Got to give this guy some credit. It's ridiculous that videos showing StackOverflow questions and answers are more discoverable via YouTube than the underlying content via direct search. Not sure if it's Google or users to blame, probably both, but this guy is making a mockery of it and probably profiting in the process.
StackOverflow is not searchable on YouTube... There is no comparison here between the SEO/search performance of these YT videos vs SO text posts.
A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
11–20 of 201 posts
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#12Personally I think creative-commons licensed content is a double-edged sword. It seems every month there's a new Stackoverflow clone popping up, which just blatantly copies all content from there, remixes it a bit and spams the Google index with it. And surprisingly, Google seems unable or unwilling to filter this stuff out.
Videos of some of my conference talks were also published under a creative commons license (without my explicit consent) as the organizers wanted to make them available to the world for free, which in principle is a good thing. This only led to people blatantly reposting them on Youtube and misattributing them to farm views. I no longer not agree to any of my talks being released under such a license therefore.
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#13Why this guy has not been blocked from Youtube is beyond me. He spams so many search results.
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#14Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#15It's only a matter of time before we'll see auto-generated content that uses AI-generated imagery, text and voice synthesis to produce content that appears vaguely intelligble enough to fool people to watch it. And as the downvote count is private information now it will be very hard to distinguish these videos from legitimate ones. Personally I think creative-commons licensed content is a double-edged sword. It seem…
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#16Knew it was Roel Van De Par before reading. I think this is the next step in social media reductionism, as people find ways to further lower the effort to "produce" content whilst maintaining a relatively high return.
Other similar "content farms" dark series, channels recapping any scientific news that comes out... ugh. I've just been mass removing these channels from my suggestions.
Fake live broadcasts eg. Elon video from 2021, classic 'give us crypto we give you back 2x'.
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#17People like this guy should be banned from the internet indefinitely.
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#18It's only a matter of time before we'll see auto-generated content that uses AI-generated imagery, text and voice synthesis to produce content that appears vaguely intelligble enough to fool people to watch it. And as the downvote count is private information now it will be very hard to distinguish these videos from legitimate ones. Personally I think creative-commons licensed content is a double-edged sword. It seem…
1. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/return-youtube-dis...
So far as your downvote is concerned, should there be crowdsourced information of a video made out of AI on it? I could get inspired from -
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
The video will have a small "%/absolute numbers think this is an AI fused video." beneath it.
I think we can wait on this until a more robust solution comes along.
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#19I ran into it before when I was uploading a bunch of videos to run songs through content id to see what was okay to play for an upcoming live event.
Re: A man who uploaded 2M videos to YouTube [video]
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every search result spammed in favor of YouTube is an additional bit of attention to be monetized by Google. Why should they prevent people from making them more money?
Reputation?
Individuals at Google are incentivised to abuse the collective reputation for personal gain.
It always seems that the towering reputation of Google is an unassailable monolith that will never be shaken by any individual. So every individual harms it in their own tiny selfish way, gaining promotions, KPIs, or pay bumps as a reward for their behaviour.
Decades of promoting the selfish, commons-destroying people eventually results in an organisation that has these values entrenched in its upper echelons. At this point, the demise of the enterprise is inevitable, as the commons is destroyed in bigger, more obvious ways, by people now thoroughly empowered to do so, and surrounded by people competing with them for the right to also destroy the commons even more.
Cash reserves and the intangible value of lingering external brand perception can drag this out for a surprisingly long time, but the direction will inevitably continue downwards.
In other words, it is precisely "reputation" that enables this kind of atrocious, value-destroying behaviour and quality erosion.
Companies without reputation are too busy building it, and can't afford even the slightest slip up.