Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey
Raymor, I think the question is how are you targeting or identifying uploaders since I thought the same as Seeric. Based on your numbers, I'd bet a lot of money those "independent uploaders" are those paid by the same tube sites, and it's not exactly a secret  |
It would be interesting to do a study on how much tube content is in fact user uploaded. Clearly the tube site owners have to seed their new tube at minimum.
Those who know me know that I often use phrases like "I suspect", "I wonder if" and "it could be". I tend to avoid stating as fact something that I don't actually know. In this case, because it's an ongoing investigation I can't reveal my methods and sources, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that very few of the uploaders for these tube sites were paid. I'm not saying "I suspect that's true" - I'm pretty confident that it's true.
I have no agenda here and I have no reason to try to convince anyone of anything, so
readers may decide for themselves how much stock to put in these numbers. Those who know me may decide that if I say they weren't paid, they probably weren't. I can't go into detail about my methods, but I simply don't need to because I'm simply posting data FYI, take it or leave it.
You can have some confidence that the data is reasonably accurate because as another poster it does approximate a Pareto distribution (80/20 rule). That's a distribution frequently seen in populations, so it tells you that these results appear reasonable. Had we found that 1% of uploaders were responsible for 92% of the files, that would be non-Pareto and suggest an outside influence such as payment, or simply error. In this case it's Pareto, so reasonable to believe that the weren't a several being paid.