I know many regular readers of this blog will not be sad to learn that Jon Del Arroz has deleted his Twitter account. I shan’t rehash Jon’s various actions over the past few years but these links are relevant:
The latest twist in the Ballad of Del Arroz is comicsgategatecomicsgate related. According to JDA himself, Ethan Van Sciver (arguably driving force behind the online harassment campaign known as ‘comicsgate’) had told him to go away:
“Ethan finally came out and said he didn’t like me over the weekend, told me to “go away”, as if I didn’t have any part of this movement before he even showed up. The hubris in that statement and resentment shows that he blames me for his crumbling empire, even though I have little to do with him (I’ve not been around his youtube crew at all for 2 months now!). Last night, he escalated attacks by coming after someone for following me on Twitter, accusing him of being a “Jon del Arroz acolyte” and promptly blocking him.” http://delarroz.com/2018/11/13/two-face-finally-came-for-me/
JDA himself has been variously harassed and counter harassed since the conflict between Vox Day and EVS over the ‘comicsgate’ label erupted in September. Surprisingly, when a movement based on trolling, name calling and harassments falls out with itself the result is not an amicable break-up and everybody agreeing to let bygones be bygones.
JDA also has a more recent blogpost on why comicsgate failed: http://delarroz.com/2018/11/16/a-failed-movement-in-three-acts/
It’s worth a read because it provides some insights into how a participant in one of these campaigns percieves the arc it follows. Jon identifies three phases to comicsgate:
- Identify The Problem and Raise Awareness
- Alt-Hero ushers in a revolution of crowdfunds
- A movement falls to contraction and fighting
It is phase one that Jon identifies as the ‘fun’ part. Of course, that was the part where the comicsgaters were primarily harassing actual writers and artists. The ‘unity’ was unity in spreading hatred and inciting harassment. The second phase was when people tried to make money out of the
suckers, um ‘activists’. The third phase was when the infighting started for multiple reasons but JDA ignores the most obvious one: campaigns like comicsgate reward obnoxious behaviour and hence any internal dispute is likely to escalate.
And Jon almost, almost, almost gets it:
“The whole premise was based on outrage, not actual products, and so these guys have to perpetually stoke outrage…”
Yes, yes we know. That’s what people were pointing out from wayyyy before ‘comicsgate’ started. That’s why we’ve been using the term ‘outrage marketing’
I’ve semi-seriously discussed quasi–pseudo-academic debate of monopuppyist versus duopuppyists i.e. was science fictions attempted right-wing coup in 2015 one movement (with internal differences) or two movements (with some shared features). One reason I keep looking at those events (and those distinctions) is the way they were a microcosm of broader ideological movements among the right.
Taking stock of those broader movements, similar issues arise. How are things different and how are things the same? There is scope for error in lumping diverse beliefs together and in becoming too focused on points of difference to see the commonalities. I spend a lot of time reading rightwing websites and comment sections (not just former Sad Puppy related ones) and two things stand out as commonalities:
- Unmoored anti-leftism. ‘Unmoored’ because while the anti-leftism is common the rationalisations offered are not. For example, left opposition to the Bush Jr. Iraq war remains a sore point for many on the right (who ignore Democrat support for the war) but is ignored by the section of the right who also opposed the war (who don’t ignore Democrat support for the war but do ignore left opposition to it).
- Common mythology. By this, I mean a set of beliefs about the world that are quasi-factual in nature.
The common mythology is a social glue and also a medium of cultural exchange. These are beliefs about how the world is that are:
- Very specific, i.e. more specific than economic or social models that may be more ideological in nature.
- By their nature beliefs that can be examined critically against facts but…
- …which are either NOT examined critically against facts or more often run counter to established facts.
