The Problem With Spider-Man Comics Today

[Vortex85]

Message board complaining is always tiny minority.

Message boards in general are a tiny minority, haha. That's why it's interesting that the Spider-Man discourse has made it onto youtube and twitter with hundreds of thousands to millions of views.

[Mister Mets]

Message boards in general are a tiny minority, haha. That's why it's interesting that the Spider-Man discourse has made it onto youtube and twitter with hundreds of thousands to millions of views.

How reliable are those numbers? Repeat viewers are one factor, but there are ways to buy views.

These are comics communities which are their own ecosystem. This has positives (a sense of community helps readers be more invested) and negatives (these different communities can be niche-ified so there's less of a shared comics culture, it can lead to groupthink.)

[Vortex85]

How reliable are those numbers? Repeat viewers are one factor, but there are ways to buy views.

Holy crap dude that is quite the conspiracy theory you have there. I'm not sure but you can click the likes button and see the profiles off the multi-thousands of likes as far as you can tell it looks legit. People with real posting history not some bot accounts. Do you have a twitter account? I mean you are free to investigate the individual accounts of each and every like if you want.

As far as the OMD video, its from a very popular youtube account where the past videos gets extremely high views. It's not a one off for his OMD video. It just means legit there are that many people watching, liking, and responding.

[marhawkman]

That's not really a problem to me. The stories actually having a conclusive ending has been a pro to me. Even something like One Piece will eventually end and that makes the journey feel even more meaningful knowing that it's not just an endless stream of stories that keep getting retconned and forgotten

This is part of why Dragon Ball is setup in arcs. Each arc has a different status quo at the start and end. Part of why GT wasn't universally liked is that it had very different start and endpoints than DBZ. It STARTS with Gohan as a guy who's trying to do stuff other than fighting, and Goku gets cursed to be a child... most of the time. But Goku also ends up with his GRAND-daughter as a sidekick who follows him around for most of GT.

It's VERY different from DBZ, but I personally liked it. Pan is a teen, but much like Goku and Gohan... she's actually pretty handy in a fight. The beat down she handed to Rilldo was particularly impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfTZWPGQvRc
Obviously this is just the warm-up round as they JUST introduced the guy as a villain, but it was pretty neat anyways.

Ooohh... this was a killer scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd6jN6yp_Qg
I know at first glance it doesn't seem like much.... but Pan just got smacked across the city by a kaiju-sized guy who just laid the smack-down on Goku... And she not only lived to tell about it but all she had to say was "ow that hurt".

But anyways.... It's a demonstration of the concept of the fictional setting growing older and changing as it does so.

One thing that was... interesting, but NEVER seen again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkzhK5ETyY

A teaser of a time skip forwards to when Pan was an old lady and watching her descendant Goku jr. compete in a tournament against Vegeta jr. but wait... why is there a young woman named Bulma.... with different hair than the classic Bulma? Yeah... this is Bulma jr.... or Bulma Leigh as the official name goes. not sure if she's a descendant of Trunks or Bulla, but... definitely part of that family lineage. well, ok, technically there is a GAME set in this time period, but not an anime.

[Vegan]

Just getting a temperature check, if I implied Wells or Lowe was buying positive views or something, everyone would call me a lunatic, right?

[Jman27]

Just getting a temperature check, if I implied Wells or Lowe was buying positive views or something, everyone would call me a lunatic, right?

as long as you actually have proof

[Jman27]

This is part of why Dragon Ball is setup in arcs. Each arc has a different status quo at the start and end. Part of why GT wasn't universally liked is that it had very different start and endpoints than DBZ. It STARTS with Gohan as a guy who's trying to do stuff other than fighting, and Goku gets cursed to be a child... most of the time. But Goku also ends up with his GRAND-daughter as a sidekick who follows him around for most of GT.

It's VERY different from DBZ, but I personally liked it. Pan is a teen, but much like Goku and Gohan... she's actually pretty handy in a fight. The beat down she handed to Rilldo was particularly impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfTZWPGQvRc
Obviously this is just the warm-up round as they JUST introduced the guy as a villain, but it was pretty neat anyways.

Ooohh... this was a killer scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd6jN6yp_Qg
I know at first glance it doesn't seem like much.... but Pan just got smacked across the city by a kaiju-sized guy who just laid the smack-down on Goku... And she not only lived to tell about it but all she had to say was "ow that hurt".

But anyways.... It's a demonstration of the concept of the fictional setting growing older and changing as it does so.

