Thursday, January 12, 2017

Petrosino FAKES web traffic "volume"! It is MUCH lower than advertised!

screen shot taken on December 29, 2016

GA has screen-capped 2 weeks of Petrosino's "Recent Pageviews" counter starting on December 28 and ending today.

Why?

Because Petro's "Education Blog" and Grafix Avenger are both on the same platform (Google) which means we both can generate traffic stats from Google.

Translation: GA can read a Google-generated graph.

Hence, GA was astounded by the BLOATED "web traffic" graph Petrosino posted on December 28. Petro's graph depicts (approximately) 1,750 - 6,000 page views PER DAY  for the month of November.  

Huh?

Could it be true that his shitty blog gets thousands of page views per day?

GA decided to prove whether his claims (and his graph) are a fraud.  

So for the past 2 weeks, GA has recorded ACTUAL page views for the Texas Truth Twister's "Education Blog."   RESULT: they are less than 1/10th of the traffic he claimed for November. 

Further, 1600x magnification of Petrosino's graph in PhotoShop shows the numbers on the "y-axis" were ALTERED. The text size does not match the Google generated text.  Petrosino's text is larger. Also, the background of Petro's graph is "dirty" (stray pixels) which indicates the graph was printed and scanned.

Take a look!

Here is the graph Petrosino posted, alleging voluminous daily traffic for the (4) weeks in November.  Google generated the graph; examination in Photoshop indicates the "y axis"   numbers "3,500" and "7,000" are FAKE.

What a bullshitter!

The following graph represents (2) weeks of ACTUAL daily traffic numbers taken from Petrosino's
Page View counter.



Note, the 815 hits in one day was an anomaly.

Petrosino's average DAILY traffic for the 2 weeks GA recorded was 273 page views/ day. 

GA thought his daily traffic would have been lower; maybe a few dozen visits.  Mostly himself, refreshing the page.

So... why would Petrosino want to attract attention by wildly conflating his actual traffic AND faking a Google-generated graph?   Oh yeah, he faked it.

Can you see the fakery with your naked eye?  

See below- Petrosino's "faked" graph on top, GA's UNTAMPERED graph on the bottom ( I changed the background color to  black).

Compare the two.   Note:

  • Petrosino's "x" and "y" axis text does not match in size- Google uses 10 pixel high text for both.  
  • Petrosino's  y-axis  numbers are 13 pixels high 
  • Petrosino's x-axis text is 10 pixels high
  • Petrosino appears to have tampered with the y-axis text
  • Petrosino's x-axis text appears authentic 


Note ALL text on GA's authentic graph is the SAME SIZE

GA's and Petrosino's y-axis text magnified:

click  to enlarge

 GA could show you the "dirty pixels" difference, but I believe I have made my point... which is....


26 comments:

  1. This is hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But, but - he's usually so honest about numbers...............................................................................

    Sorry for the ellipsis length. Sometimes 3 just doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Petrosino's blog is 10 years old.... so i understand why he fakes his traffic stats. After 10 years his real traffic numbers are sad. I believe Petro refreshes his page a few hundred times a day to get that counter up. Sad! Makes me want to cry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Petrosino's fraudulent graph shows about 40,000 page views for November. What's he on crack?

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is a continuing source of amazement to me is the fact that this clown is a professor at a respected Texas university and that he continues to inject himself into local politics in Hoboken, based upon voodoo theories and made up charts and numbers - for what purpose? (Remember, he admitted, in the Bajardi SLAPP suit, to being the authoress of the vile anti-semitic and hateful postings of CuriousGal on various social media sites focused on Hoboken issues.) Is his purpose in these ridiculous and easily disproen blatherings to avenge his humiliation at being "fired" by the BOE for getting paid for full time work while he was living and being paid as a tenured professor in Austin, Texas instead of working for the benefit of the children of Hoboken full time? As a taxpayer, the shithead was ripping off every taxpayer and student in Hoboken. If his wacky and indefensible nonsense posing as true academic research is any indication of the quality of his work, then I have to wonder about the stature and standing of the institution that currently employs him and honestly believe that he provided nothing useful to Hoboken while he was employed here. His actions have gone way beyond the normal and have truly entered the world of the bizarre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Add to the mix of insanity is the bizarre affinity that HOLA has for him and keeping him as a board member.

