4 ms·

I do trust your math, but it's still wild to think that $300 a month of bandwidth might put someone in the top 1% of costly users for Vimeo. I don't know what

I do trust your math, but it's still wild to think that $300 a month of bandwidth might put someone in the top 1% of costly users for Vimeo. I don't know what I would expect those numbers to be, but my instinct is that it seems like a really bad indicator for Vimeo's popularity. Either that or my instinct on how much bandwidth costs and how many views popular video sites get is way off, which could also be the case.

HillRat 5y ago
My gut feeling is that Vimeo is playing a little fast and loose with that characterization -- it's almost certainly "1% of the users in her particular tier," not OTT customers or their enterprise tiers.
kuboble 5y ago
> wild to think that $300 a month of bandwidth might put someone in the top 1% of costly users for Vimeo. That doesn't surprise me. I imagine median customer as someone who created one video that 10 of her closest friends have watched. Anyone who has any following is immediately 95-th %-ile. Slightly relevant post https://danluu.com/p95-skill/ https://danluu.com/p95-skill/
madars 5y ago
Pretty sure the figure is relative to all accounts, including dormant ones. I probably have a Vimeo account that I have never used so contribute to 99% of "accounts" that are not costly to them.
- bena 5y ago
  That would be a hell of a dark pattern. Encourage, if not outright require, people to create accounts to watch videos. That way you have a lot of accounts that will never upload a video ever so you can define as many creator account as being in the top 1% as possible.
  - madars 5y ago
    You can see this everywhere! For example, many colleges were proud about their very low COVID positivity rates, without remarking that negative people required twice-a-week testing (so a very high total # of tests) whereas positive cases went on a multi-month testing lockout (for a good reason as you can still shed virus without being infections). Positivity on campus is, of course, a useful signal but comparing positivity in populations with mandatory testing and ones without (e.g. city COVID testing sites used by people with symptoms or those who travel) is very much apples-and-oranges. Or, in patent cases the defendant will want to narrow the scope as much as possible, whereas the plaintiff will argue for a very broad reading.

HillRat 5y ago

My gut feeling is that Vimeo is playing a little fast and loose with that characterization -- it's almost certainly "1% of the users in her particular tier," not OTT customers or their enterprise tiers.

kuboble 5y ago

> wild to think that $300 a month of bandwidth might put someone in the top 1% of costly users for Vimeo. That doesn't surprise me. I imagine median customer as someone who created one video that 10 of her closest friends have watched. Anyone who has any following is immediately 95-th %-ile. Slightly relevant post https://danluu.com/p95-skill/ https://danluu.com/p95-skill/

madars 5y ago

Pretty sure the figure is relative to all accounts, including dormant ones. I probably have a Vimeo account that I have never used so contribute to 99% of "accounts" that are not costly to them.

bena 5y ago
That would be a hell of a dark pattern. Encourage, if not outright require, people to create accounts to watch videos. That way you have a lot of accounts that will never upload a video ever so you can define as many creator account as being in the top 1% as possible.
- madars 5y ago
  You can see this everywhere! For example, many colleges were proud about their very low COVID positivity rates, without remarking that negative people required twice-a-week testing (so a very high total # of tests) whereas positive cases went on a multi-month testing lockout (for a good reason as you can still shed virus without being infections). Positivity on campus is, of course, a useful signal but comparing positivity in populations with mandatory testing and ones without (e.g. city COVID testing sites used by people with symptoms or those who travel) is very much apples-and-oranges. Or, in patent cases the defendant will want to narrow the scope as much as possible, whereas the plaintiff will argue for a very broad reading.