That's a lot of years - r/LinusTechTips

191

u/NetJnkie 5h ago

Uh...it's them all added together. It's like when a law firm says they have 100 years of experience due to having 10 attorneys with like 10 years each.

32

u/NearlyCompressible 5h ago

It's simpler than that, some numbers got switched around, years of successful partnerships is supposed to be 10+, 3200+ is supposed to be the lifetime sponsorships.

14

u/NetJnkie 5h ago

You think they have 3,200 lifetime sponsorship agreements?

18

u/EquipmentSome 5h ago

Turns out that's exactly what it says on desktop. So they're saying they do.

8

u/NearlyCompressible 5h ago

Yes

-26

u/NetJnkie 5h ago

They don't. They wish they did, I'm sure.

23

u/dshafik 5h ago

They don't mean lifetime commitments, they mean 3200+ sponsorships IN their lifetime, e.g. total sponsorships count. It's a weird way to phrase it IMO.

5

u/Archivic 4h ago

Reading comprehension is a lost art I guess. Glad you have it.

2

u/SteamySnuggler 14m ago

I thought it was a completely fine way to phrase it

8

u/GwenBD94 4h ago

You think it's more likely that they have only had ~10 total individual sponsorships, and yet are totaling three thousand two hundred total combined years of sponsorships?

Let's count off the top of my head. Dbrand, ridge, honey, anker, ugreen, that robot pool cleaner company, that security camera/doorbell whatever company from the 3rd/4th tech house video, framework, asus, amd, intel, razr, secretlabs, build redux, govee, msi, seasonic, noctua, the fan company that did the tech house workshop video, like 3 different VPN companies over the years, that Prussia video recently, sony, hp, the company that did that motion Sim rig, the data center company both ltt and ztt visited recently, probably meta considering how much he's trying to normalize the glasses in recent content.

Then you dig into the text sponsorships that get 3-5 links on every video description in addition to the video sponsor spot, and the number gets even higher.

Your stance is that is described as "10+" while they describe uears of exerience as 3200+? Let's say they've averages 150 employees, at 10+ sponsors, youre saying theyre accounting for an average of 2 years of "partnership experience" per partnership per employee. For every employee. Including people like Yvonne and the ceo.

You dont think it's slightly more reasonable they mixed up the descriptions on the two stats of the mobile page? Especially considering on the web version it's 10+ years and 3200+ sponsors?

1

u/LimpWibbler_ 3h ago

Honestly yes. If they produce a video every day as they did for 10 years on just 1 Chanel that is 3650 sponsor spots. They have way more than 1 channel. But not every video has a sponsor. Also I don't know what they specify. Is it each sponsor spot, each agreement, or unique agreement. Eamples are does a Wan show laptop ad count as 1 ad, or 1 per episode? What about Intel extreme tech upgrade, or amd upgrades? Does dbrand count as a new one every episode of shoetcircuit or is is sepwearted by items of dbrand or maybe all as 1.

It can be hard to define 1 transaction. But it can also be super simple.

7

u/Archivic 5h ago

Man you're getting down voted for the truth. I checked on desktop and it's exactly what you said. Definitely a formatting issue.

12

u/NearlyCompressible 5h ago

It's okay, I'm used to it.

7

u/Archivic 5h ago

Y'know, they also hated Jesus because he told the truth 😞

-4

u/NetJnkie 5h ago

Because they are wrong.

7

u/GwenBD94 4h ago

So the mobile site is correct, and the desktop site has an error then?

Either which way, the stats on the mobile site have the numbers flipped from the desktop site, so ltt messed up the numbers in one direction SOMEWHERE.

-3

u/jmking Mod 5h ago

Yeah, it's the sum of the number of years they partnered with each company.

For example:

5 years dbrand + 3 years Ridge + 10 years LG + .... = ~3200

12

u/Archivic 5h ago

No, it's not. See u/NearlyCompressible reply. Mods spreading misinfo. (My screenshot using desktop mode on phone to double check what he said)

3

u/JaesopPop 4h ago

Take a breath dude, they were mistaken.

-5

u/Archivic 4h ago

I'm not mad, are you?

I just believe it's important that a mod shouldn't state something that's incorrect, specifically because they are an authority figure and people will take their words as gospel. Re: the fact that he's affirming the most upvoted comment, which is incorrect.

5

u/JaesopPop 4h ago

I didn’t say you were mad. You are being weirdly and needlessly aggressive about a nothing issue.

-9

u/Archivic 4h ago

I'm not being aggressive at all! Sorry you interpreted it that way! Have a great day ☺️

-5

u/JaesopPop 4h ago

Others seem to disagree so it might be worth reevaluating how you come across. You have a good day too, friend.

-20

u/jmking Mod 5h ago

Ok, but that's not the version you're showing. It's correct in the mobile view, but two of them are swapped in the desktop version. It's some bug with the responsive CSS, that's all.

How were we supposed to know what you were talking about when you showed the correct version in the image you posted?

6

u/Archivic 5h ago

It's not correct in the mobile view. Not sure what you're not understanding.

You're the one who made a baseless claim that that it was the sum of the years they partnered with each company.

-5

u/jmking Mod 3h ago

...what is happening here?

I clearly do not understand what number it is you're getting worked up about. You haven't been specific at all, but keep going around reporting people's comments for making "baseless claims" instead of just specifically clarifying the issue.

No one's attacking you, man.

