That’s what they said, you can divide the amount of creators followed per person by any number and multiply the people which are doing the following by that same number to get a valid option based on the data given. But at no point is that set of numbers not absurd.
Now taking bots into account is an interesting one, but idk if there’s THAT many bots out there
3 million people, each with 250k followers, amounts to a total of 750 billion follows. If every individual English speaker on the planet is in the pool of possible subscribers, then on average each one follows 750 billion / 1.5 billion = 500 of these large influencers. If you limit to only the population of the US, you’re talking 750 billion follows distributed among 350 million people, which is about 2150 influencers followed per person.
Unless there’s some Followers Georg out there juicing the numbers really hard, these numbers are nonsensical. In your question, these are the 250k individuals each following the same 3 million influencers.
You have two maximums/minimums possible with the given data:
250thousand followers are following 3.3 million content creators each
Or
(3.3million x 250thousand) followers each follow 1 content creator
The last one is more than the total number of English speakers, by far, in the world.
There is no inflection point on this linear regression. So, if neither extreme is sensible, it would be astonishing if some value between was.
If you take the number of English speakers and divide it by 2 (so assuming half of all English speaking people are contributing to this phenomenon), then they are each, on average, following 1200 content creators.
Following 1200 people is hard, even when they are people you know. This is nonsense
I’m not gonna point at every point on the line, but you can just try any amount you think.
There are also, of course, combinations of different amount of followers. Where 1 person makes up for 4 by following 4,600, but the number is so absurdly large that it can really only be accounted for by bots or lying, or a combo
That’s what they said, you can divide the amount of creators followed per person by any number and multiply the people which are doing the following by that same number to get a valid option based on the data given. But at no point is that set of numbers not absurd.
Now taking bots into account is an interesting one, but idk if there’s THAT many bots out there
Again, why tho. Neither you nor OP have made that point.
1.5 billion people speak English.
3 million people, each with 250k followers, amounts to a total of 750 billion follows. If every individual English speaker on the planet is in the pool of possible subscribers, then on average each one follows 750 billion / 1.5 billion = 500 of these large influencers. If you limit to only the population of the US, you’re talking 750 billion follows distributed among 350 million people, which is about 2150 influencers followed per person.
Unless there’s some Followers Georg out there juicing the numbers really hard, these numbers are nonsensical. In your question, these are the 250k individuals each following the same 3 million influencers.
You have two maximums/minimums possible with the given data:
250thousand followers are following 3.3 million content creators each
Or
(3.3million x 250thousand) followers each follow 1 content creator
The last one is more than the total number of English speakers, by far, in the world.
There is no inflection point on this linear regression. So, if neither extreme is sensible, it would be astonishing if some value between was.
If you take the number of English speakers and divide it by 2 (so assuming half of all English speaking people are contributing to this phenomenon), then they are each, on average, following 1200 content creators.
Following 1200 people is hard, even when they are people you know. This is nonsense
I’m not gonna point at every point on the line, but you can just try any amount you think.
There are also, of course, combinations of different amount of followers. Where 1 person makes up for 4 by following 4,600, but the number is so absurdly large that it can really only be accounted for by bots or lying, or a combo