(no title)
antonp | 7 years ago
>“It’s physically impossible,” he says.
>The list goes on.
The sql query that generated all those fake listens shouldn't have passed QA. /s
antonp | 7 years ago
>“It’s physically impossible,” he says.
>The list goes on.
The sql query that generated all those fake listens shouldn't have passed QA. /s
simias|7 years ago
What if he simply put the album on repeat and left it running somewhere by mistake? There are 20 tracks in the album for a total length of 66:39, on repeat you'll rich 96 tracks played in a little over 5 hours. It doesn't sound implausible if it plays in the background while doing chores or other things. That would explain the plays during the night as well if he left it running on a muted computer.
Not that it invalidates the rest of the study or that it would surprise me if somebody had tinkered with the numbers, I just thought that it was a bit sloppy to use "physically impossible" when it's just "unlikely".
noxToken|7 years ago
I once turned down the volume for a streaming service one evening probably to talk to a friend. The playlist played through the night and well into the next evening. Depending on the playlist, some tracks could have gotten 15+ plays due to absent-mindedness.
I can definitely see a music critic putting together short playlists (e.g. 3 songs) for work on a specific album, article, or project. 3 songs at 3.5 minutes each in a playlist would take 10.5 minutes to play and loop 5.714 per hour. You could get 96 plays out of all 3 tracks by continuously looping the playlist 16.8 times.
Again, I'm not saying the numbers aren't inflated, but it's possible for some of these to be false-positives.
Jemmeh|7 years ago
I myself am a serial song repeater. I use it a lot for focus. Noise to drown out other sounds, but familiarity so I don't start thinking about the music instead of work.
MatthiasP|7 years ago