That such mythological-like beliefs exist among the right isn’t a new observation. However, many which we might associate with the right lack this common currency aspect. For example, many people in this broader right I’m discussing are not creationists (although most creationists are of the right), likewise Holocaust denial is still regarded as objectionable by many on the right. Anti-vaxxer beliefs are drifting more rightwards but still cross ideological boundaries. However, a broad habit of believing things that just aren’t so has become entrenched on the right.
I’d like to suggest the following as a core-common shared set of mythologies that act as a means of group identity. These ideas are shared uncritically in diverse parts of the US/Anglosphere right and questioning them too much leads to social ostracisation.
- Global warming data and theories have been corrupted by politically active scientists. Note this isn’t quite the same as denial of global warming but obviously works very closely with it. The belief that temperature records and other aspects of global warming have been meddled with allows discussion of the reality of global warming to be avoided.
- Universities and colleges routinely indoctrinate students with Marxist social theories. This belief over-extrapolates the existence of actual courses (perhaps a course somewhere on queer theory) and asserts that this is the norm for all students. The belief has a bedrock of fears by evangelical Christians about their children becoming less religious at college or exposed to things like evolution but in the form, I am describing is more general and less tied to religion.
- The Democratic Party routinely engages in mass voter fraud at a highly organised level. The belief is very pertinent today given the headlines but the work on this idea is constant and on-going. US conservatives are primed to believe this idea against any facts to the contrary.
- Mass illegal immigration is an intentional policy of leftists and foreign governments. This deeply disturbing myth and surrounding rhetoric about ‘invasion’ is widely believed and extends beyond the alt-right & more overtly ideologically racist parts of the right.
- Europe is on the verge of (or already is) being controlled by or dominated by Islam. There’s a vagueness here as to what the actual proposition is. Partly this is due to the age of the claims. 10 years ago, claims about an imminent Islamic take over of Europe were very common on the right and 10 years later the claims are similar. In the face of ridicule of some claims (e.g. ‘no-go’ zones in places that aren’t ‘no go’ zones), the broader beliefs have become vaguer and less open to immediate refutation.
- Cities are places of rising violent crime. At some point, of course, this idea gets to be true. Crime stats go up and down but what is remembered is the ‘ups’ and what is ignored is the ‘downs’ as well as general trends. What marks this belief as mythology is that it remains unchanged over decades: violent crime is always rising but somehow the point where violent crime was low shifts around.
- Home invasions and violent attacks on middle-class suburbs or rural areas are common and imminent. These two form a pair and of course relate closely to gun ownership and NRA propaganda.
There are other beliefs that I could list but which I feel are more clearly ideological. For example beliefs around public healthcare relate to specific policy positions overtly advanced by conservatives for decades. Similarly, beliefs around affirmative action or even ‘PC culture’ have a closer connection with ideology. There is a common thread of seeking to avoid facts or to examine these ideas critically that gives them a similar quality of belief that would only be true in a parallel universe.
A relevant question is whether these beliefs are sincere. Salon writer Amanda Marcotte had a recent Twitter thread where she examined some of the anti-factual claims of the right and argues that they are insincere i.e. overtly lies:
Her argument is a strong one and there’s a longer analysis in this 2016 piece she wrote: https://www.salon.com/2016/09/26/its-science-stupid-why-do-trump-supporters-believe-so-many-things-that-are-crazy-and-wrong/
Clearly, some of these viral claims are trolling. The argument that ‘birtherism’ was insincere holds water. However, I think the ones above are held with sincerity of a kind. There is a lot of advocation of beliefs that don’t stand up to critical scrutiny going on that CAN’T be primarily about trolling people on the left. I can be confident of that because these are often beliefs that people on the right do not wish to discuss with the left or raise with the left. To point out factual or logical errors in particular beliefs is seen as trolling BY the left rather than the left being trolled. Readers familiar with the Sad Puppy debarkle will have many ready examples to hand.
