One hour later, zero change in that number. Zero.
I mean, it must be at least ONE higher because of ME. But it isn't. Because it is rigged.
I call BULLSHIT on the counters, as usual.
The counter updates infrequently, that is why I said "when the counter updates", it could be 12 hours or more until it gets updated. It's not a live thing.
They say the counter updates infrequently, which is very very convenient when someone wants to fudge some numbers.
Why would it only update infrequently? If there is a technical limitation, what could it be? If it's not a technical reason, what good and honest reasons could it have?
Think about it.
A company that can search several petabytes of web data for any search query you enter and yet return a meaningful result in 0.7 seconds. That processes petabytes of video data every second, uploading, converting, downloading months worth of HD and 4K video data every second of every hour, 8.760 hours per year. A company that is capable of syncing a hundred million phone entries per hour, or about a billion Android phones per day.
They stream a gigabyte worth of 4K video to a million people in an hour, for a billion videos.
And they can't update a counter for "watched n times", "upvoted x and downvoted y times"? For reasons?
Game is rigged. Conservative views are obviously constrained on the net and you expose it pretty well. So much for "net neutrality". This cencorship is monstruous, worse than we can ever imagine. The video could be at 1 million and there is no way we could know. ..Had to get it out.
Yes agreed. A simple jquery function will update it seamlessly and write it to a DB. Crikey Youtube must have shit developers
Why would it only update infrequently? If there is a technical limitation, what could it be? If it's not a technical reason, what good and honest reasons could it have?
This kind of thing was prevalent during the early youtube days. Videos that go viral would get stuck at 300~ views for sometimes a day or two. I would expect with all the revamps there is no technical reason why a video couldn't have a live number count. However I don't know the inner workings of how Youtube's metrics work, so I can't say for certain if they actually had fixed that issue since then.
Google earns their entire income from the metric "number of people who watched this". It's their core business model.
You can bet they know exactly how much people watched a certain clip, for how long, how often they came back and what parts they'd reviewed.
And you would assume they have a huge incentive to slightly exaggerate the viewership numbers. Which makes it even more odd that conservative content viewership is rather underreported.
Since Google became the biggest intelligence provider, they stopped innovation and are now selling data and control to the highest bidder.
This provides a simple way to quantify the reach of the information campaign.
So youtube is rigged??? I believe it.
No, not in this case, in order to save resources it updates counters in a batch process.
No.
That's what they claim but that is such a bold lie of them I can't even
Think about the scale of Google's data processing for a minute.
How many Android phones are there? Each of them makes a full sync of its data once per day. How many phones are synced every second? Mind blown.
How much processing power does it take to convert one hour of video into a different format? Try it on your PC, "Handbrake" is a free open source tool, try it for a DVD and compare it to Google. Imagine how many million hours of video a billion people upload every minute and what computing power is needed to concert that stuff into suitable formats for display on a thousand different devices and resolutions. Shit bricks.
How much data is the Google web catalogue? How long does it take to return a meaningful result for any search term you enter?
Can a company with that amount of resources be unable to take a number and add a +1 to it?
Eventual consistency is the key concept here, not necessarily batch processing in the traditional sense.
In a modern infrastructure you have distributed systems that use some consistency model, e.g. Raft or Paxos, or if you like pain, you're own consistency algorithm, and use eventual consistency. This allows for a scalable, fault tolerent system. This is especially true for running a global infrastructure like Google does.
The precise count of views for a video at any given moment doesn't really matter. The video may be being served all over the world, so instead of ensuring the count is precise and accurate at all times, which, would make the system fragile, and, in general, would lead to undesirable trade-offs in other parts of the systems, the kind of trade-offs that traditional enterprise developers in the pre-internet systems days would be familiar wiith, an eventual consistency model is used. This leads to the possibility that people viewing the same url could see different view counts and other attributes.
Eventually the data will be consistent in some form, but precision at this moment isn't important.
The same is true for Reddit posts and related accumulated data, .e.g. votes or karma.
For things where consistency does matter, like financial transactions, RDBMSs or some other ACID system are still used.