I don't mean to be critical, esp of such good work. Am instead actually hoping it could be helpful as a useful way to think of it. I don't know any other way to say it.
Such efforts are very popular at first, but everyone really ought to learn to look at their pictures, to critically "see" their results, when comparing results.
Top picture appears to allow bounce, but the greater forward spill will totally obliterate the bounce, it becomes merely direct flash. A little larger than actual bare direct flash, but still flat direct flash (no bounce results left). Look at the shadows in the picture, specifically identify the shadows from bounce (won't be any), and the shadows from direct (all there is). Compare to same settings/situation with bare direct flash. Really look... and see.
Bottom picture makes no attempt at bounce (which seems more reasonable). It is indeed a little larger flash (like for outdoors). Big is the idea, and it cannot hurt, surely better than nothing, but this is not really large enough to much matter (except when very close, inches, near macro), But at least it makes no pretense of bounce.