Marcotte also raises the group identity aspect as part of the issue i.e. that asserting false or dubious beliefs ties people together, as they act as a marker of loyalty. However, in addition, the soup of false beliefs fostered by creationism on one hand and corporate propaganda on issues such as pesticides, smoking, guns and global warming has entrenched confused thinking as a habit among the right. These poor cognitive habits encourage the ‘grift’ culture I’ve talked about before within the right, that often makes them prone to both perpetuate and be victims of scams and dubious money-making schemes. Marcotte points out Trumps willingness to say what he is thinking is often mistaken for honesty and forthrightness by his supporters. This kind of uncalculated, unhedged speech without weasel words can be refreshing in a world where many people try to avoid being caught in a literal lie. Meanwhile, the new acting Attorney General of the USA was himself part of a company that deliberately targetted military veterans in a scam https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam
What’s trolling, what’s an Emperor’s New Clothes kind of public misbelief, what’s a scam and what’s people being scammed and what is just the inevitable confused belief of poor thinking habits is hard to disentangle. What the shared mythology has in common is that I think these are largely internally believed and which act as defence mechanisms for other beliefs or expressions of fears. In particular fears about race and social change among conservatives who see themselves as ‘libertarian’ and ‘not-racist’ require hoop jumping rationalisations that they can express by changing classifications (racial fears changed to fears about violent people in cities or rule-breaking immigrants). The ‘scam’ part here is that more openly racist parts of the right (i.e. the parts that are more willing to own the label ‘racist’) can control those fears via propaganda.
For my sins, I listened to a Vox Day video about his plans for a Twitter/Gab replacement. I say ‘listened’ because I was out for a walk. I usually avoid video because it’s a crap informational medium — you get a lot of rambling, it’s hard to skip about and review what people said earlier in light of what they said later and it’s hard to quote. I think people structure their ideas less well in these kinds of videos and given how poorly rightwing pundits structure their ideas, video ramblings provide little insights.
What had caught my interest was that much of the content was actually about Voxopedia, the vanity Wikipedia project that’s just like Wikipedia but out of date and with nonsense attached. I was curious because manifestly as a project it has failed and clearly at some point it will be abandoned. I had assumed that it had already slipped into a zone of lack-of-interest as newer, shinier projects competed for attention*. But it seems not. rather Vox was holding up Voxopedia as a shining example of how he has all the experience he needs to run a social network.
Now note, currently Voxopedia has about 6-10 active editors or whom only two really are doing any work, two of whom are just feuding conspiracy theories maintaining their own separate (and incompatible) conspiracy pages, one of whom is engaged in a personal campaign to document all things about Englebert Humperdinck (and nothing else) and one of whom is doing nothing but write hate pieces about transgender people.
Vox’s plan for Voxopedia was that every visitor could tailor what they see to their own perspective. The theory being that a leftwing person might edit a page and a rightwing person might edit a page and then somehow (if you know the biases of the editors) you could see a version of the page that matched your own position. The obvious flaw in that plan is the same as the flaw in the more basic plan of just cloning Wikipedia: a wiki needs active editors and Voxopedia doesn’t have them because nobody with genuine subject matter expertise would want to be involved with it (barring subject matter expertise in Englebert Humperdinck, and to be fair Voxopedia does now have better coverage of Mr Humperdinck than Wikipedia).
It’s fascinating to me because I’m genuinely interested in flawed thinking, in particular when there is a big and obvious gap between the model presented and the facts in evidence or when a person adopts locally a belief/ideology/philosophy that they are opposed to more globally. In the case of Voxopedia, Vox’s aspiration is one of a radical subjectivism about truth: i.e. that people should be able to read an encyclopedia that matches their perspective and that the problem with Wikipedia is that it tries to have definitive (at least for a point in time) articles. Wikipedia, of course, sidesteps the issue of ‘truth’ and aims for two standards: verifiable and notable. Voxopedia abandons both which leads to this https://infogalactic.com/info/Bibhorr_formula
That questions on the nature of truth can be ideological is nothing new but circumstances have led to the right having to simultaneous assert a dogmatic adherence to a rigid concept of THE TRUTH whilst embracing a radical scepticism/subjectivism. The left has no shortage of questions and weird positions about the nature of truth also but the core difference is that on the left those form a genuine debate and for practical purposes, there is a working shared understanding that facts matter. Voxopedia takes this descent into radical subjectivism further in principle (although in practice its just six guys scribbling over a copy of Wikipedia) and makes the basic question of quality control an ideological one. It’s only not worse precisely because hardly anybody edits it at all.
