To be honest I had the same assumption as you and actually set out to prove you (us) right, not to prove you wrong.
To continue to be silly I must counter your current argument. Youtube has only been around for 8 years. At its peak current uploading it is doing 72 hours per minute and the proposed crew could see a year worth of that in a little over half a year. If you assume that number has grown over the years then each year later it would take them less time to view all the videos. It wouldn't take "only 8 years" to watch all the videos currently on the site, it would probably take around 3 years, which is actually kinda shocking.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:41:12 AM
@HolyGod: I stand corrected!
(I am now arguing just to be silly)
BUT! That's only the FIRST ROUND of the competition! Next they gather their favorites and show them to the various selection committees, who in turn narrow the field even more! Sure they`ll watch all the videos in "only" 8 years, but it`ll take them another 2 years to reach the final selection...
Ok, you`re still right, and they still don`t need another 30K... but they`ll need 10 full years. I can`t WAIT for the winner!
"30,000 employees to screen ALL the videos for 10 years?"
I can't find any stat on total hours of video on youtube, but they say 72 hours are uploaded per minute.
So in one year that is 37,869,120 hours of video. (365.25 x 24 x 60 x 72)
If 30,000 people watched video 8 hours a day it would take 158 days to watch 1 year of video. (37,869,120 / 30,000 / 8.
A standard 5 day work week with two weeks vacation is 250 days. So in one year they would see more than a year worth of video. Over the course of a decade they would definitely see all the videos as the rate of upload has grown over the years to this peak rate.