So what am I not doing?
Sam linked me what may be about the most obtuse geek joke ever. This is a geek joke so geek, I had to fight my way into it.
So, in a moment of self-hate, I decided to go look up some statistics, and yeah. Alexa puts xkcd somewhere around 9,000, and Scribs somewhere around 900,000. I had figured that people look at the art and decide it’s no good, but the popularity of xkcd makes me think this isn’t true. We both have relatively simple sites, he’s been doing it for less time than I have, even.
What am I missing? I guess it’s marketing, I haven’t really gotten Scribs out there a whole lot, but I’m not sure what he’s done that I haven’t.
October 10th, 2006 15:32
Mining the incredibly rich vein of lonely, nerdy college students with computer mice seemingly grafted to their hand at all times who fancy themselves to be above the rest? Throw in some jokes about Linux and watch the hits roll in…
October 10th, 2006 18:42
You haven’t been linked by qwantz twice, for one. I know that’s how I found xkcd.
Dinosaur Comics has a pretty large audience so his links carry some weight.
October 11th, 2006 09:41
You’re asking me what’s the difference between Scribs and xkcd. Well despite their similarities (simply drawn online comics that often deal with geeky things) they are more different than similar. The most obvious difference to me is that xkcd basically does standalone strips while Scribs basically does story arcs. In some cases this is probably good for Scribs; in my case, for example, I view Scribs far more often because I want to find out what happens next in the story. I’ve checked out xkcd just a handful of times, each time because I happened to come across a link to a particular strip. Scribs I surf to without following links.
But I’m just one person. In any case, the point is that you have a different product here. If you didn’t perceive the two as in some way the same, you wouldn’t be all “Why am I not as famous as this guy?” Instead, a good question is “Why am I not more famous than I am?” The latter, I think, is more likely to spur further efforts and creativity; the former more likely to provoke counterproductive bitterness and self-doubt.
Scribs is funny and great and makes lots of people happy on a regular basis. If you must compare yourself to others, I invite you to compare Scribs to *my* web comic. So far I have exactly 0 page views because I haven’t even gotten as far as creating a character yet. Let’s focus on what you *have* accomplished so far, set some goals for the future and then think about how to reach them. As both you and CortJstr mention, more publicity and links would be good for expanding the Scribs viewership. More Scribs would be good, too. I miss the Answers, maybe a goal of at least one new Answer every ten days, or answering at least one in every hundred questions or something; also, maybe expand the “Characters” page with little introductions to idunno the themes or storylines or something, ideally narrated by the scribs themselves in strip format; maybe get them to do some other stuff besides be in strips — like the time they were in an animated GIF that was a banner link to the strip, remember that? It had a great line at the end about how they resented being in an infinite loop of the same conversation. That kind of creative little other things that other people don’t do is what got me into Spinnwebe back when Brainshots was new.
October 11th, 2006 10:49
“Sandwich” is way geekier.
October 11th, 2006 16:22
Well. I’ll admin I have a weakness for comparing my successes to others, but that’s kinda not my point here. Taking his website and mine, about the only thing he has different is an “about” page, which is only somewhat more descriptive than my own. But I keep my “characters” page simple on purpose, because that’s what Scribs are; I understand that’s not really the best marketing decision, but it seems to make sense for the comic.
I’m comparing his to mine, as I said, because his art is simple, and I had figured that was harming my popularity. In his case, obviously not. And I’ve had my comic half a year longer, so I doubt number of comics is the issue. Yeah, I’ve had a hard time getting inspiration for the answers, but that’s even an additional thing that he doesn’t have…
Okay, yeah, I’m comparing. But it’s not out of jealousy. I mean if you want jealousy, I’m tremendously jealous at Wondermark, but I understand he’s put work into his that I haven’t in mine. I’m just not sure what xkcd’s done that I haven’t, because in terms of effort, our comics look roughly equivalent.
October 11th, 2006 16:59
Maybe Lore’s tutorial on writing press releases was secretly for you.
