@geglobo: Oliva aproveitou o rebote de ótima falta cobrada por Neymar e fez o gol que deu a vitória ao Santos contra o Corinthians, na Neo Química Arena. #gol #futebol #corinthians #santos #brasileirao

geglobo
geglobo
Open In TikTok:
Region: BR
Sunday 30 August 2026 21:09:12 GMT
36312
1495
31
193

Music

Download

Comments

akutoumdosmasfortes
SHIDO :
aqui é peixão
2026-08-30 21:25:07
6
cayque961
Cayque :
Neymar joga muito
2026-08-30 21:26:55
5
ronaldotigregalatico
Ronaldo :
a marcação do Corinthians é top em 😅
2026-08-30 21:29:12
4
marcosmessi84
marcos "👑" :
Que jogadores horríveis vei, só dão desgosto
2026-08-30 21:17:32
2
bdgjom899
Dudinha🙈 :
Eu ou o Neymar??
2026-08-30 21:13:28
1
maranzanooos
Maranzano :
impedido
2026-08-30 21:26:38
3
jeancarlos90038
jeancarlos90038 :
enpedido
2026-08-31 02:09:13
0
alexrb780
Alexrb :
Ainda deu a camisa pra torcida do Corinthians
2026-08-31 01:10:08
0
geronimogonzales977gmail
🐳🌴Gerónimo Soto 🟢🟡🌵🔰 :
2026-08-30 21:42:53
0
simonejoana30
Simone Joana :
Gabi Gol teve um gol anulado triste ele fez tudo
2026-08-31 00:55:25
0
savioo77
saviocota⚡ :
Neymar é diferenciado demais
2026-08-31 00:52:23
0
antesedepoisdojogo
antesedepoisdojogo :
Deu Neymar
2026-08-30 21:37:51
0
fbio.junior.nunes6
Fábio junior Nunes da silva :
o importante é ter Depay
2026-08-30 21:45:20
0
alexfirmino310
lekinhob7 :
se o depay não tivesse ajudado com aquele gol contra rosário, hj a torcida ia invadir estádio kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
2026-08-30 23:48:26
0
alan.22rlk
alanvkx7 :
Mafia
2026-08-30 21:10:19
2
jeancarlos90038
jeancarlos90038 :
facil
2026-08-31 02:09:24
0
ronaldotigregalatico
Ronaldo :
conseguiram perder pro Santos 😂😂😂😂
2026-08-30 21:28:44
4
lucasgracioli1
Lucas Gracioli141 :
Muito satisfatório ver o Corinthians se fudendo
2026-08-30 22:06:59
1
maximusdecimusmeridius23
Maximus Decimus Meridius :
CUritias é pequeno demais 😂
2026-08-30 21:15:19
3
petitneymar132
👅Petit⚔️ Neymar 💰🌶️ :
@💯doute💂⚔️ ney to day
2026-08-30 22:39:29
0
user252856737
Carlos Henrique :
😂
2026-08-30 23:01:08
0
To see more videos from user @geglobo, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

