[34 / 8 / ?]
Quoted By: >>14831940 >>14831968 >>14832042 >>14832047 >>14832174 >>14832182 >>14832275 >>14833153 >>14833341 >>14833393 >>14834396 >>14834811 >>14839327 >>14842842
Reminder for anyone new:all Hololive streamers are viewbotted to prop ccv numbers, averages and rankings.
>proof?
Analysis of chat replay data for factors such as messages per second, chat density, superchat frequency and percentage of viewers who have never sent a message in chat suggest that ~67% of any given Hololive streamer's ccv are viewbots. Interestingly enough, this ratio may actually be higher for more popular Hololive streamers and may be additionally boosted for special streams, where a ccv of ~50k has a chat replay typical of a 15k audience. This is likely done to prevent an uncharacteristically low turnout for certain streamers and/or certain 'event' streams, and to keep certain streamers in consistent rankings in view metrics.
>but there's a wide disparity between hololive ccv numbers for individual streamers
It's probable that Cover uses a viewbotting method already used by many Twitch streamers. Each real viewer is matched roughly 2:1 by viewbots, with a dynamically updating rate of viewbots joining the stream. This is effective, organic and doesn't trigger automated moderation nearly as much as other methods of viewbotting. It also means less popular or successful streamers such as Council and ID won't benefit as much from the viewbotting.
>that doesnt sound viable from an economic standpoint
Then you don't understand economics. Cover's control of IP and policy with regard to streamers' merchandise and music production demonstrates their financial risk averseness very well. Moreover, Cover's manipulation of YT algorithm is excellent. There is no reason to put it beyond them to use viewbotting to ensure the best metrics and prevent arbitrary flops.
>Hololive's numbers would still be the best even if these viewbots weren't accounted for
That is very true. However, it's very well documented that fluctuation in ccv, both over the course of a given stream and in long-term averages/medians can cause potentially damaging feedback loops. It's likely Cover wants to minimize this as much as they can, although it won't be completely preventable for certain streamers.
>meds
Data doesn't lie.
>proof?
Analysis of chat replay data for factors such as messages per second, chat density, superchat frequency and percentage of viewers who have never sent a message in chat suggest that ~67% of any given Hololive streamer's ccv are viewbots. Interestingly enough, this ratio may actually be higher for more popular Hololive streamers and may be additionally boosted for special streams, where a ccv of ~50k has a chat replay typical of a 15k audience. This is likely done to prevent an uncharacteristically low turnout for certain streamers and/or certain 'event' streams, and to keep certain streamers in consistent rankings in view metrics.
>but there's a wide disparity between hololive ccv numbers for individual streamers
It's probable that Cover uses a viewbotting method already used by many Twitch streamers. Each real viewer is matched roughly 2:1 by viewbots, with a dynamically updating rate of viewbots joining the stream. This is effective, organic and doesn't trigger automated moderation nearly as much as other methods of viewbotting. It also means less popular or successful streamers such as Council and ID won't benefit as much from the viewbotting.
>that doesnt sound viable from an economic standpoint
Then you don't understand economics. Cover's control of IP and policy with regard to streamers' merchandise and music production demonstrates their financial risk averseness very well. Moreover, Cover's manipulation of YT algorithm is excellent. There is no reason to put it beyond them to use viewbotting to ensure the best metrics and prevent arbitrary flops.
>Hololive's numbers would still be the best even if these viewbots weren't accounted for
That is very true. However, it's very well documented that fluctuation in ccv, both over the course of a given stream and in long-term averages/medians can cause potentially damaging feedback loops. It's likely Cover wants to minimize this as much as they can, although it won't be completely preventable for certain streamers.
>meds
Data doesn't lie.
