BoH: Commenting Statistics

By: Scott B. - June 8, 2010

Many of the questions about Banner of Heaven that often come up relate to who was involved, who participated, etc… While I don’t want to get ahead of myself, I thought it would be educational to post a couple of tables about participation at BoH. I have my opinions of what these numbers say, and I’ll share those in the comments, but I’m interested to hear what you see first.

Table 1: Comments by Individual

Banner of Heaven Comments – By Individual
Name Total Comments % of BoH Comments
MirandaPJ 248 6.09%
annegb 236 5.80%
DKL 232 5.70%
arJ 192 4.72%
Septimus 163 4.00%
Jenn 154 3.78%
Greg 129 3.17%
Kurt 123 3.02%
NFlanders 106 2.61%
Aaron 98 2.41%
Steve Evans 77 1.89%
Mari 69 1.70%
Christian C. 54 1.33%
Rusty 52 1.28%
Kaimi 42 1.03%
Rosalynde 39 0.96%
Brian G. 39 0.96%
Allison B. 35 0.86%
Bryce I 26 0.64%
Naomi F. 22 0.54%
“Us” 17 0.42%
Note: 4,069 comments in total.

————–
Notes:
The above statistics assume that comments made by “DKL’s Wife” and “DKL’s Evil Twin” were actually made by someone other than DKL. Same goes for “Steve’s Evil Twin” and all other instances of that sort of thing. “Us” refers to comments made by one of the permas under the moniker “Banner of Heaven”.
———————————–

Table 2: Comments by Group

Banner of Heaven Comments – By Group
Group Total Comments % of BoH Comments
A. “Permas” 861 21.15%
B. Creators 459 11.28%
A. + B. 1,320 32.44%
Accomplices 107 2.63%
Late Accomplices 49 1.20%
The Inquisition 367 9.02%
The “Victims” 565 13.89%
Note: 4,069 comments in total.

————–
Notes:
The “Accomplices” in this table refers to Kaimi, Bryce I, and Rosalynde, as they were in on the hoax from the outset and generally were helpful in promoting it and protecting the secret. The “Late Accomplices” section refers to a few individuals who became aware of the hoax reasonably early on, but were not actually involved in the creation or promotion of the blog. If you’re curious as to who these people are, then you’ll need to tune in to the upcoming podcast with Geoff J.

The “Victims” section is comprised of a list of 6 commenters who were widely acknowledged as such in the Apology threads, though it should be noted that the fact that I list them as “Victims” does not mean that they were necessarily upset or hurt by the hoax. The fact that I only included 6 such individuals also does not mean that there were only six victims. The fact is, there were over 300 commenters, and a huge percentage of them only made 1-2 comments. Thus, a table listing all of them would get really boring really quickly.

The Inquisition is comprised of Rusty, Kurt, & a random John, although a strong argument could be made that Rusty and arJ should be included in the “Victims” section. However, to avoid inflating stats by double dipping, I excluded these three.

48 Comments

  1. Wow, this is fascinating. It looks like the blog was essentially the permas talking to themselves and me, arj, Kurt, NFlanders and annegb. In other words, there were really only 5 victims (and I would certainly consider myself, arj, NFlanders and Kurt victims because we were duped, which essentially puts annegb as the only victim who was not a part of the inquisition.) The delicious irony of the whole thing is that the victims were among the first people to laugh the whole thing off (though I don’t remember how long it took annegb) while the rest of the bloggernacle was still (and still is) wagging their fingers.

    Comment by Rusty — June 8, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

  2. Oops, it looks like I misunderstood who the victims were. Still, it’s interesting to note that those who participated the most were the least moralistic in the end.

    Comment by Rusty — June 8, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

  3. I wouldn’t say that Rusty–my definition of “Victim” here is very, very limited. More particularly, I only included people who participated a) heavily, b) from “the beginning” (or close to it) and c) were generally acknowledged as being tricked in the end.

    Thus, it does not include MANY people who were actually “victims” of being fooled, because they never commented–lurkers, for example, who had their feelings hurt.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

  4. Oops–looks like we crossed each other. Yes.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

  5. Thus, it does not include MANY people who were actually “victims” of being fooled, because they never commented–lurkers, for example, who had their feelings hurt.

    Right–though it certainly also excludes many people who commented now and then, and would possibly consider themselves “victims”.