Vox does raise one interesting point: “it’s impossible to claim that Infogalactic is Wikipedia for Nazis” The point here is to contrast it with the rapidly collapsing Gab which often has been described as Twitter for Nazis. He asserts the reason for this lies with how well it has been managed. However, the core reason is that Voxopedia is Wikipedia for about 6 to 10 guys and you can literally describe it in terms of the personal interests of a few people (for example Englebert Humperdinck). At least one of those people has vehemently extreme hate for a marginalised group but there’s just not enough people actively involved in the project to call it Wikipedia for anything. Ironically, it’s just not NOTABLE enough. When it gets covered by serious media it is usually as part of an overall survey of odd alt-right alternative internet sites.
That’s one of the reasons I still write about it weirdly enough. I don’t see much point in writing about things that are written about better elsewhere. As things stand, amid all the obnoxious and terrible things the right is currently doing in the world, Voxopedia is small beer. That doesn’t mean its harmless but it isn’t a major locus of organisation on the right because…and I can’t help but labour this point…it’s really just 6 to 10 guys slightly vandalising a Wikipedia clone.
As for Voxopedia’s capacity to project different perspectives, the only function its gained is that Vox himself now has TWO versions of his own vanity page on his own vanity encyclopedia. This is how it works. There’s the main page which is a censored version of a page about him (a whole chunk of stuff about his Comicsgate feud has been removed) and then there’s a ‘Verified’ tab which is the same page but with only his own edits on it.
*[That’s not even a criticism. Starting wacky projects and then getting bored with them because of something more fun is no character flaw in itself. When all your wacky projects are pointlessly evil, then that’s the core of the problem, not your attention span.]
Gab was established as an alternative social media site to Twitter in 2016 but really only took off last year when it opened registrations. While it now has a reputation primarily as a safe-haven for overt neo-Nazis, many conservatives joined optimistically because of Gab’s claims to support ‘free-speech’. The term ‘free-speech’ here meaning something like ‘unmoderated comments on an internet platform’: there were rules and limitations but they were thin and difficult to enforce.
The consequences were predictable. The loudest, nastiest voices crowded out the less loud, less nasty. The idea that being able to mute comments or give-as-good-as-you-get would make a social network self-policing was already obviously nonsense but the right had convinced itself with misapplied rhetoric about ‘free-speech’ that somehow it would despite years of evidence from other internet forums, comment sections etc that it wouldn’t. Rapidly Gab became a haven for the most overtly extreme.
The mass shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh by a far-right antisemite brought added attention to Gab when it was revealed that the alleged shooter had essentially announced their intent on the platform. However, the site had been banned by both the Apple Store and Google play some time ago and was forced to remove two anti-semitic messages in August when Microsoft threatened to cut its services. Now GoDaddy has told Gad to seek a different domain registrar on the grounds that Gab had broken GoDaddy’s terms of service https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/28/far-right-social-network-gab-goes-offline-after-godaddy-tells-it-to-find-another-domain-registrar/ This isn’t the first time Gab has lost its domain registrar: in September last year Asia Registry dumped the network because of anti-Semitic comments promoting genocide: https://www.newsweek.com/nazis-free-speech-hate-crime-jews-social-media-gab-weev-668614 However, this time this is just one of multiple pressures on Gab including payment options and webhosting services withdrawing cooperation https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/29/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-posted
Regulars will remember that I covered Gab last September when there was a spectacular falling out between Gab and alt-right publisher Vox Day https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/that-vox-v-gab-think-explained-as-best-i-can/ As far as I can tell the threats of legal action went nowhere but the fallout is instructive. Less than five months after opening publicly for business, the culture at Gab had become so toxic that it was too unpleasant for even Vox Day.
