posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
I hope no one misunderstood my post as an indictment of YouTube or Google. Anyone with common sense knows that any data is rendered pointless by
deliberately inserting bad data.
But we've known for many years of the existence of "reputation companies" and "water armies" whose very existence is to create an "appearance" on the
internet which can then be leveraged to one purpose or another. At first they were legitimized by those who had been deliberately slighted publicly
and wanted to clear their image-identity from any taint.
There is very little difference though, between that (off-setting bad "reviews" for example, by entering "good" reviews,) and simply flooding whatever
you want "perceived" into the public's view; like pretending your video has a million hits more than the sixty three it really
There are bots that have been doing this since the inception of the "market" on the internet. It was the reason the purists... which most considered
too hippiesque to take seriously, lamented the inclusion of anything 'commercial' on the web... where there is commerce there is potential
YouTube and Google both have a stake in conveying accurate data. These other "companies" have a stake in "changing that data." Yes... it's used in
politics (especially well since the customers are media themselves), it's used in public service announcements, it's used every time a pollster opens
his or her mouth.
Solution? Well, we could trust that no one will be "evil" and create an alternative metric stream... leaving a "public view tally of views" for the
non-paying visitors, and offering up a different "version" for those willing to pay.
Google did create the "Don't be Evil" meme in marketing didn't it? .... ahem .... yeah.
edit on 29-12-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason