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

371–380 of 508 posts

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

#371

Post by drdeca »

voussoir wrote: post #341
drdeca wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I have frequently wished that the downvote button on youtube _comments_ wasn’t fake. (Last I heard, it currently doesn’t even send a packet to any servers when you click it. It used to, until google+ iirc [edit: see correction/update provided by voussoir in the reply. Turns out it does now. Thanks for the update/correction.]) The inability to downvote substantially alters what is said/ranked highly, I thi…

> Last I heard, it currently doesn’t even send a packet to any servers when you click it. Just tested. It makes a post to /youtubei/v1/comment/perform_comment_action with a parameter ?key and a payload containing "actions" both of which are long alphanumeric strings.

Oh! Thanks! I'm glad to hear that this has changed.

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

#374

Post by IncRnd »

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.

Well, this might be why. [0] That's a Biden video hosted by CNBC Television that currently has 571 upvotes and 1400 dislikes. There there is the Joe Biden channel, where almost all videos have at least 50% dislike count compared to upvotes, and a significant number have more dislikes that upvotes. [1]

  [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f2D0GxCuBo
  [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/JoeBiden/videos

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

#375

Post by [deleted] »

viraptor wrote: post #234
gnarbarian wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube was a free speech platform only as long as it took to establish dominance. Now it's just another corporate megaphone with an inconvenient independent creator problem they are slowly solving by making it an intolerable place to have dissenting opinions. Can't question the election, can't question coronavirus. Big Google decides what is acceptable and keeps the rules and process vague, inscrutable, and opaque s…

WH disabling comments on its videos is not against free speech. It's not about allowing you to shout about your issues wherever you want with everyone having to see it. Disabling comments on official communication is a good move whether it's gov or private company announcements. They won't have to deal with some top upvoted comment with: incorrect summary, incorrect restatement of something, abuse at the account or o…

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by rz2k »

EricE wrote: post #92
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.

Your first mistake was thinking that you are the user they care about serving :p

YouTube premium never shows me adds, and downvotes have reliably gotten the AI to stop suggesting a musician or autoplaying a song that I don't like, regardless of their rough membership in a genre I otherwise want to hear.

It makes me feel guilty to downvote someone or their work who's probably a good person, but it's the only reliable way to tune the AI. I get a lot of enjoyment out of music on youtube premium, but would stop using the service if they started airing ads on the pay service, or began serving music in such a way that I couldn't tune the suggestions and automatic play queues.

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

#377

Post by alirsgp »

As someone in the ad industry (not part of Google) this makes perfect sense. Youtube likely has video quality scores (like for Grammys, Academy, etc), where they're able to get the best bang for their buck when users watch such videos.

Disliking such videos will drive users away from these videos, and hurt their profits. They likely ran a test already and deemed it worthwhile.

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

#378

Post by mrzimmerman »

shuntress wrote: post #351

What is going on in the comments to this article? Why has this relatively minor youtube feature change dredged up such significant vitriol and conspiracy-adjacent rhetoric in the hacker news comments? Skimming all the comments here I'm seeing lots of flaming and hand-wringing. I don't have any actual measures, but to me it feels like significantly more than normal even for an article about a high-profile site/company…

What bothers me is that the title is even a little misleading. They're removing the count of dislikes (which obviously has an impact) but the dislike feature itself is still there.

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

#379

Post by perryizgr8 »

frongpik wrote: post #196
argvargc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Looks like trolling to me. There's 95% dislike rate even for a mundane "paycheck protection bill".

How is it trolling?? The bill mentioned is a $484B expense!! It is not "mundane" at all. It is reasonable that a lot of taxpayers would be upset by the insane spending on inefficient government health programs.

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

#380

Post by ironmagma »

jp555 wrote: post #360
ironmagma wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase is defined as “a person who ultimately uses or is intended to ultimately use a product.” When YouTube was created, it was intended to show videos to users. There were no ads yet. So the intention is for the viewers to be the users.

As long as it's still 2006.

The core intention of YouTube is to have a platform to advertise on. Without the viewers, the advertisers would have no interest in the platform. If there were no advertisers, that would not sway the viewers from having interest in the platform. The ads are there as a means to the end, it’s not the end itself.
Post reply on HN