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

I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 199 posts

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#131

Post by ALittleLight »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #83
geerlingguy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and that can increase by a factor of 10% just by making a dumb face Think more like 20-30% — and not doing it leads to a much quicker falloff from YouTube recommendations, where over 90% of video views come from. I overlook dumb thumbnails when the content is actually enjoyable/entertaining/educational.

There's a thread not too far from this one where people are complaining about the difficulty of cancelling subscriptions to their gyms. I'm sure the gyms use similar reasoning.

Enticing someone to try the content is different from making it difficult for them to stop paying for it. A more appropriate analogy would be if gyms noticed that having pictures of fit people in the advertisement increased the effectiveness of the ads and you were complaining about that. A face in a thumbnail has no cost to you.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#132

Post by goohle »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #43
geerlingguy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe me, I had a nice discussion yesterday with my sister (who helped me take pictures for the thumbnail), and we both agreed it's one of the dumbest things about current YouTube... The thing is, from all my own A/B testing, a face vs. no face will automatically get 20-30% more views (all else equal). And an exaggerated face, a bit more than that.

Its so strange, since the presence of a face immediately makes me not want to watch a video.

Try these videos: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bikini+try+on . They will help to overcome the fear.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#133

Post by jypepin »

rym_ wrote: post #7

I get so frustrated with the idiotic thumbnails on youtube video these days. I am sure it's all optimized for the maximum number of clicks/views but if I see a still that looks the way it does at the bottom of this page I generally just don't watch it on principle.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this feeling. I get that it's producing more views and you need to play the youtube game, but I miss a lot of content just because I decide NOT to click out of principle.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#134

Post by vagrantJin »

jjk166 wrote: post #53
geerlingguy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe me, I had a nice discussion yesterday with my sister (who helped me take pictures for the thumbnail), and we both agreed it's one of the dumbest things about current YouTube... The thing is, from all my own A/B testing, a face vs. no face will automatically get 20-30% more views (all else equal). And an exaggerated face, a bit more than that.

I honestly wonder which came first, the viewer preference or the algorithm. Like are there people out there that see a whacky face in the thumbnail and think "Oh that's a video I want to watch!" and the algorithm just got trained on that? Or did whacky faces just resemble something (from the algorithm's perspective) that was briefly popular and then a positive feedback loop of algorithm recommends it -> gets popular…

Weirdly enough, the algorithm works wonders for me when I'm not logged in. It does what it is supposed to do. Give me more of what I might want while throwing in a heathly dash interesting things I might be interested in. YT to me, bon apetit.

But when I'm logged in, it shows me the exact videos I've been avoiding watching these past few weeks and when I do watch a video, instead of showing me similar vids or vids from the same creator - it just shows me videos I've watched or the video updates I've been avoiding. And the odd Taylor Swift MV, an artist whose works (is it even music) I've never even...not even in a mix.

The team at YT has jokes it seems. Comedians.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#135

Post by dragonwriter »

nzach wrote: post #45
geerlingguy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe me, I had a nice discussion yesterday with my sister (who helped me take pictures for the thumbnail), and we both agreed it's one of the dumbest things about current YouTube... The thing is, from all my own A/B testing, a face vs. no face will automatically get 20-30% more views (all else equal). And an exaggerated face, a bit more than that.

If you ever have the time I would like to read a blog post with this data and some comments about your perception towards this issue. I have no trouble understanding why this happens on "entertainment" videos, but this issue on technical videos seems a bit strange to me.

> I have no trouble understanding why this happens on "entertainment" videos, but this issue on technical videos seems a bit strange to me.

All videos are entertainment videos; it is a medium optimized for and driven by emotional response.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#136

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

ALittleLight wrote: post #131
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a thread not too far from this one where people are complaining about the difficulty of cancelling subscriptions to their gyms. I'm sure the gyms use similar reasoning.

Enticing someone to try the content is different from making it difficult for them to stop paying for it. A more appropriate analogy would be if gyms noticed that having pictures of fit people in the advertisement increased the effectiveness of the ads and you were complaining about that. A face in a thumbnail has no cost to you.

That's a fair assessment. So I guess the question is, do we think having ads that psychologically manipulate us into doing things we would not otherwise do are not making the world a worse place? Because I feel that they are. There is a mental cost to fighting this attempted manipulation that we all have to pay.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#137

Post by nielsole »

flyinghamster wrote: post #120

For all the I/O bottlenecks it has, I've still been rather surprised at the Pi 4/400's raw number-crunching power. It compares well to a 3.3 GHz i3-2120 in a clustered number-crunching task I sometimes run (via MPICH) - which seriously surprised me. I suspect that if it were too big to fit in-cache, the Pi would probably fall flat on its face, but still it just floors me that this itsy-bitsy SoC can do so much on sev…

i3-2120 is a 2011 32nm CPU with a TDP of 65W

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/53426/i...

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#138

Post by ohyeshedid »

geerlingguy wrote: post #59
jjk166 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly wonder which came first, the viewer preference or the algorithm. Like are there people out there that see a whacky face in the thumbnail and think "Oh that's a video I want to watch!" and the algorithm just got trained on that? Or did whacky faces just resemble something (from the algorithm's perspective) that was briefly popular and then a positive feedback loop of algorithm recommends it -> gets popular…

I've discussed this with my brother a bit (he's a neurologist, though not a specialist in vision), and he seems to think part of it goes back to our brain's instinct to react more to 'face' than other stimuli. Therefore thumbnails with a discernible face will do better. And on top of that, an expression outside of "stock photo smile" will stand out more, and if you combine that, plus a catchy title that piques your i…

I'm sure that's part of it.

I also think the graphics, title, face; these are signaling some level of effort and focus. It might not be the individual face, graphics, or title, it could be just their presence.

Re: I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)

#140

Post by CyberRabbi »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #127
CyberRabbi wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. The world would unequivocally be a worse place if they did not exist. > Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generat…

> The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free. > You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. Incorrect. > He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content onlin…

>> The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place.

> Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free.

You’re moving the goal post. My initial comment wasn’t because you criticized him. You may do that all you like without any issue from me. My comment was responding to your claim that he was making the world a worse place because of his YouTube thumbnails.

>> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life.

> Incorrect.

Prove me wrong, link me to anything you’ve independently created for others online.

>> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online.

> Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. Then, lets all take a moment to ponder the meaning of "free".

You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content.

>> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content.

>Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do?

He’s not entitled to anything. This has nothing to do with him doing the work he wants. You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people.

YouTube gives everyone the ability to create custom thumbnails. Should he make one that’s all grey? Obviously not. Accusing him of psychological manipulation because he puts the effort into making his thumbnails more appealing is ridiculous. That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation. Given the option, it’s only rational to make appealing thumbnails and appealing art just the same. Intentionally choosing to not do so would be more concerning.

> But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"...

His content is unequivocally free, no scare quotes needed. Most people get value out of watching his videos. Also advertisers make money from people watching it. It’s a win-win. Not everything is zero sum. You aren’t paying just because he’s earning.

Post reply on HN