RCKid
Power Member
- Aug 15, 2009
- 531
- 88
Ok I know I've been proudly screaming that there is no way in hell someone will come up with a working software that will actually work on YouTube but then comes this Jumpstart which shut me the F up and made me look like a fool.
Now I don't actually own it (I don't think it's worth the $$$ FOR ME just yet, but may be in the future) and I'm not a programmer, but I believe it's not a software at all.
What you download is basically a "submission" program which verifies your account and allows you to submit URLs. The URL goes into the pool with other thousands of URLs. He shortens the URLs with a shortening service.
The guy(s) running the operation has a bunch of different domains (like expired domains) that bring in a healthy traffic. He then directs all this traffic into one server that holds the pool of YouTube URLs that his members submited. The server splits up the traffic between all URLs evenly. Thats why everyone is getting almost identical results.
It doesn't cost him anything other than maintain the server IF the websites that bring the traffic are actually HIS. If it's not, then he would have to buy this traffic which financially wouldn't work as it would be very expensive.
According to my theory though, he needs to keep feeding the server more and more sources of traffic (more domains that bring in traffic) so that the distribution of views doesn't fall too much as the client list grows bigger (which it will). Otherwise the more videos the pool has, the worse they all perform.
It kind of reminds me of Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme, when it gets too big it falls apart and people will demand their money back. So if my way is actually the way it's made, then he should plan well ahead for this.
The url shortening services make sure that the views don't trace back in Insight to these random websites that redirect traffic. That's why 100% of the traffic is "Other/Viral".
It's a beautiful model which actually delivers the real hits so YouTube can't say ish. Technically he is not breaking the no software allowed rule.
I was in shock as I realized I was wrong that someone can actually create a software, but it's not really a software at all.
Saying that, it would be a great financial scheme if I was the owner, I would charge a bs fee for the "software" like 50$ and a fee like $5 per each url that a user submits. HELL I'd charge a subscription $5 monthly fee per each URL that they submit (LOL I KNOW I'M GREEDY). I'd also ban view reselling thus eliminating competition as almost all these view delivering sites say "200+ views per day" (hmmmm). I would probably allow 1-3 YouTube channels per software to control that...Man I'd be mofo rich!!!
The fees and the reselling views ban would also help control the amount of URLs that will be in the pool thus everyone will be getting 2,000+ views per day instead. I'd pay $5 monthly fee for that! But yea kudos to the chef
Now I don't actually own it (I don't think it's worth the $$$ FOR ME just yet, but may be in the future) and I'm not a programmer, but I believe it's not a software at all.
What you download is basically a "submission" program which verifies your account and allows you to submit URLs. The URL goes into the pool with other thousands of URLs. He shortens the URLs with a shortening service.
The guy(s) running the operation has a bunch of different domains (like expired domains) that bring in a healthy traffic. He then directs all this traffic into one server that holds the pool of YouTube URLs that his members submited. The server splits up the traffic between all URLs evenly. Thats why everyone is getting almost identical results.
It doesn't cost him anything other than maintain the server IF the websites that bring the traffic are actually HIS. If it's not, then he would have to buy this traffic which financially wouldn't work as it would be very expensive.
According to my theory though, he needs to keep feeding the server more and more sources of traffic (more domains that bring in traffic) so that the distribution of views doesn't fall too much as the client list grows bigger (which it will). Otherwise the more videos the pool has, the worse they all perform.
It kind of reminds me of Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme, when it gets too big it falls apart and people will demand their money back. So if my way is actually the way it's made, then he should plan well ahead for this.
The url shortening services make sure that the views don't trace back in Insight to these random websites that redirect traffic. That's why 100% of the traffic is "Other/Viral".
It's a beautiful model which actually delivers the real hits so YouTube can't say ish. Technically he is not breaking the no software allowed rule.
I was in shock as I realized I was wrong that someone can actually create a software, but it's not really a software at all.
Saying that, it would be a great financial scheme if I was the owner, I would charge a bs fee for the "software" like 50$ and a fee like $5 per each url that a user submits. HELL I'd charge a subscription $5 monthly fee per each URL that they submit (LOL I KNOW I'M GREEDY). I'd also ban view reselling thus eliminating competition as almost all these view delivering sites say "200+ views per day" (hmmmm). I would probably allow 1-3 YouTube channels per software to control that...Man I'd be mofo rich!!!
The fees and the reselling views ban would also help control the amount of URLs that will be in the pool thus everyone will be getting 2,000+ views per day instead. I'd pay $5 monthly fee for that! But yea kudos to the chef
Last edited:
