Log out, go to vid page, F5 for an hour, ???,
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Hits is an absolutely worthless metric in the first place.
Log out, go to vid page, F5 for an hour, ???,profithits.

NS wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Hits is an absolutely worthless metric in the first place.
Log out, go to vid page, F5 for an hour, ???,profithits.
But since nobody logs out and does that for an hour it's not an ABSOLUTELY worthless metric. Sure people may go to the vid page more then just once, but it doesn't mean it's completely useless.
BasharOfTheAges wrote:NS wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Hits is an absolutely worthless metric in the first place.
Log out, go to vid page, F5 for an hour, ???,profithits.
But since nobody logs out and does that for an hour it's not an ABSOLUTELY worthless metric. Sure people may go to the vid page more then just once, but it doesn't mean it's completely useless.
Well, they're not unique or bound by anything, so spiders, bots, etc. will alter them as well.
Nya-chan Production wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Well, they're not unique or bound by anything, so spiders, bots, etc. will alter them as well.
Though they will alter them for everyone (more or less) equally, so were back to square one :>
8bit_samurai wrote:The only time I would think hits are worthless for a producer is that if the catalogue entry is a MEP or if it has so many hits that it doesn't matter anymore. Same would go for the star rating, I would think.
8bit_samurai wrote:Generally, if a video has a lot of hits and has a star rating average of about 3.25, it can be safe to assume that it's a mediocre video at best. It may not be what the consumer is looking for, but it is still edited well enough.
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Nya-chan Production wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Well, they're not unique or bound by anything, so spiders, bots, etc. will alter them as well.
Though they will alter them for everyone (more or less) equally, so were back to square one :>
If people don't go out and search for vids by hit count or decide to download based on hit count, then they have no comparative value for the consumer, only the producer. If the numbers are skewed upwards, it's an inflated value that has some unmeasurable amount of fudge built into it. How can you take that as being worth anything?
Nya-chan Production wrote:8bit_samurai wrote:Generally, if a video has a lot of hits and has a star rating average of about 3.25, it can be safe to assume that it's a mediocre video at best. It may not be what the consumer is looking for, but it is still edited well enough.
fix'd. Considering the number of people rating with 3, "mediocre quality" starts at about 3.25. To ascertain this, you can check the top star ratings - even the best videos (including everlasting hits like Euphoria etc) don't get to 4.5. 3.7 is actually pretty good and anything over 4 means anyone (except genre haters) can enjoy it.
All of this supposed you have enough hits, ofc.
Nya-chan Production wrote:So you say that a video released 2 years ago that has 15,000 hits doesn't differ from a video released at the same time that has 500 hits at all?
godix wrote:Median star rating is 3.5. I have no idea what the mean is, but still, around 3.5 is a 'typical' vid. So 3.75 would be better than usual, 3.25 is worse.
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Nya-chan Production wrote:So you say that a video released 2 years ago that has 15,000 hits doesn't differ from a video released at the same time that has 500 hits at all?
If I hadn't heard of either one, I wouldn't consider the 15,000 to be a valid number knowing what I know about how hits can be artificially manufactured.
Nya-chan Production wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:NS wrote:
But since nobody logs out and does that for an hour it's not an ABSOLUTELY worthless metric. Sure people may go to the vid page more then just once, but it doesn't mean it's completely useless.
Well, they're not unique or bound by anything, so spiders, bots, etc. will alter them as well.
Though they will alter them for everyone (more or less) equally, so were back to square one :>
BasharOfTheAges wrote:godix wrote:Median star rating is 3.5. I have no idea what the mean is, but still, around 3.5 is a 'typical' vid. So 3.75 would be better than usual, 3.25 is worse.
I'd figure you'd realize a chance for cynicism and point out that sturgeon's law suggests the typical vid is a 1.5 or so, we just have too many people that have the pattern recognition skills necessary to not download enough of them in the first place to skew the numbers.
8bit_samurai wrote:Round and round in circles we go.
Users browsing this forum: mexicanjunior and 0 guests