With had at least a decade (arguably multiple decades) of an apparently sincere argument from conservatives that being moderated in chat rooms, forums, comment sections or social media platforms is an attack on free-speech. In that time the right has been unable to put forward a workable alternative. Experiments in unmoderated platforms have followed the same spiral into obnoxious-extremity without even a civil veneer over the hate and actual speech, with even conservative ideas being rapidly crowded out. Gab’s ‘free-speech’ model didn’t create a pleasant sanctuary from ‘political correctness’ but instead just let the very worst people shout down everybody else (even other anti-Semites and cryptofascists!).
I hope this is the end for Gab but I suspect the spiral down the plug hole will drag on for awhile yet.
Cast your minds back to May 11 2016. It was a kinder, more innocent time and not-so-crypto crypto-fascist website Vox Popoli invited people to “Meet Rod Walker” (archive link). Walker was, we were told, the “new new Heinlein” and like Heinlein would be writing some exciting “juvenile” targetted science fiction novels for Vox Day’s Castalia House.
“We are very excited about our new series of Rod Walker books, because they are exactly what we founded Castalia House to publish. They are pure Blue SF, and contain no foul language, no adult themes, no nihilism, and they are 100 percent social justice-free. Robert Heinlein revitalized science fiction with just 12 wonderful novels – 13, if one counts Starship Troopers which was originally supposed to be a Scribner novel, but was foolishly turned down – and we believe it is possible to do achieve similar effects by applying the same principles that made his early novels so successful.”
The supposed success of “Mutiny in Space” was much trumpeted by Vox Day and this first “juvenile” was followed by two more: “Alien Game” and “Young Man’s War”. All the books had somewhat clumsy 3D model art covers. This was all according to the plan Vox Day had laid out in August 2016: [Archive link]
“He is one of the most professional authors in the industry, delivering what must be some of the cleanest manuscripts delivered anywhere. He’s not only professional, he’s prolific, as we’ll be publishing two more of his novels before the end of the year, Alien Game, which is a second Heinlein-style SF juvenile, and an as-yet-untitled fantasy novel set in Minaria, the world of Divine Right.”
“KU is the real game-changer now, because the traditional publishers can’t play there. But we can, and last month, one of our better-selling books sold more via KU than through all the other means and editions combined. It doesn’t make sense for us to sell all our books that way, as we’ve experimented and some books do great while others don’t, but KU editions are now every bit as important in their own right as paperback, hardcover, or audiobook editions.”
In July 2018, Rod Walker’s “Young Man’s War” was on Vox Day’s nomination list for the Dragon Awards.
But what about that fantasy series that was mentioned? In February 2018, the Castalia House blog had a review of a Rod Walker fantasy book called “Master Rogue 1: Mage Tome” http://www.castaliahouse.com/quick-reviews-mage-tome-karma-upsilon-4-and-appalling-stories but aside from that “Rod Walker” had gone a bit quiet.
More recently a stray comment in a post that appeared both at Vox Day’s blog and Castalia House blog caught my eye:
“Castalia House is not doing YA right now,”
A quick trip to Rod Walker’s own blog led to this:
The Wayback machine had a version of his front page from August 2018 but at some point since the blog had been blanked. The archived version showed a fantasy trilogy of novellas called “Master Rogue” . A simple google search for “Master Rogue: Mage Tome” gives a link to an Amazon page but that link leads to:
Does Straw Puppy work for Amazon now? Did he always work for Amazon? No, that’s a side issue. Off to Voxopedia. There “Rod Walker (science fiction author)” is a red broken link:
Rod Walker’s last blog entry appears to have been in July 2018. After that point, the mysterious Mr Walker appears to have disappeared and at least some of his book scrubbed from Amazon. The trilogy of novellas appear on Goodreads but no links to the books themselves function. There are odd remnants of the fantasy books on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/aw/cr/B077SGPHK2/ref=mw_dp_cr ) which prove they existed but they’ve since gone.
