How can you assert that a technique that requires about 10 seconds of cranking is more effective that a technique that requires about 2 seconds of cranking?
The starter has a 30 second duty cycle. I'm within that - as long as I don't flood it. A ten second crank, with priming as I have established gives me reliable starts. A reliable first start prevents the need for a second attempt, and greater risk of something going wrong with that start. Were I to have a carb fire in my 360, I would have no way whatever of knowing that, so preventative technique is the best for me. I had a carb fire on my other plane last year, having flown it more than 3000 hours over 34 years (so I kinda knew it). It was a surprise to me, I thought I had that plane figured. It was an expensive fix. If I run the battery down with failed start attempts, I have a bigger problem to solve. So, I've learned to be patient, start the way it works, even if it take a few second longer, get a predictable first start, and go flying. Typical ambient flying temperatures for me range from 90F to -15F, so varied preheating and priming techniques are appropriate. One technique will not cover that range. The safest start is the start which worked smoothly the first time, even if it required a little more patience.
Certainly starting my O-200 was a very different priming technique from my O-360. The O-200 was generally purring after a 2 - 5 second crank. No so the O-360 as installed in my plane, believe me, I've tried!
You do what works for you, it's your plane. As a person who writes flight manual supplements and issues STC's on GA planes for a living, I respect the techniques provided in existing approved flight manuals and POH's, as they are a product of testing and approval. They are not always the only way, they are the way preferred by the manufacturer of the plane. I can hardly advocate to deviate from the type of documents I create and approve, using methods I have tested myself, and understand. But yes, I have tried other ways....