One thing that was... interesting, but NEVER seen again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkzhK5ETyY

A teaser of a time skip forwards to when Pan was an old lady and watching her descendant Goku jr. compete in a tournament against Vegeta jr. but wait... why is there a young woman named Bulma.... with different hair than the classic Bulma? Yeah... this is Bulma jr.... or Bulma Leigh as the official name goes. not sure if she's a descendant of Trunks or Bulla, but... definitely part of that family lineage. well, ok, technically there is a GAME set in this time period, but not an anime.

wish they did some of GT concepts in Super like the shadow dragon saga for example

[Vegan]

as long as you actually have proof

I don’t. I was responding to someone a few comments up saying that people were buying views on YouTube videos and tweets that were critical of this run and current Spider-Man editorial.
Personally, unless someone had some ironclad proof, like you’re saying here, I think anyone who claimed people were paying for others to support their view, whether negative or positive, needs to take a moment and take stock of what they’re saying

[D.Z]

Message boards in general are a tiny minority, haha. That's why it's interesting that the Spider-Man discourse has made it onto youtube and twitter with hundreds of thousands to millions of views.

Doesn't mean anything for multiple obvious reasons.

[Vortex85]

Doesn't mean anything for multiple obvious reasons.

Posted this on another thread but it looks like things may be more open now.

[Mister Mets]

I don’t. I was responding to someone a few comments up saying that people were buying views on YouTube videos and tweets that were critical of this run and current Spider-Man editorial.
Personally, unless someone had some ironclad proof, like you’re saying here, I think anyone who claimed people were paying for others to support their view, whether negative or positive, needs to take a moment and take stock of what they’re saying

Except I didn't say anyone was buying views. I said it was possible, which is objectively true. My question is how reliable are the figures that are used to support the assertion that Spider-Man comics discourse gets millions of views.

Just getting a temperature check, if I implied Wells or Lowe was buying positive views or something, everyone would call me a lunatic, right?

Maybe you shouldn't be so worked up about one post that you make multiple responses about what you infer while resorting to namecalling.

It is an interesting benchmark to consider the views that Marvel gets. An 8 minute spotlight on Dan Slott got 28,000 views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyzvNCUwpTY

There may be situations in which there are weird numbers for whatever reason. It could've gone viral or there could be something non-nefarious.

For example, there is a video about Dan Slott's Spider-Man run with 433,000 views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTDcaLCJBus&t=33s

One likely explanation is that the video is over 12 hours long, so rather than 433,000 discrete viewers there is a much smaller number watching it in sections. A view seems to be at least 30 seconds long, so if someone watches an average of ten minutes at a time, that would count as more than 75 views (and the final result in terms of how many people watch more half an hour of a guy's commentary, and how many people reach the full 12 hours could be really impressive.)

Praising the number of views can encourage a Goodhart's Law situation, since when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. That said, I haven't implied anything bad about any specific video or individual in a post in which I acknowledged this is a comics ecosystem I'm largely unfamiliar with.

[Vegan]

Sorry, it’s just an absurd thing to bring up.

[Vortex85]

Except I didn't say anyone was buying views. I said it was possible, which is objectively true. My question is how reliable are the figures that are used to support the assertion that Spider-Man comics discourse gets millions of views.

Maybe you shouldn't be so worked up about one post that you make multiple responses about what you infer while resorting to namecalling.

It is an interesting benchmark to consider the views that Marvel gets. An 8 minute spotlight on Dan Slott got 28,000 views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyzvNCUwpTY

There may be situations in which there are weird numbers for whatever reason. It could've gone viral or there could be something non-nefarious.

For example, there is a video about Dan Slott's Spider-Man run with 433,000 views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTDcaLCJBus&t=33s

One likely explanation is that the video is over 12 hours long, so rather than 433,000 discrete viewers there is a much smaller number watching it in sections. A view seems to be at least 30 seconds long, so if someone watches an average of ten minutes at a time, that would count as more than 75 views (and the final result in terms of how many people watch more half an hour of a guy's commentary, and how many people reach the full 12 hours could be really impressive.)

Praising the number of views can encourage a Goodhart's Law situation, since when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. That said, I haven't implied anything bad about any specific video or individual in a post in which I acknowledged this is a comics ecosystem I'm largely unfamiliar with.

I'm not going to argue the number of views on twitter, this whole topic has got beyond the point of ridiculous if we are going to get into it. One of the posts had 1.9 million views nad over 54k likes on it, that is all. It may mean nothing to you and that's fine.

[Mister Mets]

I'm not going to argue the number of views on twitter, this whole topic has got beyond the point of ridiculous if we are going to get into it. One of the posts had 1.9 million views nad over 54k likes on it, that is all. It may mean nothing to you and that's fine.

It is meaningful to me, although it is very weird. If 1.9 million people on Twitter have an opinion on One More Day, that is surprising.

[Vortex85]

It is meaningful to me, although it is very weird. If 1.9 million people on Twitter have an opinion on One More Day, that is surprising.

Well, there were 1.9 million vies on a twitter post that was claming that the Spdierverse movie with Ben Reilly and Mayday were a middle finger to editorial, doesn't mean they all had that opinion. Bu the 54k thumbs up on it mean 54 thousand people took the time to vote that they liked it and not just ignore the post. It probably had a ton of views because these posts were related to the movie news so tons of people saw them, the amount of engagement on the likes was extremely high though which means 10s of thousands of people actually engaged to like multiple posts related to Peter Parker marriage/baby issue.