnysaturn.php
Josh's honesty is
Yeah, that!
This is totally what I meant in much better words. Much to learn, still have I.
Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash
Clickwheel
Reckless Life
What?
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Eric, I tend to assume that
More on "hit tracking"
Campbell writes: We have "hit tracking" for comic books and bookstore sales and any art form that has enough professional practicioners to be called an "industry."
Sure, and those tracking methods are generally very clear and up front about their limitations. We're very careful to refer to sales as sales, readership as readership, circulation as circulation, etc. Bookstores don't take "traffic" and equate it with "readership," for example.
I think there's just too many comics off our radar, too little data on those that are on our radar, and what data there is ends up getting misinterpretted and misused.
Oh, and sorry if I misinterpretted your "Those of us that are serious about the future" or whatever as more divisive than you intended.
--------------------------
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
We're only talking data here.
Not to put words in T's typing fingers but I think he and I are kinda trying to make the same point here, (imagine that!) and it's not so much about the artistic ambitions of the medium or creating some kind of divide between art and business, we're simply saying that from the more business focused point of view we're taking on this issue, numbers can be an important thing to distect. It is equally important that boundries be pressed both on the creative and financial frontiers, but not everyone is best suited to push both. Personally, I know I'm better suited to the former, and leave the latter to those best suited in that arena.
In short, you're right this data should neither refute nor validate the artistic credibility of any given piece in any way, and I don't believe either of us are saying that, but it can help define trends that may be valuable when looking at things from the other direction and I see no harm it may casue to any sort artistis pursuits. Sure, it may raise that popularity contest thing that some may find distasteful, but don't we spending our time looking at webcomics as an industry have as much right to pursue our ends as those looking to further it artisically?
Not to sound all Johnny Peacemaker, but I think we're all just getting lost in well-meant semantics here.
Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash
Clickwheel
Reckless Life
Okay we posted that at, like, the exact same time.
So I'll add:
What T said.
Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash
Clickwheel
Reckless Life
If you want to talk business, talk business
I don't quite get that either, Tim -- if you want to talk business, then why not talk about business? You know, dollars and cents rather than hits and page views.
To me talk about traffic just gets into weird numbers games, where the page views of sites with thousands of pages get compared to sites with few pages, or the daily unique visitors of a daily comic get compared to the daily unique vistors of a monthly comic, or whatever.
--------------------------
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Crap, now I have to actually think.
I don't quite get that either, Tim -- if you want to talk business, then why not talk about business? You know, dollars and cents rather than hits and page views.
In a lot of ways, especially with ad sales the seperation gets murky, was my thinking.
To me talk about traffic just gets into weird numbers games, where the page views of sites with thousands of pages get compared to sites with few pages, or the daily unique visitors of a daily comic get compared to the daily unique vistors of a monthly comic, or whatever.
That's a good point, I don't have a good answer for. I guess in using any numerical data to it's fullest the context does not to be taken into account as well. If there's a mechincal way to measure that it's well beyond me, and we'll just have to take any hard numbers with a grain of salt and have to put some elbow grease to making the numbers make as much sense as we can within those contexts.
OR: Ryan invent something to solve this, pls/thx.
As much as I'd love to debate this all evening it is the party night amongst party nights, and I'm going to go search for the answer to this at the bottom of a beer bottle. (If I don't find it in the first one, don't worry, I'll try again.)
Happy Turkey day everybody.
Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash
Clickwheel
Reckless Life
Yeah, Happy Turkey Day everyone!
Yeah, Happy Turkey Day everyone!
See you at the country club!
--------------------------
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Maybe...
Eric,
I replied to your other comment above. I'll stay out of your discussion with T though.
As for myself let me reply only to your last sentence there. Taking art seriously is an apple to a measuring the readership orange. There have absolutely nothing to do with each other in the grand scheme of history or human experience, other then the coincidence that sometimes great art does attract a mass audience. Sometimes it doesn't. But in terms of coverage today - a mass audience for something is in and of itself can be newsworthy. And again, just b/c something doesn't have a mass audience doesn't mean it's disqualified from coverage.
And really I have no idea how measuring the audience for webcomics in anyway is a comment on the nobility, seriousness and universality of the human experience of art. How do we get from looking at data on unique visitors, page views and other server data to debating whether or not the human race is serious about art?
To put my point in immediate perspective I think Fetus-X is a great, boundary-pushing comic for which I'm not going to change my own opinion about if I found out it was rivaling Penny Arcade in readership numbers or at the other end was only read by a small number of people. And I hope that we'll catch and write about the next Fetus-X out there, but we're going to do that by the hard work of finding it ourselves - not b/c of its readership numbers (in fact hopefully when we find it we can send new readers to check it out). There's no reason in my mind, however why that subjective effort to cover quality work has to conflict with this more data-driven project.
