Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 508 posts

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#71

Post by retsibsi »

cbozeman wrote: post #53
happytoexplain wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We were all supposed to love that movie because it has four women in it I see this sarcastic quipping a couple orders of magnitude more often than I see the attitude it is skewering in regards to that movie (not that that attitude didn't exist). I think part of that is the normal overreaction to anything "SJW", but I think the bigger contribution might be because, after the incredible degree of hatred the black actr…

> the incredible degree of hatred the black actress got I really don't recall Leslie Jones receiving as much backlash as certain outlets purported. Part of that is because that, for these outlets (common offenders including Slate and its ilk), any amount of backlash or derision, or frankly, anything less than glowing praise is "racism". And now that the word "racism" is starting to lose power, they've moved on to "wh…

It's probably hard for any of us to know the actual ratios, because only a filtered version of what's out there penetrates our bubbles.

I think with hot-button topics like this there's usually a race-to-the-bottom spiral of reaction and counter-reaction, with each side being fed the dumbest or most offensive arguments from the other side and reacting to them; then the other side sees a (likewise filtered for stupidity or outrageousness) selection of the responses and reacts to them, and so on.

Everyone is constantly escalating in response to the extreme fringe on the other side, while seeing a more representative sample of views from their own side -- which they are probably biased toward interpreting charitably, as well as no-true-Scotsmanning away the worst examples. So we're all constantly baffled by why the weirdos on the other side are overreacting so hard.

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#72

Post by mrkramer »

retsibsi wrote: post #9

This seems rather user-hostile. The downvote count is useful for identifying videos that aren't what they claim to be. And how about DIY videos that give terrible advice? A big downvote ratio will get most people's attention in a way that critical comments may not.

I think that YouTube algorithms are so smart right now that YouTube doesn't need dislike button anymore it can simply rank bad videos so low that you don't even know they exist.

Edit: YouTube algorithms are so smart* I was exaggerating using hyperbole(figure of speech) in order to imply strong impression and feeling that YouTube algorithms are good enough for YouTube to afford dismissing dislike button.

Instagram is doing fine with likes only so I don't see a reason why YouTube wouldn't. Go to comment section to say what is wrong with the video you are watching or use report button if the video is violating TOS.

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#73

Post by CountDrewku »

Ayayya. Loooong past time to break Google up. They're a disgusting propaganda machine bent on manipulating everyone into their weird ideologies. Amazon and the rest of these social media platforms that are working in coercion need the same treatment. They might as well all be owned by the same umbrella corporation at this point.

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#74

Post by motbob »

duskwuff wrote: post #67
motbob wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that removing public dislikes is a pretty bad idea, but it's not that important of a tool in fighting misleading videos. I mean, there was once a HUGE glut of videos with misleading thumbnails/titles, and what stopped the glut was not dislikes, but rather Youtube's use of watch time as an important metric.

> I mean, there was once a HUGE glut of videos with misleading thumbnails/titles Oh, that's still happening. It never stopped.

If the problem still exists, it's way less noticeable than it was in 2010.

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#75

Post by [deleted] »

argvargc wrote: post #24
nigrioid wrote: post #11

It's because of what happens when the White House forgets to disable comments and dislikes. https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/359823/former...

There's a site tracking these, some of the stats on older videos with high views are crazy (down the page): https://81m.org

[deleted]

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#76

Post by mrkramer »

retsibsi wrote: post #28
motbob wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that removing public dislikes is a pretty bad idea, but it's not that important of a tool in fighting misleading videos. I mean, there was once a HUGE glut of videos with misleading thumbnails/titles, and what stopped the glut was not dislikes, but rather Youtube's use of watch time as an important metric.

Fair point, but I think downvotes have been useful to me relatively recently. Fake videos may not show up in recommendation feeds, but they still appear in search results don't they? (And if you're searching for something relatively obscure, you can realistically hit the bottom of the barrel, rather than only seeing the more highly rated results.)

>Fake videos may not show up in recommendation feeds, but they still appear in search results don't they?

Use report button

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#77

Post by EricE »

happytoexplain wrote: post #34
cbozeman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because of Ghostbusters (2016). It just took this long for everyone else to catch up and realize that, "it can happen to you". We were all supposed to love that movie because it has four women in it! Turns out a shit movie is a shit movie no matter how many SNL alums you throw at it.

>We were all supposed to love that movie because it has four women in it I see this sarcastic quipping a couple orders of magnitude more often than I see the attitude it is skewering in regards to that movie (not that that attitude didn't exist). I think part of that is the normal overreaction to anything "SJW", but I think the bigger contribution might be because, after the incredible degree of hatred the black actr…

I don't care if it was headlined by four white dudes - the "dialog" was crap, the plot was a lazy rehash of the original with zero lack of comedic timing or skill.

Neither gender or race has anything to do with it being a lazy, uninspired and un-funny movie - but people are sure as hell desperate to use that as a shield from criticism :p

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#78

Post by retsibsi »

motbob wrote: post #74
duskwuff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, there was once a HUGE glut of videos with misleading thumbnails/titles Oh, that's still happening. It never stopped.

If the problem still exists, it's way less noticeable than it was in 2010.

Oh if you're going back that far, then yes, it definitely still exists, though I don't doubt it used to be a lot worse. (I phrased my first response carefully in case there had been changes in, say, the past few months that I hadn't fully noticed.)

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#79

Post by CountDrewku »

Hammershaft wrote: post #48
Covzire wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smells political alright. The Biden admin disabled comments on all official The White House channel videos pretty quickly into their administration. Most videos have a tremendously high dislike to like ratio, the most recent is 3.4K dislikes to 205 likes. I don't know who they expect to consume their Youtube content but it apparently isn't the establishment's voter base. This is another brick in the wall that is Yout…

You think Youtube is removing dislikes because of white house vids that average out less than ~25000 views each?

Do you have a better explanation? I wouldn't say that's the entirety of their reasons but part of a bigger picture ideology they want on their platform.

Obviously, views aren't enough. There are multiple channels that get demonetized/de-platformed that have a lot of viewership but they don't fit in with the YouTube/Google agenda.

Re: Testing a few new designs that don't show the public dislike count

#80

Post by Syonyk »

EricE wrote: post #68
Syonyk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to remove public dislikes across the entire site takes away a valuable indicator of video quality. Indeed. Which means you'd have to watch the ads (oh, right, there's also a video involved) to determine that the content was garbage. If you can tell without watching a video that it's trash, you might not watch it - which is opposed to YouTube's goal of increasing total video hours watched. Or, at least, their sh…

lol - YouTube and most social media is no longer for us plebs. It's all about pushing propaganda, and unfortunately plebs mass rejecting politically motivated BS is too problematic. Instead of trying to engage/change minds it's just easier to pretend "problems" like people having the temerity to call BS don't exist. Double plus good.

Even "pushing propaganda" is a bit higher minded than social media seems to be.

It's all about the money. ALL about the money. How do social companies make money? They sell ads.

How do you make more money selling ads? Either you show more ads (increase ad density, or increase eyeball-time-on-platform), or you make more money per ad (I used to see plenty of scam sites - new Kobota tractor for $1500, free shipping, domain registered last week - and far as I can tell, Facebook only cared that their credit card number was good).

More eyeball-time-on-platform requires "engaging" users more - weaponizing psychology, notifications, and A/B testing against them.

Facebook's guiding principles are simple: "What's Good For Zuck is Good For Zuck." The rest are no different.

Post reply on HN