For months, Mushoku Tensei fans were accused of orchestrating coordinated review bombing against Bleach. Instead of responding with another fandom argument, this investigation tested those allegations against the available web data. The investigation analyzed rating distributions, voting timelines, account-pattern correlations, repeated review text, text clones, and cross-fandom activity to determine whether the evidence actually supported the accusation. 1. WEB-DATA HISTOGRAMS 📊 The voting data was converted into histograms to identify unusual concentrations, rating spikes, and abnormal activity patterns. Rather than relying on a few screenshots, the analysis examined the broader distribution of the available data. 2. TIMELINE ANALYSIS ⏱️ The activity was reconstructed chronologically. Voting spikes and clusters were compared with the timeline of the controversy to determine when unusual activity appeared and whether multiple events followed recognizable patterns. 3. TEXT-CLONE ANALYSIS 📝 Review texts were compared for repeated phrases, highly similar wording, recurring sentence structures, and apparent copies or templates. These similarities can provide evidence of possible coordination, although text similarity alone cannot establish the identity of whoever created an account. 4. ACCOUNT-PATTERN ANALYSIS 👤 The investigation examined publicly observable account behavior and relationships rather than simply labeling accounts according to fandom affiliation. Multiple signals were compared to identify potential clusters within the dataset. 5. CROSS-FANDOM COMPARISON 🔎 The central allegation was tested directly: does the available evidence actually support the claim that Mushoku Tensei fans were responsible? The analysis compared the observed patterns against that explanation instead of treating fandom identity as proof. 6. THE NARRATIVE VS. THE DATA ⚖️ This is where the original allegations began to fall apart. The dataset revealed patterns that do not cleanly support the narrative that Mushoku Tensei fans were responsible. Instead, the observed activity requires a much closer examination of the accounts, timelines, review similarities, and other correlations identified during the investigation. The conclusion is not based on one screenshot, one username, or one suspicious review. It comes from examining multiple independent patterns together. The accusation was made. The data was collected. The timeline was reconstructed. The reviews were compared. The text clones were analyzed. The account patterns were examined. And the original narrative was tested against the evidence. This investigation therefore challenges the claim that Mushoku Tensei fans were the perpetrators and shows why fandom-based accusations should not be treated as evidence without proper verification. At the same time, identifying a statistical or behavioral pattern does not automatically establish the real-world identity of an anonymous account. Platform-level evidence and investigation would ultimately be required for definitive attribution. The point was never “believe one fandom over another.” The point was: Follow the data. Test the allegation. Compare the timeline. Examine the text. And let the evidence determine whether the original story actually holds up. The accusation came first. The investigation came next. The data tells the rest of the story. 📊🔍
For months, Mushoku Tensei fans were accused of orchestrating coordinated review bombing against Bleach. Instead of responding with another fandom argument, this investigation tested those allegations against the available web data. The investigation analyzed rating distributions, voting timelines, account-pattern correlations, repeated review text, text clones, and cross-fandom activity to determine whether the evidence actually supported the accusation. 1. WEB-DATA HISTOGRAMS 📊 The voting data was converted into histograms to identify unusual concentrations, rating spikes, and abnormal activity patterns. Rather than relying on a few screenshots, the analysis examined the broader distribution of the available data. 2. TIMELINE ANALYSIS ⏱️ The activity was reconstructed chronologically. Voting spikes and clusters were compared with the timeline of the controversy to determine when unusual activity appeared and whether multiple events followed recognizable patterns. 3. TEXT-CLONE ANALYSIS 📝 Review texts were compared for repeated phrases, highly similar wording, recurring sentence structures, and apparent copies or templates. These similarities can provide evidence of possible coordination, although text similarity alone cannot establish the identity of whoever created an account. 4. ACCOUNT-PATTERN ANALYSIS 👤 The investigation examined publicly observable account behavior and relationships rather than simply labeling accounts according to fandom affiliation. Multiple signals were compared to identify potential clusters within the dataset. 5. CROSS-FANDOM COMPARISON 🔎 The central allegation was tested directly: does the available evidence actually support the claim that Mushoku Tensei fans were responsible? The analysis compared the observed patterns against that explanation instead of treating fandom identity as proof. 6. THE NARRATIVE VS. THE DATA ⚖️ This is where the original allegations began to fall apart. The dataset revealed patterns that do not cleanly support the narrative that Mushoku Tensei fans were responsible. Instead, the observed activity requires a much closer examination of the accounts, timelines, review similarities, and other correlations identified during the investigation. The conclusion is not based on one screenshot, one username, or one suspicious review. It comes from examining multiple independent patterns together. The accusation was made. The data was collected. The timeline was reconstructed. The reviews were compared. The text clones were analyzed. The account patterns were examined. And the original narrative was tested against the evidence. This investigation therefore challenges the claim that Mushoku Tensei fans were the perpetrators and shows why fandom-based accusations should not be treated as evidence without proper verification. At the same time, identifying a statistical or behavioral pattern does not automatically establish the real-world identity of an anonymous account. Platform-level evidence and investigation would ultimately be required for definitive attribution. The point was never “believe one fandom over another.” The point was: Follow the data. Test the allegation. Compare the timeline. Examine the text. And let the evidence determine whether the original story actually holds up. The accusation came first. The investigation came next. The data tells the rest of the story. 📊🔍

About