    To be super clear: I selected 6 individuals who I personally thought were victims of the hoax. My criteria in choosing them had NOTHING to do with actual pain, but with levels and length of participation, as well as public opinion on the matter in the apology threads.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

  6. Disregarding the amount of lonely onlies, silent readers, or lurkers, I’m kinda surprised at how few people were so invested at the time.

    Comment by Andrew S. — June 8, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

  7. Between DKL and Miranda, DKL smokes everyone in total comments.

    The thing that would help this data the most is a sort.

    Comment by Jacob J — June 8, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

  8. As a basis of comparison wouldn’t you need a “real blog” and it’s top ten commenters as a control group of sorts?

    Comment by Brian G. — June 8, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

  9. Interesting that most of the false personas have about twice as many comments as their true authors (though Greg has about six times as many as Naomi). The two exceptions are Brian and DKL, who each have about the same number as Septimus and Miranda respectively. Not sure what that says.

    Also notable is that Brian/Septimus and Allison/Mari have relatively few comments. Maybe this reflects the fact that more than the rest of us they had their eye on the ball, that is to say, they focused more of their energies on advancing their narrative arcs rather than giving in to the strong temptation to engage the visitors. Not surprising that they are both serious fiction writers / storytellers!

    Comment by Christian Cardall — June 8, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

  10. Jacob J.,
    Sorry about the sorting–I corrected it now and added bold font so as to highlight the idea that a huge number of the comments were coming from the perpetrators themselves. If I were a Book of Mormon author, I might even say that they were “stirring up the hearts of their brethren” or something like that…

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

  11. I agree with Brian re 8. It’d be interesting to compare a “real” blog back then an a real blog now, to see the growth/change in commenting composition.

    But someone else should do it. Like Ziff. Scott’s stats aren’t very visual or colorful…

    Comment by Andrew S. — June 8, 2010 @ 8:09 pm

  12. I actually have all of that data for BCC in a nice neat spreadsheet, and could do it…

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

  13. The problem is, it’s extremely blog-specific. All blogs are communal, but the variance fluctuates quite a bit depending on several factors.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

  14. I actually just discovered an error in my calculations with some help from DKL–SeptimusH was only listed as having 36 comments, but that is because we didn’t realize Brian Gibson used two different email addresses for his character–thus I was missing out on 127 more comments. The tables above have been adjusted appropriately.

    However, it does destroy part of Christian Cardall’s comment #9 that Brian and DKL both commented about as often as their characters did. Now, only DKL has this distinction.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 8, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

  15. Scott, do you have the IPs? That would make it easy to include the Evil Twins and other aliases with the correct author.

    Comment by sister blah 2 — June 8, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

  16. Great work compiling these, Scott! This is an amazing analysis. Really, hats off!

    I must confess that, I’m a bit surprised that I made more than 1 in 10 comments and roughly half the perma-blogger comments. With all the comments made elsewhere, one might be forgiven for holding the mistaken belief that I did little else besides blog. I’m a very fast typist is all, and I really don’t spend much time formulating my comments.

    Comment by DKL — June 8, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

  17. SB2,
    I have the IPs of course, but there are so many that people who commented under multiple names that I didn’t want to get into it. FWIW, the evil twin comments were all made by Kaimi. DKL’s wife was actually his wife.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 9, 2010 @ 12:09 am

  18. Kaimipono is outed as having commented under yet another alias! Will the scandals never cease?

    Comment by a random John — June 9, 2010 @ 12:30 am

  19. He also commented as Languatron.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 9, 2010 @ 12:53 am

  20. Wow. It seems that they in fact will not cease.

    Comment by a random John — June 9, 2010 @ 12:58 am

  21. btw, please do holler if I am letting people in on things that people aren’t supposed to know.

    Er. Hrm.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 9, 2010 @ 2:00 am

  22. There’s actually a very funny story behind Languatron that goes back many years. If Kaimi is paying attention to this thread, he should come here and tell it.

    Comment by DKL — June 9, 2010 @ 2:15 am

  23. There’s so much more that Kaimi should be outed on. Please keep going!

    Comment by MCQ — June 9, 2010 @ 2:38 am

  24. I think DKL has it right–that may be the only way to get his attention.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 9, 2010 @ 3:12 am

  25. I think that if you ran a similar analysis on these Bloggernacle Times threads you would find the names and the percentages would be nearly identical.

    Comment by Brian G. — June 9, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

  26. Thanks for sorting it Scott, much better.

    Comment by Jacob J — June 9, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

  27. I can’t believe I didn’t comment more. It must have been all the talking in my head…

    Comment by meems — June 9, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

  28. I was surprised too Meems. I remember you as being one of the best contributors. I expected to see you and several other memorable commenters on this list. What you lacked in quantity, you made up for in quantity, I guess.

