471–480 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been using it most recently to shield myself from an avalanche of Depp and Heard trial clips seemingly created to support Depp.
Random jordan peterson clips were the worst. Once it started, it took months to die out despite me clicking don't recommend several dozens of times.
I've recently heard about this YouTube account named Roel Van De Paar. If you've looked up any error message on YouTube recently, you've probably run into him. Because of the "no dislikes" change, he's everywhere now. And by everywhere, I mean EVERYWHERE. The account has over 2 million videos. Approximately 0.2% of ALL videos on the ENTIRE platform of YouTube can be attributed to this account, and if you check now th…
YT would probably help this issue quite a bit by requiring thumbnails to be actual captures from the video content rather than up-loadable clickbait images... For years now their uploader only picks the 3 worst possible shots from content to be used, and channels create bright thumbnails that often don't reflect the actual content at all. You get more views on any video by adding totally non-relevant thumbnails with…
I think at that time YouTube used to take the frame in the center of the video but I’m not so sure about that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously, the guy is just ripping StackOverflow. His "latest" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtqJq0OF8eA Is a poorly generated copy/paste of: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1644... Probably a tiny Python script. Google is prompt to ban other accounts, hope some Googlers around here can can do something...
Dead Internet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What feedback mechanism would you use to filter the crap? There is no longer an incentive for users to down-vote (assuming you managed to even get that data). And such a search engine needs a literal army of users providing signal to evaluate the quality of content as it is released.
>What feedback mechanism would you use to filter the crap? You would use ranking algorithms meaning you should crawl, scrape and analyse YouTube videos which would make YouTube probably unhappy.
Bookmark your subscription page and accept that your discovery process will have to not rely on YT's algorithms. They are not designed for your expedience. Also turn off auto play. A big part of their algorithm is keeping you on the site longer. It does this by showing you many low quality suggestions (because most people will sift through and consume them) before getting to the higher quality videos. Then, just befo…
ublock origin is another tool that comes in handy for blocking things like the sidebar suggestions. just add this to the 'my filters' page:
www.youtube.com##ytd-item-section-renderer.ytd-watch-next-secondary-results-renderer.style-scope
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What feedback mechanism would you use to filter the crap? There is no longer an incentive for users to down-vote (assuming you managed to even get that data). And such a search engine needs a literal army of users providing signal to evaluate the quality of content as it is released.
> There is no longer an incentive for users to down-vote I don't get that. It should have the exact same incentive to down-vote, unless you think Google no longer collects or uses that information as opposed to just hiding it.
Previously, disliking would increment the global "dislike" counter and users got immediate visual feedback that their dislike was counted, even if that state may take minutes for Google to reconcile and store.
Now, clicking the dislike doesn't do much and users have no indication whether others disliked the content too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube is not a natural monopoly, as evidenced by the fact that there are other video hosting services (e.g. Vimeo, Facebook, PeerTube). The network effect is real, to be sure, but it isn't absolute, and anyone can start a competing service which is immediately accessible to every Internet user(†). It's not cheap or easy, of course, especially at YouTube's scale, but YouTube has to overcome the same issues. That's j…
> YouTube is not a natural monopoly, as evidenced by the fact that there are other video hosting services (e.g. Vimeo, Facebook, PeerTube). Tesla sells solar roofs and power walls accessible to every person in US. Is it an evidence electrical grid is not a natural monopoly? No it is not. Wikipedia defines natural monopoly as following: > an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry rela…
I'll add, though, that the part of Google / YouTube / Alphabet that people continually forget in these discussions is the monopoly of the advertising space.
Infrastrucutre, contracts, metrics, standards, etc., all benefit Google (and Facebook) strongly. Together they claim over half of all online advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the communist radical left Didn't you find any bigger words? In the end it's about engagement. Without the dislike count you'll have to watch more videos to find the good ones, so there's more chances to show ads, which is good for revenue. But yeah, communist world conspiracy is more likely.
Not sure about communism, but your reasoning has nothing to do with the official explanation given by YT. The “dislike attacks” they speak of in this blog post were notoriously common on any video featuring a politician from the Democratic Party in the USA. I never saw it happen elsewhere with such consistency. Hope that clears things up. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-to-youtube/
I think those "dislike attacks" are a welcome argument to push a feature nobody is interested in, which mainly drives engagement by making it harder to find a good video and leads to more "clickthroughs".
The only explanation for getting rid of dislike count that makes sense to me is to make big brands happy as their videos can't be made to look bad with a high dislike count and they can't be "dislike bombed" for things that may be unrelated to the content (eg the recent Activision-Blizzard scandals). Why? Because in every other way (and every way for the viewer), this makes Youtube worse. So it's a hell of a price to…
I think you're very much overestimating how much big corporations care about Youtube dislikes. Unless if there is a massive conspiracy of advertisers unilaterally demanding Youtube remove its downvote count, which there is no evidence for, advertisers have no leverage against Google. What's far more likely is that visible downvotes are a signal for people to not watch a video, and Youtube wants people to watch more v…
Deliberately shaping public opinion in unpopular directions therefore seems like the most likely motivation.
The other, slightly less nefarious possibility is that they don’t actually want us to watch videos and drive up bandwidth costs. Good engagement means people just sit and watch the video instead of clicking something else and be served another ad. When people clicked a video and saw that it was overwhelmingly disliked, they would leave immediately, but now they are forced to sit through the whole ad to see what the video is about.
It’s also possible that people with good taste are more likely to be using ad blockers, so a content connoisseur is really just a parasite in the eyes of Google.
I've recently heard about this YouTube account named Roel Van De Paar. If you've looked up any error message on YouTube recently, you've probably run into him. Because of the "no dislikes" change, he's everywhere now. And by everywhere, I mean EVERYWHERE. The account has over 2 million videos. Approximately 0.2% of ALL videos on the ENTIRE platform of YouTube can be attributed to this account, and if you check now th…
Obviously, the guy is just ripping StackOverflow. His "latest" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtqJq0OF8eA Is a poorly generated copy/paste of: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1644... Probably a tiny Python script. Google is prompt to ban other accounts, hope some Googlers around here can can do something...