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
Serious about the form
Xerexes writes: "I have no idea how measuring the audience for webcomics in anyway is a comment on the nobility, seriousness and universality of the human experience of art"
Yeah, me either, that why it seemed really weird to me that Campbell wrote "Those of us who have serious ambitions for the long-term development of this form cannot do without this knowledge in the years to come."
I think maybe he meant something else more specific maybe.
--------------------------
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
I'M WITH ERIC!
ISBN's don't have anything
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
This isn't *conceptually* a bad idea, but...
...as many have said, there is no reliable way of doing it without getting ahold of every webcomic's server stats.
Alexa is a *deeply flawed* method for measuring site traffic, on MANY levels. And using a crappy methodology just because you can't get access to a better methodology doesn't make the ratings any more accurate -- it's still exactly the same level of crappy.
Imperfect Yes but...
I'll grant that there are issues with Alexa's approach, but "deeply flawed" on "MANY levels"?
It would be helpful to spell out for us what pushes it beyond imperfect to "deeply flawed" and identify all of those levels you're talking about. Write it here, or point me to a URL of something that explains your conclusion - I'd like to hear it.
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
It's because toolbars are
OK, here is why it is deeply flawed:
2. Alexa is not available for any browser other than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Taken as a whole, when you look at the entire population of the web, this doesn't look like a significant statistical outlier, because IE comprises 75-80% of the entire browser market, but in truth it is a VERY significant outlier on some sites, because general use trends do not correlate to the usage trends of specific sites. For example, according to my server logs only 25% of my audience uses Internet Explorer. This means that even if all other things were equal, only 25% of my audience is being counted by Alexa. The first item is debatable, I suppose -- not everyone considers these things "spyware" to the degree that I do. The second, however, is what makes Alexa so flawed. In order for Alexa to work it has to assume that every website it counts reflects the usage trends of the web as a whole -- in other words, that 75% of visitors to every web site will be using Alexa. That is simply not true.
Add Alexa's flaws to the
So: incomplete and flawed data on an incomplete and flawed subset of the phenomenon being researched.
That's pretty much the definition of GIGO.
I'm not meaning to trash-talk Xerexes or the project in question here. Just pointing out that there are all kinds of reasons to be cynical about this, not just ideological ones.
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
Alexa lists 6 known biases
Fetus-X is the greatest comic in the world.
Comscore.com is generally
I do know that WCN vs. Comic Genesis looks very different in Comscore than in Alexa. "Very different" as in "hard to believe these two systems are supposedly looking at the same two websites' traffic."
For my own ego purposes, I prefer the Alexa data in that particular case, by the way. Ha!
Penny-Arcade rules all our asses on Comscore just as handily as they do on Alexa, by the way.
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
They're not
Alexa fucks up Comic Genesis data bigtime, Joey. This is due to a bias they do NOT list.
It gives separate ranks to separate servers. So what you see for the Alexa rank of a given Comic Genesis comic is almost a random number (way too high for the comic's traffic, but way too low for all of Comic Genesis) based on what other comics that one happens to be grouped with on the server.
Because of this problem, certain webcomics get completely rooked in Alexa rank because of how they handle their servers. For example, Sluggy.com (the comic's server, rank 13,049) does not get the traffic counted from Sluggy.net (the forums server, traffic rank 73,687). There is no easy way to combine those rank numbers to get an accurate feel for Sluggy Freelance's traffic relative to a comic which hosts its archives and forums on the same server.
C+A+D at http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/ has a rank of 3,616, which does not count traffic from http://www.cad-comic.com/ which is still a whopping 22,381.
This is why a comparison between any two comics may be flawed. You have to dig and investigate to make sure Alexa is comparing apples to apples.
It is better to use Alexa data to try and learn something about patterns of growth among properties and ask broader questions.
Comscore
Well, it appears that
The people who are pushing Comscore on me are well-known, highly respected, and very successful business people in the field of venture funding. But, again, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, either.
If you find anything on them, let us know.
Here's their Wikipedia page. It has links to stories about them on CNET, MSNBC.com, and so on, some laudatory, some not.
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
Good point, Eric.
However, there is useful data which can be gleaned even from a flawed system of measure. For example, Alexa indicating that schlockmercenary.com has higher traffic than partiallyclips.com is a datum you can have near 100 percent confidence in.
If you use it primarily as a relative measure of traffic, and consider groups of comics within certain bands and ranges, you can learn a lot.
Alexa's biases are frequently misunderstood and overstated, and tend to apply mainly to sites with traffic above 100,000 rank, where Alexa does not even pretend to accuracy. The relative rank of 2 sites with a greater than 10 percent rank difference is strongly correlated to other traffic measures, at least within the top, say, 25,000 sites.
