Skip to main content
Back to Blog

Production field report

October 2026 Movie Identification Field Report

14,531 recorded direct-finder attempts: persisted successes, tentative matches, unknown results, and response times, with the limits of each measure.

By The VidScio Team · Published November 3, 2026 · 7 min read

Data queried November 3, 2026 at 12:55:31 UTC.

How often does a movie finder return a result in everyday use, and how long does it take? October's stored cohort includes 2,010 persisted successes and 5,337 tentative matches. Reporting both outcomes separately makes clear what the system recorded without treating a candidate as a verified answer.

Recorded outcomes by input

The success-return percentage counts only status = success with a non-null movie record. Tentative matches are recorded candidates with status = unverified_match. Unknown and restricted outcomes are separate. All percentages use eligible attempts as their denominator.

October 2026 eligible attempts, status counts, strict success-return rates, and response times
InputAttemptsPersisted successTentativeUnknownRestrictedSuccess returnP50P90
Image upload6,224263,5072,665260.42%3.446 s7.649 s
YouTube URL2,9711,6163071,048054.39%8.062 s22.503 s
Other non-image input5,3363681,5233,2422036.90%2.967 s6.360 s
All eligible attempts14,5312,0105,3376,95522913.83%3.672 s12.732 s

Image uploads recorded 26 persisted successes across 6,224 attempts (0.42%), alongside 3,507 tentative matches. That does not mean only 0.42% of images received a candidate, and it does not measure image-identification accuracy. YouTube's 54.39% success-return rate is also an operational outcome, not a correctness estimate. Nonrandom input mix and routing prevent a fair capability ranking between these groups.

Overall median response time was 3.672 s, with a P90 of 12.732 s. YouTube's P90 was 22.503 seconds. These stored durations include unsuccessful outcomes; they are not browser-measured page-load times or a promise about the next request.

What the cohort includes

  • Window: October 1, 2026 at 00:00 UTC inclusive to November 1 at 00:00 UTC exclusive, using identified_at.
  • Source: stored identifications rows with platform = webapp and no deletion timestamp. Chat and extension flows are outside this cohort.
  • 16,963 stored direct-finder rows, no deleted rows, then 2,431 cache hits excluded, followed by 1 correction retry among the remaining rows. This leaves 14,531 eligible attempts.
  • Input grouping: image-upload flag first, then YouTube flag, then other non-image input. The last group includes descriptions and other links; it is not a text-only or social-link-specific measure.
  • Latency: nonnegative stored milliseconds across every eligible outcome. Every eligible row has a latency sample. P50 and P90 use linear interpolation at (n - 1) * percentile, rounded to the nearest millisecond.
  • Checks: cohort, input totals, status totals, and exclusions reconcile. There are no status/movie-record inconsistencies or null cache/correction flags in this snapshot.

Data and reproducibility

The aggregate was queried read-only on November 3, 2026. A single SQL statement used one database snapshot; a separate grouped query checked input outcomes. No user identifiers, submitted descriptions, links, or images are included in the download. Absent statuses are represented with explicit zero counts.

Download aggregate data (JSON)

Why this is not a July trend line

The July field report recorded 17,485 eligible attempts, a 39.23% return rate, and a 3.499-second median. Those are historical operational measurements, not accuracy labels. October uses broader input groups, and historical deployment/status definitions have not been reconciled. Input mix, routing, persistence coverage, and latency methodology may differ. We do not interpret the two overall rates as evidence of improvement or decline.

Limitations

  • No labeled ground truth or human correctness audit: these results cannot estimate accuracy, false positives, or competitor performance.
  • Attempts are not unique people or unique problems. Repeat submissions, staff tests, and duplicate inputs are not separated.
  • Only persisted rows are visible. Early failures, abandoned requests, unsupported-link recovery prompts, and flows that do not write this table can be absent.
  • Deleted rows, cache hits, and correction retries are excluded. This cohort does not represent every visitor or identification interaction.
  • Changing input mix and nonrandom routing prevent causal claims about models or product changes.

Use evidence, then verify the title

Keep a clear screenshot and any distinctive dialogue or scene context, then verify a suggested title against the original scene. Our screenshot guide and social-clip guide cover evidence collection and inaccessible links without assuming every clip can be identified.

VidScio interface displaying a suggested movie from a screenshot
An interface example, not a labeled test case or evidence of an accuracy rate.
Open Movie Finder
The VidScio Team

The VidScio Team

Editorial Team

Articles are researched and written by the VidScio editorial team — the developers and movie lovers who build the platform — and reviewed for accuracy before publishing.

Have a scene but not the title?

Describe it, upload a screenshot, or paste a supported public clip.

Try the AI Movie Finder