Ngl Rinhee definitely want to do Topaz since its already 6 poll that she appear on the list but always lose as the 2nd or 3rd
Collection GIF Video Rinhee Collection [2024-01-24] [Rinhee]
- Thread starter 7767
- Start date
The only people talking over anyone is people replying to me and failing to understand what "direct correlation" means esp when doing a basic google will show evidence of negative correlation in this specific creator space with the top 2 earners having substantially less social media engagement than the rest (under 100k and under 500k). If the original claim of popularity directly correlates with profit, then the top earner should be one of the lowest earners not the opposite.
Last edited:
Mate it takes exactly 10 seconds to see what types of correlations there are, the fact that you even mention negative correlation means there is a direct correlation, not that there isn’t any correlation at all, i have not forgotten at all about supply and demand, which is why i simply ask, if 2 people are selling the exact same product, but one had 100000 more people watching him, would that create negative or positive correlation with the amount of money made, if any of the people you mentioned earlier had more potential buyers, would that not lead to more actual subscribers? There is thousands of artists that make big titties content, there is hundreds of artists that make the same content, but a fraction of the money rinhee makes, then there is rinhee who makes a lot of money, surely that isn’t thanks to his popularity. Would rinhee have more or less subscribers if they were less popular with the exact same level of demand there is on the market for his type of content right now? Educate me, i might just learn something from this thread. It’s impressive how you simply refuse to understand that there is more than one factor to amount of money made and correlation(of any type)between popularity and money plays not a small part at all.
Proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
Direct correlation is "positive correlation". Negative correlation is not "direct correlation" since it cannot simultaneously mean positive and negative correlation, imbecile. Can you stop ass pulling and arguing to argue? Like at least read a wiki entry to try and pretend like you know what the fuck you're talking about. Otherwise, just take my earlier advice and stick to masturbating instead of trying to use a brain that's apparently so smooth it could be used as a mirror.
Last edited:
This is a hentai fucking request page and we’re arguing about random ass shit ??? Does anyone have the subs for Annis?
- Dec 25, 2021
- 174
- 330
- Jul 24, 2021
- 146
- 1,724
Anis 60 FPS no Subs JP:
You must be registered to see the links
You must be registered to see the links
You must be registered to see the links
- Oct 8, 2021
- 68
- 55
St. Louis has like 280 to Topaz' 240. Arlecchino is 3rd at 200.
He definitely wants to do Topaz, but that new St. Louis skin is too great
He definitely wants to do Topaz, but that new St. Louis skin is too great
Honestly not just the skin everything about St. Louis is Great
Definitions of direct correlation. noun. a correlation in which large values of one variable are associated with large values of the other and small with small;
You are absolutly trolling right, there is no way you are trying to change the MEANING of direct correlation. You actully dont know wtf you are talking about.
It is a corollary of the
You must be registered to see the links
that the
You must be registered to see the links
of the Pearson correlation coefficient is not bigger than 1. Therefore, the value of a correlation coefficient ranges between −1 and +1. The correlation coefficient is +1 in the case of a perfect direct (increasing) linear relationship (correlation), −1 in the case of a perfect inverse (decreasing) linear relationship (anti-correlation), and some value in the
You must be registered to see the links
(−1,1) in all other cases, indicating the degree of
You must be registered to see the links
between the variables. As it approaches zero there is less of a relationship (closer to uncorrelated). The closer the coefficient is to either −1 or 1, the stronger the correlation between the variables.There is no way in any universe you even typed correlation on google, and you are trying to make ME read on it, how about you actually open wiki and start studying you uneducated freak.
Spearman's rank correlation coefficient
I want you to type this in google and start reading right now.
This is my own solution done to prove my point, if you can provide me with better proof of the opposite i will be more than happy to bend for you. Otherwise you are simply a fking ret*rd.
Here is the math using that very theorem. Here is a link to the paper i have used for my solution
You must be registered to see the links
Here is the data used, under Total there is the math done by excel itself based on
You must be registered to see the links
.
- Apr 15, 2020
- 66
- 80
Normally, I'd agreed, but since Rinhee already did St. Louis ages ago, I'd rather they animate someone who hasn't gotten a chance yet.
lets not make this thread to be debate thread. i don't want it to be another WT forum like
- Oct 8, 2021
- 68
- 55
Said he selected his favorites because the Anis vid put him in a slump. Had half the mind to just do something his own but since a lot of people would bitch about that, he just put a majority of them in the poll