    Comment by DKL's Wife — June 9, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

  29. awww, thanks mrs. dkl! :-)

    Comment by meems — June 9, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

  30. Oops. Meant to say “what you lacked in quantity, you made up for in QUALITY”.

    Comment by DKL's Wife — June 9, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

  31. meems,
    How often did you feel like you commented? I have you down as logging 36 comments, which puts you in pretty high company.

    The tables above are not all-inclusive by any stretch of the imagination. Incidentally, you are included in the “Victims” count, so there is that…

    Comment by Scott B. — June 9, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

  32. Ahh, I see. I imagine that must be about right. I feel like I was always commenting because I was always reading it.

    Instead of calling us “victims,” could you call us the “SVU”? (I’d use a smiley face here, but I already used one with Mrs. DKL and didn’t want to seem emoti-cessive.

    Comment by meems — June 10, 2010 @ 12:29 am

  33. MCQ: There’s so much more that Kaimi should be outed on. Please keep going!

    Only Jesus knows everything that Kaimi has done. Kaimi himself is brain damaged and cannot remember much of it.

    Comment by DKL — June 10, 2010 @ 3:43 am

  34. I’ll let you call me a victim if you set up a charitable foundation and donate money to my therapy.

    Comment by annegb — June 10, 2010 @ 11:24 am

  35. annegb,

    I promise to donate $50 every year in your name to the “Human Fund”

    Comment by B.Russ — June 10, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

  36. Hey, that would make a great sequel: Banner of Heaven SVU, the real life adventures of those victimized by Banner of Heaven! We could have the victims write their story lines and then the original permas have to read them and comment.

    Or maybe we could just have a BoH BBQ where the victims get to prank the permas throughout the evening. The evening could end with Steve and Brian doing a re-enactment of the shelving episode, with commentary by DKL dressed as Miranda. Then, karaoke!

    It will be magical.

    Comment by MCQ — June 10, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  37. Also, in case any of you are wondering, YES–there is more coming. I’m just really swamped with work, church, family, etc…and have gotten behind. Sorry for the delays. Again.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 10, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

  38. Scott,

    You need to work on your priorities man. The introduction of your child to Star Wars is admirable, but I want to know how work takes precedence over the Banner of Heaven blog-series.

    Comment by B.Russ — June 10, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

  39. You can actually blame John C, partly. He’s supposed to be doing the write-up for Mari & Greg. As soon as that is done, then I’m ready with podcast #2.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 10, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

  40. yeah, yeah. My boss at my real job would like a word with you, Scott.

    Comment by John C. — June 11, 2010 @ 8:52 am

  41. In Table 1, you have a total of 2,153 comments, accounting for, according to your statistics, 52.91% of all comments. In Table 2, you have a total of 3,728 comments, which account for 91.61% of all comments.

    Why not have a line in both tables giving the number of comments made by “others” (table 1) and “everyone else” (table 2) and the percentage of contribution those comments made? This would help those of us like me who are using this as an excuse to avoid doing more important things, like fixing up lunch (which should probably be dinner at this point in the day.)

    Comment by Alex T. Valencic — June 11, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

  42. Alex,

    “Why not have (insert whatever idea you want)?”

    Because it would require more effort.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 11, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

  43. Well, Scott, as long as you can live with using inaccurate measures and incomplete reports.

    Can you live with that? Huh? Can you?

    Oh… right. Okay. Fine.

    Comment by Alex T. Valencic — June 14, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

  44. I would like to know about the podcasts and where to listen. ??

    Thanks,
    Judith m

    Comment by judith m — June 25, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

  45. Judith, you can listen to them all right here at the site by clicking on the play buttons here, here, and here, or you can get them in iTunes here.

    Comment by Scott B. — June 25, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

  46. For those of us who weren’t aware of BoH when it was online, is there some way to read the posts now?

    It doesn’t seem to show up in the Internet Archive.

    Comment by Kent Larsen — June 30, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

  47. Kent,
    The entire blog has been re-posted in its original form here:

    http://bannerofheaven.mormonmentality.org

    Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

  48. Scott,

    The www in your link doesn’t work.

    http://bannerofheaven.mormonmentality.org/

    That’s the workable link.

    Comment by Dan — June 30, 2010 @ 2:30 pm