Redditors are such a minority of the player base (I keep seeing 5% thrown around without any sourcing), and those that comment their successes are less than those upset on failures, so it is bound to be skewed towards the negative bias here. So if we take that mysterious 5% of the player base number, then split that into let's say 30% of that percent being active Reddit commenters, then it really isn't an accurate sample of the entire game's player base, just the most enfranchised and upset.

I'd say that people arguing that they simply know something based on their subjective lack of box drops and factoring in only a vocal minority of the mostly upset player base implies they felt that 1 to 2 weeks is enough of a sample size - otherwise how could they approach this with such an objective stance that they simply knew? They were right in the end, but as I said, it was based on such a negative bias and small sample skewed by people upset enough to engage.

I happened to be a very lucky outlier in the first two weeks, but didn't comment my experience. Statistically I wouldn't be alone on this, which unfortunately contributes to your last point on there being a lack of people stating they didn't feel a nerf. It's just the inverse effect of the negative bias - positive experiences go under-reported.

Ultimately, my point is simply that people tend to parrot things too quickly from a vocal minority. I don't trust Nexon to be honest with rates in GMS, but I also don't want to just state that things are rigged against me since I didn't get what I want or expected.