The concept of imperfect information being better than no information might be counterintuitive. People love to discredit sources by catching them in some inconsistencies. But the difference between Alexa data and reality is not a whole lot greater than the difference between poll data and election results. Polls are imperfect, often misleading, but generally useful tools.
I class Alexa the same way. You have to study it and understand what you are looking at, account for biases within reasonable ranges, and know the degree of uncertainty in the data. You can gauge its accuracy by trying to predict future trends and tracking the results. In the end, it is a useful tool...just a tricky one.
Agreed. I've been putting
Many webcomics -- the ones that offer RSS feeds, anyway -- show up in Technorati's ranking as if they were blogs. Many others do not. For example, WCN looks like a vast blog to Technorati (it's ranked 2,438 at the moment, with 3,376 links from 737 blogs), but Drunkduck and Comic Genesis do not.
[oops -- accidentally overwrote my own earlier post in an attempt to reply to myself -- damn! It was a long-winded Manley(tm) post, too. Crappity crap crap crap. Will try to recreate it later).]
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
Here's my attempt at
On the subject of Alexa's usefulness: I agree with pclips that it has many powerful uses, one of which is to get a broad sense of how traffic moves across the, um, webcomicosphere (a word which I hate, even though I just, as far as I know, coined it). I've been doing a lot of data mining, as has Rob, I think, in precisely this way. But when it comes to ranking individual comics against one another in a chart, the problems seem more difficult to justify, to me, than they do to Rob. Here are some more (and I'm focusing on WCN comics not out of a sense of entitlement or whatever, but just because I'm most familiar with the issues faced by WCN comics vis a vis Alexa -- I'm sure other sites have other issues, each probably unique to its own circumstances):
WCN comics all look like WCN to Alexa -- they're not split out separately. I have the data, but am not sure if I'm allowed to share it (it's something the artists would have to give me permission to do).
Like Sluggy, all WCN comics have their forums housed elsewhere, some at TAC, some at even smaller sites. This puts WCN comics at a disadvantage compared to other sites where the forums are at the same URL. Likewise, the creator's blogs, when they exist, are housed elsewhere. Again, a site with an active blog plus a comic plus a forum will have an advantage in Alexa, which doesn't necessarily reflect the true size of the audience for the comic itself.
Many of our comics are actually more popular in the form of syndicated feeds (embed-ready tooncasts or pure RSS) than they are on WCN itself. For example, American Elf is syndicated on the comics page of a Malaysian newspaper with millions of readers (or, at least, with an Alexa ranking in the three-digit range) -- how many of those readers click through to the comics page and then to American Elf is an open question, only known to the webmaster of that Malaysian website. Now factor in the dozens of other places American Elf is syndicated. Now factor in all the comics on WCN with syndication feeds. RSS itself can be consumed outside of the context of the web -- for example, some number of people suck down the various RSS feeds on WCN for consumption within desktop applications like Outlook or Sharpreader, or on handheld devices like the PSP (where they don't even have to be connected to the Internet to read the comic, in cases where the comic includes an enclosure). I have data for the RSS feed itself, but there's currently no way for me to know how many individual users are reflected in a request for the RSS feed implies (bloglines pings the feed once every thirty minutes, but then mirrors the contents of the feed to all its subscribers based on what it picked up in that one ping, while desktop aggregators might ping fifty times before the individual looks at the feed even once -- and so on, and so on). RSS and tooncasting aren't extremely widespread in webcomics right now, but they will be more and more as time goes on -- and our RSS audience seems to be exceptionally loyal and enthusiastic, based on anecdotal evidence -- essentially, that's where we're building our new generation of hardcore fans, all of whom are hidden to Alexa. I personally don't show up in the server logs of Name Removed -- a great not-very-popular webcomic that surely deserves my "Alexa vote" -- because I read the official full-content feed in SharpReader.
That's not to even bring up the issue of unauthorized feeds for popular comics out there.
And there was more, but I've forgotten most of what I posted earlier. Sorry.
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
I agree that Alexa screws
I agree that Alexa screws all sites which host multiple comics on the same server, or split related traffic between servers. I'm sure that causes you no end of annoyance, Joey.
Those comics need to use some public tracking tool like Extreme Tracking or something, to get data which compares to standalone comics. I also agree that it does not count the fast-growing segment of RSS feeds, Clickwheel, and other non-web methods of electronic syndication.
There are many, many things not measurable by Alexa to any degree of accuracy. But many, many other things can be. And it bugs me when people dismiss the whole tool as useless when it is useless mainly for the things they want to measure.
If this were my project, I would do a literal ranking of comics against one another for only the top ten by traffic. I would then list a group of about the next twenty, the twenty after that, the fifty after that, and "candidates" for the 200 after that. Accuracy for inclusion by group is going to slide as you go down the ranks list, but reliable figures should be obtainable for categories that broad, by correlating multiple sources.
