> "But at the same time, a large portion of their business model is devoted to making sure that nobody can tell just how little content they have to offer. " B

> "But at the same time, a large portion of their business model is devoted to making sure that nobody can tell just how little content they have to offer. " But this doesn't quite scan. Other services with plenty of content such as YouTube also nerf sort by ranking functionality. If I have 100 things to show you as a subscriber and I know that you will only really enjoy 10 of them, than the argument is showing you all 10 up front means that you burn through those and don't stay around for the other 90. Of course there would be a margin of a few shows until you figured out that nothing was left of value, so say 10 you truly enjoy (the "Value Set"), and 10 mediocre ones you have to watch before you decide there's nothing else worth staying subscribed for (the "Transition Count"). How is this better than showing you only 2 of the 10 you'll like from the Value Set, and than making you hunt around for the other 8 until you decide there isn't any more valuable content even though there are 8 more items you would like. It seems like it just starts the Transition Count sooner. Hmm, maybe it's a gambling phenomenon, in that inconstant rewards keeps the gambler playing? The odds of getting a show from the Value Set before completing the Transition Count is high enough that it just keeps resetting the Transition Count to 0? I guess that could work...