October 12th, 2006 01:39
I have a feeling I’m going to look like a troll here, so I’ll try to offset that by stating that I am impressed by almost all of your web endeavors. In fact many of the things you’ve brought to life are pure genius. Dysfunctional Family Circus, amusing.org, etc etc. But then there’s Scribs.
I’m surprised that I’m the lone voice of disapproval - and maybe that should tell me something - but I think Scribs is just plain bad. First of all, the art is horrible. It looks like it takes you takes only a minute to draw any one strip. That can cause instant resentment among readers like me, especially those who create comic strips of their own. In your defense you say the xkcd art isn’t too hot. Well, that is often true, but the guy can draw when he wants to. For example: http://xkcd.com/c77.html. Plus, despite the use of stick figures, he does display a reasonable sense of how to frame scenes. That is, he can place characters, props, and scenery comfortably within a frame. Sure, he has his share of talking-head strips, but he has proved that he can go beyond that when the strip calls for it. When he uses simple art, it seems to be his choice to do so. When YOU use simple art, it looks like it’s due to limitations in your drawing ability. And if nothing else, the look of xkcd changes from strip to strip. Scribs is almost always just torsos talking at each other.
About the writing…
Both xkcd and Scribs indulge in absurdist humor, but xkcd digs into a deeper intellectual layer. If I had to guess, I’d say you come up with the dialogue pretty much on the fly, right? Well, regardless, that’s what it looks like. The xkcd author seems to create strips about things he’s been kicking around in his brain for awhile. For example, I don’t think he just came up with reverse euphemisms (http://xkcd.com/c168.html) on the spot. And check out his parody week comics. Those took some real effort to capture the essence of the comics he parodied. And check out his Penny Arcade parody that derails and becomes an eloquent and humorous fan letter (http://xkcd.com/c160.html).
I hope all this properly responds to your comment, “I’m not sure what he’s done that I haven’t.” And I hope you still don’t believe that “in terms of effort, our comics look roughly equivalent.” I don’t think a lack of marketing is your problem, either. When you started Scribs, you already had a built-in audience (i.e. the fans of all your other web sites), while most webcomic creators start out with no audience at all. No, I think you just need to put more effort into the strip — more time if nothing else. Sit on an idea for a few days and see if you still find it cool or funny. Perhaps run your ideas past a reasonably objective friend. You’re other web projects are proof that you are full of good ideas, so there’s no reason for you to be shitting out such an underachieving comic.
By the way, you’re probably better off avoiding the break-the-fourth-wall schtick. It’s so overdone. This article pretty much echoes my thoughts on the matter:
http://www.comixpedia.com/node/8424
October 12th, 2006 09:25
I wouldn’t be surprised…you’re one of only six voices here, so you’re hardly the lone opinion in the wilderness.
It doesn’t appeal to you, fine. There was an implicit “if you like the comic” in the question, so you weren’t really the audience. I know it’s funny.
Also, about the art: yes, it’s simple, but if you think it takes no talent, then there’s a lot of characterization in there that I’m making look easy.
October 12th, 2006 09:59
It’s actually kind of interesting to go back to the first comics where you clearly were deliberately making them a scribbly as possible, and see how the style has refined since then. Was that a conscious choice, or did it just happen as a result of repetition?
I have to say when the first strips hit, I didn’t get it at all. Not the art, not the characters, not the humour, none of it. I kept waiting for the post explaining that it was all an experiment to see if the web would provide an audience even for something so deliberately bad (rumour has it the Tarzan novels started out that way). But after a few weeks I started to synch up with it, and I’ve loved it ever since.
As for what you’re not doing? Beats me. Have you considered having another Wikipedia flamewar?
October 16th, 2006 08:22
I think the reason XKCD is so much more popular is that it has comics which can be easily retold in social settings. Principally I’ve found people have gotten into XKCD because of http://www.xkcd.com/c123.html which is vaguely geeky but readily understandable by anyone who’s taken high school physics. Scribs’ jokes just can’t be ‘told’ per se, so attempts to explain it to others tend to lead to a ‘whuh?’ and rapid forgetting.
January 15th, 2007 05:42
very best idea make rules time!…
…