      Delete
    2. QOTV- Retaining Petro on the HoLa board can only be seen as their endorsement of his propagandist, hateful attacks on Hoboken District schools, teachers and students.

      Delete
    3. HoLa and everyone connected to it is diminished by this sort of fraud.

      Delete
  6. What's the point of lying about his poor web traffic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:17...Exactly. I suspect there's an explanation. He's GOT to know there's a counter on his site. Was he trying to deceive or is there a simple misunderstanding? Did the graph say the data was from his blog?

      Delete
  7. This just brings attention to someone who should be ignored-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Doc, if you wish to be ignored, stop churning out vicious, fraudulent, politically motivated attacks on Hoboken district schools. Its up to honest people to expose you as a dishonest propagandist.

      Delete
  8. He changed his post. It now says, "Previous charts and figures were for aesthetic purposes, were edited, and unrelated to the actual written content of the blog."

    The lying piece of crap got caught again.

    He also says "I will try to answer as many of your inquiries as possible both online and also by personal email." But there's no way to contact him on the site, no email and no comments ever. He's a coward who hasn't got the balls to stand up to the scrutiny GA and MSV live with.

    Bottom line, he reads GA daily and found out he got caught lying again and had to scramble to fix his "for aesthetic purposes only" graph.

    Yeah, that's what graphs are for, doc.

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Thanks to some of my regular and occasional readers for pointing out some potential confusing aspects to this original post. I have now attempted to label the graphs more clearly and to reduce any confusion. The opening graphic now contains the actual data from Blogger for this blog."---

    Seems like GA and others got confused, readers made him aware and he cleared things up asap. Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the truth, doc. You got nailed by GA and had to fix your misleading graphic. Nothing new about you using made up data, nothing new about you getting caught doing it, nothing new about you having to fix it.

      Pretending you have a big interactive audience is new. See this blog? The one you just posted on? This is an interactive audience. You have to roll with the punches. You don't have the balls for that. The closest you come to interaction is coming here to find out you got caught lying again and fixing your data.

      Hope that answers your "am I missing something question."

      Delete
    2. Doc, why "edit" the graph for "aesthetic purposes"? Why didn't you disclose that up front?

      So you admit the "graphs" on your blog are not truthful but are "aethestic" frauds to confuse/trick your readers to advance whatever lie they illustrate. You've admitted your "education" blog is a hotbed of fraud. Congratulations!

      Delete
    3. Well girl, Isn't that just curious ?

      Or is it the Texas Two Step ?

      Delete
  10. Let's look on the positive side, even under 16,000X magnification "Petrosino's x-axis text appears authentic." That is nothing to dismiss.

    Any cropping of a picture can be seen as an asthetic modification.

    He wrote a (weak) retraction and cleared things up- at least he was responsive. Hopefully, he'll be more careful next time aware of his growing audience of both fans and critics.

    Good work GA





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Editing Dr. Petrosino out of Hoboken's school system would beneficial to the students and those who's taxes pay for them.

      Delete
    2. I have to stop you there, 8:36. The unedited ("authentic") x-axis was part of the fraud. The x-axis was a timeline, by week. So, Petrosino tampered with the numbers of hits (y-axis) to tell a fiction that he was getting thousands of hits on the "authentic" dates. Petro knew exactly what he was doing- he admits to EDITING the graph for "aesthetic purposes."

      Delete
    3. GA, i think -like me originally, you assumed the picture (graph) posted was for his blog. I looked at your post closely, the caption only says 'click to enlarge'-- do we know for sure the picture posted was SUPPOSE to be related to his blog? Or, "just a picture" of what a web traffic graphic looks like?
      Now i'm even doubting myself...

      Delete
    4. 9:17- Look Doc, you've been busted. Of course, it was for your blog- you posted and EDITED it the hit count. If you wanted a sample to illustrate high traffic, there are plenty available on Google images. No, you edited the graph to tell a false narrative. If your traffic was that great, why not just post an honest graph? I screen-capped full (version #1) blog post, I'll post if you want to heap more shame upon yourself.

      Delete
    5. HoLa Dr. Curious Gal,

      I would think by now you would have learned that when you find your self in a deep blog hole you should STOP DIGGING !

      Delete
  11. GA - does he have an "honest" graph now by your assessment or more bs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am fact-checking right now. Stay tuned.

      Delete
  12. Dr. Gopher is his new nickname. I like that one better than CuriousGal.

    ReplyDelete