[danbruc]

If it's actually spot on, it's a miracle.

I got the counter and the title both showing 3,690,744 when I first opened the link - so how unlikely is this actually? Probably not really too unlikely. Or I got really lucky.

EDIT: Thinking about it, as YouTube probably updates the view count only every couple of seconds or minutes it might actually be spot on most of the time if the title gets updated at about the same frequency.

[gh123man]

Same here. However I think that the way he is communicating information in this video is meant to capture your attention not just now, but when this video is visited months or years from now.

It will be very cool for viewers to stumble across this video when it doesn't work, effectively proving his point.

[tehwebguy]

My guess is it's more likely some YouTube employees hacked around this as a show of "support" for YouTubers?

[diggan]

More likely they have a cache for the views with a longer expiration time set than the update interval of Scott's script.

[hombre_fatal]

That's unnecessary. The slower the view count updates (and it's very slow), then the more likely the title is to be correct.

[darkstar999]

That's what I thought too. He probably got a rate limit lifted.

[kube-system]

YouTube's view counts update at a notoriously slow rate. It's not hard to find new videos with more likes/dislikes than views.

[diggan]

> new videos with more likes/dislikes than views

That doesn't mean that the view counter is slow. Views are only counted when you watch the video for X seconds (or percentage complete, can't remember) while you can like/dislike the video by going to the page, clicking the like/dislike then close the page before the view would even count.

[duxup]

Same here, they matched.

[thomasahle]

I think his point was more that it won't increase every time you refresh the page.

But then neither will the actual view counter.