I am a statistics whore, so I know that 99.9% of the time that when someone makes up a statistic they use 99.9% it's made up.
Why? Because when people show them examples they'll go "Well see I didn't say 100%".
Pretty much it's as close as you can come to 100% without being responsible for the exceptions.
I however, as a statistics whore, would actually like to see hard data.
My hypothesis is it might be somewhere in the 50 to 80 range (half pessimistically to 4/5s optimistically) of the time. Because if the artist was known it was probably tagged for archiving purposes. However, if the artist had past problems with the site, or if the artist simply wasn't known I'm sure they wouldn't be tagged. Which I'm sure even just the artist being unknown is more the .1% of the cases.
Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine, I've seen so many crappy statistics. When people use the phrase "Pretty much every/all the time" and interchange it with "99.9% of the time" it's trying to inflate the statement into a scientific context, when really it's just a gut feeling with no scientific basis.
I am a statistics whore, so I know that 99.9% of the time that when someone makes up a statistic they use 99.9% it's made up.
Why? Because when people show them examples they'll go "Well see I didn't say 100%".
Pretty much it's as close as you can come to 100% without being responsible for the exceptions.
I however, as a statistics whore, would actually like to see hard data.
My hypothesis is it might be somewhere in the 50 to 80 range (half pessimistically to 4/5s optimistically) of the time. Because if the artist was known it was probably tagged for archiving purposes. However, if the artist had past problems with the site, or if the artist simply wasn't known I'm sure they wouldn't be tagged. Which I'm sure even just the artist being unknown is more the .1% of the cases.
Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine, I've seen so many crappy statistics. When people use the phrase "Pretty much every/all the time" and interchange it with "99.9% of the time" it's trying to inflate the statement into a scientific context, when really it's just a gut feeling with no scientific basis.