The conclusion was obvious: Rod Walker has vanished as swiftly as he once appeared and with him a trio of fantasy novellas. The new new Heinlein simply…vanished…
I returned to Voxopedia to see if it had been transformed into a temple to Englebert Humperdinck and found something even better: some maths crackpottery! I love this kind of stuff because it requires so much more investment of time and brain power to come up with stuff. There’s not been a good example of it at Voxopedia since the Pi=4 guy stormed off.
Let me introduce you to Bibhorr, who appears on his own Voxopedia page in aviator sunglasses in a rockstar pose: https://infogalactic.com/info/Bibhorr Said person is the inventor of the “Bibhorr formula” which also gets its own page: https://infogalactic.com/info/Bibhorr_formula [Archive version]
That page tells us that:
“Bibhorr Formula, universally known as King of equations, is a new mathematical equation invented by an Indian aerospace engineer. Bibhorr. The formula is a part of a set of three formulas first disclosed by Bibhorr in his research treatise. The formula that has evolved into a mathematical branch is considered as the foundation of ultra-modern science. It is an alternative to the traditional trigonometry, as it forms a relation between the all four elements of a right triangle.”
And the page then provides a breakdown of the terms in this formula. What it says (using conventional Western nomenclature) is that for a right angle triangle with sides of length a,b & c (where c is the hypotenuse and a & b are shorter sides) that the size of angle ∠A opposite to side a can be found using this formula:
Angle ∠A = 90 × [(c + a − b)^2 ] ÷ [a^2 + 1.5c × (c + a − b)]
You can ignore the 90 for the moment, what the rest of the expression forms is a fraction that use the lengths of the triangle to determine what proportion of a turn Angle A is. Swap out the 90 for pi/2 and you get the answer in radians. Plug in the lengths of an arbitary 45° right-angle triangle and the formula will spit out 45° because the main chunk of the formula comes to half. Which is neat. In fact you’ll get a decent match for any right angle triangle.
“Decent” but not correct. For example a 30°, 60°, 90° triangle does not give the correct values. This is a handy test case because the angles are simple fractions of 90 (1/3 and 2/3). Instead of a third, the formula gives a decimal approximation to a third that’s 0.001 and a bit out. Now that’s not bad for some purposes and it tells us what this formula actually is a species of: a trignometric approximation formula.
Trigonmetric approximation formulas are themselves fascinating and have been around for a long time. Obviously their importance has lessened as it has become easier to access accurate values for sine, cosine and tangent via printed tables and these days electronically. A particulalry notable one is Bhaskara’s sine approximation formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskara_I%27s_sine_approximation_formula which is well over a thousand years old.
As a curiosity this formula is interesting. If it is genuinely novel, then that’s quite clever. However, it is only that: an interesting approximation formula which these days is actually more effort than using trig functions. Wayyyy back, the original scripting language for Macromedia Flash didn’t have trig functions and I remember having to look for trig approximation formulas back then.
So the crackpottery really derives from the associated claims about the formula i.e. that it REPLACES the trigonemetric functions rather than approximates them. The page goes onto claim that:
“Bibhorr formula also finds its application in the following areas:
- Astrophysics: For finding inter galactic distances.
- Aerodynamics: For finding various angles of attack of an aircraft.
- Navigation: In finding real time locations of vehicles.
- Geography: In calculating distances between far located geographical locations.
- Robotics: In studying robotic arm movements.
- Civil Engineering: In the study of various architectures.