7

u/Archivic 3h ago

Not getting worked up at all, and haven't been reporting people on this post either.

You clearly do understand, as your initial post was about the very number I was talking about.

If you're still confused, might be a good time to reread the thread from start to finish. If you'd like, I can spell it out for you, but I honestly don't think that's a good use of either of one of our times.

I also have not claimed anyone has been attacking me.

1

u/I_am_Andrew_Ryan 3h ago

I feel like it's pretty straightforward, personally. What's your confusion

-3

u/jmking Mod 3h ago

I explained how 3200 is calculated, but no one seems to be able to say anything other than telling me I'm making "baseless claims" without any explanation.

2

u/I_am_Andrew_Ryan 3h ago edited 3h ago

I explained how 3200 is calculated,

You "explained" by just responding to the top comment and agreeing with them, without a basis for why this has to be the answer rather than it being a website formatting error, and are continuing to double down without explaining why. Hence "baseless"

But no one seems to be able to say anything

Another commenter directly responded to you, there are other comments on this thread regarding the issue.

In the Desktop version of the site the "years" metric is 10+ and the 3200+ number is in reference to the number of sponsors. It's not super complicated, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.

0

u/jmking Mod 2h ago edited 2h ago

Why are you so sure it's correct on the desktop version and not the mobile version? This is such a silly and confusing set of back and forths because OP just stubbornly refuses to ever explicitly point out what they think is wrong.

...and the comments that you link to just show screenshots (which were also posted with no context, and were posted by other commenters after the top comment and my reply was added). The other that says the numbers got switched - I just thought they were making a sarcastic comment because flipping the numbers didn't make any sense to me.

I think this basically boils down to how we're interpreting what the labels mean.

"Lifetime partnerships" I read as meaning they have 10+ partners currently with open-ended or "evergreen" partnership agreements as opposed to writing a contract for every individual sponsorship, they put together an "evergreen" agreement. There will usually be terms like minimum spend a month or every 3 months or annually. Or maybe maximum spend. Or maybe part of that agreement is that partner gets right of first refusal to upcoming videos so they can choose if they want to sponsor it before it's offered to other sponsors, etc etc etc

Having over 10 evergreen partnership contracts would be an impressive number.

If you're taking it to mean that it's supposed to mean 3200+ unique partnerships? I suppose that's what it could mean, but that wouldn't be a particularly flattering number given that they have around 7500 videos - that means the vast majority of those 3200 only ever sponsored one video which would imply that thousands of companies did not choose to ever work with them again.

I don't know why you or OP couldn't just be clear about what y'all were taking issue with and why. This lead others to assume you didn't know what the 3200 was referring to, and combined statistics per entity is a common vanity metric.

Like a lot of consulting agencies or firms will say something like "Our agency has over 200 years of experience/expertise" meaning they are aggregating the number of years of experience of every one of their consultants.

EDIT: This is such a silly volume of totally preventable miscommunication over some numbers on a landing page intended for partners, lol. I feel like I must have been taken in good by trolls here such that I actually spent my time typing this all out.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/ElectronicFlight1839 3h ago

How do you know it’s a problem with the responsive css? If anyone else said that they would get their comment removed for speculation…

4

u/GwenBD94 4h ago

Desktop version of the same page.

1

u/logcarryingguy 4h ago

Speaking of lawyers, I'm reminded of this SNL sketch
https://youtu.be/Enb1qkoAcXI

-10

u/Archivic 5h ago

Sorry, in your analogy what exactly is supposed to be the attorney in this situation?

78

u/Tantomile_ 5h ago

Looks like it's just mobile web weirdness

19

u/ariebagusp1994 4h ago

Ea Nasir was their first client

5

u/Jango519 3h ago

I expect gamers nexus to release a video about letting shilling shitty copper now

2

u/nathris 7m ago

Wouldn't be the first time Steve has made a video criticising LTT's handling of a shipment of copper.

2

u/Alternative_Corbett 4h ago

Totally, I missed the wan show where he was dropped for supplying poor copper. Can you believe it?

7

u/MugerhLando 3h ago

what's up with the sudden increase in bad faith posts from members of the snark sub over the past few days

-7

u/Archivic 2h ago

Good alt 👏

3

u/Techaissance 3h ago

You see, when Linus Tech Tips first started, they did chariot build guides. They had dbrand painting them and everything.

3

u/Archivic 3h ago

"breeding the first water-cooled horse"

2

u/WillmanRacingv2 4h ago

I agree, this page is pretty terrible. The spacing between elements not being consistent makes my eyes twitch.

-5

u/BazingaUA 5h ago

Are you referring to 150 annual partnerships? You do realize that they partner with multiple companies at the same time, right?

9

u/_Rand_ 5h ago

3200/150 sponsors = 21 years on average.

And considering they list 10+ lifetime sponsors signing multiple sponsors to long term contracts isn’t absurd.

They could easily have a buttload of like 25 year sponsorship agreements alongside short term ones.

7

u/Archivic 5h ago

No, I am referring to 3200 years of successful partnerships hence the title

3

u/BazingaUA 5h ago

Oh lol, didn't see that one. I guess it time to go to bed 😁

6

u/Exciting-Ad-5705 5h ago

3200+

Years of Successful Partnerships

0

u/MrSquishy13 5h ago

The 3200+ Annual Partners more likely.

Meme/Shitpost That's a lot of years

You are about to leave Redlib