[leereeves]

Of course not. The article doesn't specify what is being counted, but Media Matters was clearly counting something.

And like any counter, it's bound to pass 88 on the way to however many versions/targetings/updates/campaigns/whatever the campaign had planned to run.

[anigbrowl]

You say 'of course not' but then just carry on as if the previous poster had endorsed your theory. I am not an adtech person but I had the distinct impression that the tool cited counted the number of promotional spots purchased for each ad placed. On what basis do you say they were 'clearly counting something' as if it were a dynamic rather than a static process?

[leereeves]

On what basis do you say it's a static process? The burden on proof is on those making the allegations.

[anigbrowl]

You're the one alleging that they took the screenshot as it counted up in a dynamic process. I'm asking why you seem so sure about about that, in contrast to alternative possibilities. Seems like you can't answer.

[leereeves]

I'm not alleging it. I'm just picturing the possibility.

The truth is neither of us knows, so how can we consider the number 88 evidence?

[anigbrowl]

You are absolutely alleging it.

So the ad had run 88 times when Media Matters took the screenshot? [...] The article doesn't specify what is being counted, but Media Matters was clearly counting something. And like any counter, it's bound to pass 88 on the way to however many versions/targetings/updates/campaigns/whatever the campaign had planned to run.

I was willing to listen to your argument, but instead of making a case you're just insulting my intelligence.

[dragonwriter]

Because evidence for something doesn't require proof beyond the possibility of conjecturing alternative explanations, and if it did, nothing would be evidence of anything, since any sense data could just be hallucination, and ultimately anything that could be cited as evidence at some point relies on sense data.