- Teleportation and Quantum Physics: In micro-level invisible particle patterns.”
The “King of Equations” had a short life on the actual Wikipedia where it was summarily deleted for obvious reasons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bibhorr_formula
The question is what will the benighted souls at Voxopedia do?
In relation to the post on Vox Day’s comic being pulled from IndieGoGo and whether there were financial shenanigans, I thought I’d grab some data. Unfortunately, because the dodgy comic has shelved, the contribution data is no longer available at the IndieGoGo site. However, a different “Arkhaven” (aka Castalia House, aka Vox Day’s vanity press) comic still has a live campaign. This one is being run by Timothy’s number 1 client, Jon Del Arroz. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-ember-war-graphic-novel#/
Contribution data is available by looking at the list of backers. Not all backers are named (which is fair enough) and not all backers reveal how much they contribute (also fair enough – not trying to invade anybody’s privacy). For those backers who don’t reveal how much they gave publically, the overall total can be inferred by subtracting the amount raised by people who do show their contribution from the complete amount raised. For convenience, I’ve shared that between all the backers who didn’t list an amount (of course, in reality, some may have given a lot less or a lot more).
NOTE: I’m using this just as an example of crowdfunding data. I’ll point out interesting or notable features but 1. I’m not saying they are evidence of anything dodgy and 2. to make any such claim would require looking at many other campaigns to get a sense of what was typical v unusual. Also, while many names are given publically at the site, no names should be referred to in the comments etc aside from the organiser. Lastly I may have made errors 🙂
There were four donations that were set as “Private” and they occurred “24” and “23” days ago (the data on the site is given in that format – I’ve inferred dates). Together they amount to $70 or $17.50 each i.e. unremarkable*.
The graph looks like what I might expect. I guess some campaigns might be more S shaped with a slow start and then a steeper climb before tapering off. Yet, campaigns with a big burst of contributions in the first few days and then a slow increase after makes sense also. I would imagine campaigns that run a danger of just falling short of their target goal might show a big blip near the end as the campaign makes one last push. For comparison here is a graph I drew of a different style of campaign: https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/looking-at-some-crowdfunding-data/ (it looks smoother because I spread some of the day-by-day data out artificially).
The biggest contributions were from five people who gave $515 each. That’s a curious amount, particulalry as the tier reward is at $500 and there’s no other donation values around that size i.e. everybody who gave a lot of money gave exactly the same amount. How weird is that? I don’t know, hence my caveat above. That maybe something that happens a lot with crowdfunding campaigns or maybe it’s really weird. Drawing conclusions about what’s weid requires data from more campaigns but also models to compare data against. For example, there’s no tier reward between $150 and $500, so it is not actually surprising that there’s no contributions at around $200 or $300.
Even so, around the $150 tier there is a lot more variation. Like I said, I don’t have a theoretical distribution to compare this against but while there’s more kinds of values they are still oddly clumped to my eye:
- 2 at $172
- 3 at $170
- 2 at $167
- 1 at $165
- 18 at $162 (?!?)
- 6 at $160
- 0 at $150
I’ve no idea why exactly $162 is so popular. Perhaps it is a round number contribution in some other currency (don’t know what though – doesn’t match Euros or Canadian $) It doesn’t seem to match a combination of tier rewards either.
This graph shows the frequency of each of the 23 different sizes of amounts that were contributed and how much money was raised by that category. Bars are numbers of people and green dots are totals amount of money. ($18 is actually $17.50 and that’s actually the “Private” amount and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt).
I’d have expected something a bit more Pareto like I guess.
So, no big conclusion just that there’s stuff to look at and with enough background data of similar campaigns it would be plausible to spot campaigns that were distinctly unusual.
*[Speaking of errors, in the first graph I drew I’d calculated these ‘Private’ amounts incorrectly by using the Goal of the campaign instead of the total raised. Luckily I spotted my error before making a fool of myself.]