Correlating Multiple Sources
Right?
Here's Penny-Arcade.com on Alexa for the last year:
Here's Penny-Arcade.com on Compete for the last year:
Compete is another tool-bar based service, mentioned first to me by one of my new friends in the venture funding world, and apparently more trusted in that world -- or at least the part of that world where I've been hanging out -- than Alexa, for whatever reason.
So, yeah. P-A is either maintaining and building (Alexa) or falling like a rock (Compete). Care to correlate? I feel like I know less now, after looking at two different sources, rather than more.
Personally, I don't believe either set of numbers. All I know is that P-A is astoundingly popular, and the only reason I really know that is, well, they've linked to one of my websites before, and I've seen with my own eyes what happens. Beyond that, I have no real data.
Um, but, you know, for ego reasons, I prefer Alexa's numbers over Compete's for WCN -- but ego reasons are not really valid reasons for any purposes except for, well, ego purposes. Ha!
Alexa's good for watching general trends (and I mean VERY general trends -- like the way that comicbookresources.com, newsarama.com, and dccomics.com all have exactly the same-shaped curves over the past four years -- with several weirdly mirrored peaks and troughs all at the same times -- implying, to me, anyway, that their respective readerships have almost 100% overlap, and maybe even represent All of Print Comics Fans Online). For comparing individual website to individual website in an attempt to see who happens to be how much more popular than who else, in any fine-grained way (monthly, for example, being too fine-grained, to my tastes, for Alexa data) -- no. Not for me. But that's just me. I totally don't blame anybody for wanting to use it, or believe it.
[EDITED TO CORRECT GRAPHS -- I was originally showing P-A on Alexa for one month, compared to P-A on compete for one year -- corrected version shows apples-to-apples (one year to one year) comparison instead.]
re: Correlating Multiple Sources
It's a good start. The more data points, the better, though. I think to tackle the question, you'd want a broad swath of data. Here's my ideal case:
Take three comics which have resided in the top 50 for traffic for at least the last year. Pick three which use Extreme Tracker as well. Get a three month snapshot of their Alexa rank, Alexa reach, Extreme Tracker monthly uniques, Complete tracker stats (whatever that's showing--I'll have to look at Complete more closely), and (this is the tough part) whatever real server stats you can get from the creators themselves (preferably two distinct metrics such as pageviews and uniques for each of the last 3 months).
The point is to evaluate the tools here, so you'd want three comics with as close to the same hosting setup as possible. I think I can arrange an analysis like this but I'm pressed for time, since I am launching a new comic at the end of the week. :)
re: Correlating Multiple Sources
BTW if you would like to begin researching comics which have Extreme Tracker stats available, a partial list is below. For most, there's an Extreme Tracker button on the main page, for others it is hidden and you have to view source.
http://www.pvponline.com/
http://www.vgcats.com/
http://www.leasticoulddo.com/
http://www.sinfest.net/
http://www.dominic-deegan.com/
http://chugworth.com/
http://whiteninjacomics.com
http://little-gamers.com
http://www.ghastlycomic.com
http://www.venisproductions.com/angelmoxie/
http://www.nothingnice.com
http://www.go-girly.com
http://www.biggercheese.com/
http://www.superosity.com
http://www.vanvonhunter.com/
http://www.coffeeachievers.net
My research is for a private
That said, the info you've provided here has been helpful, and I hope that anybody else who is interested in this kind of stuff has found our public discussion helpful, too. And I wish you luck with your own research project.
Thanks.
Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com
It really has been helpful
This is exactly the kind of discussion I was interested in learning from and thanks to all of the readers who contributed to this thread. I still have some hope to craft something interesting and useful although it is going to take some coding to pull off I suppose.
Primarily I'm going to need to write some kind of bot to pull what is publicly available (public stats, Project Wonderful) and what others might provide to me from their server stats (of which I think I could agree to keep actual numbers confidential - using the data only to rank the site). It seems to me that if I could pull such data into a db I'd have a healthy data set based on page views. We know that's not going to be represent all of the varying ways comics get through the "internets" to people - there are other protocols, etc. but it'll be what it is. (I've always tried to list all of the exceptions known about the lists when I write them up and this would be no different.)
We could then use the relationship of the sites in this database to make some educated guess about where sites not in the db fall. At present I suppose that's going to rely on sources like Alexa, Compete, etc. But the more sites I could get into this proposed DB itself the better the list could be I think.
Thoughts? Volunteer coders? :)
____
Xaviar Xerexes
Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.
Competitors
Yes, business plans require you to name and research your competitors. Just the act of doing that has subtly changed my outlook on the webcomics community a bit. It's a nasty little virus, that old-school approach to IP.
But certainly, if we begin to think of one another as competitors, that is what we will become.
Alexa Can be Injurious to Your Wealth
The full post is here