231–240 of 304 posts
I'm not interested in youtube cloning good resources we already have only for it to be sunset or charge a bunch. Like when people got upset about the firebase and map price hike
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to add, most of us AREN'T trying to become big YouTube viral influencers. My channel has 2.5k viewers and all my videos were done because I want my in-class students to have a resource to review at home. I got my doctorate and a career as teaching faculty to teach students, not become another Computerphile. I love the channel and link it regularly, but again my passion is in helping people learn in the classroom…
Creating better explanations on how to use and apply knowledge is so huge. I’d be curious to learn if there’s any pain points or things you wish you could do faster in your process. Happy to chat offline :)
Students' attention is low (not an insult, just what my analytics show). They are mostly searching for a fix to their immediate problem when coding. So my videos are split into 3-10 minute chunks covering that single thing. Recordings for a single concept take roughly 1ish hour, mostly a combination of setup, being human and flubbing words, and something in my examples going awry and taking too much time on it rather than demonstrating the example. I mostly record on Sundays (again, free day) or at night if I know I'm going to be away. As faculty, you're not paid extra to do this, so its very much intrinsic altruistic volunteering your time to do it.
And like I said, the second part is being comfortable enough with the material to record it. I'm teaching Intro to AI for the 3rd time this semester and while I'm confident in my ability to teach it, I still have some kinks in my examples. Typos, what gets covered when, etc. type things. I feel ready to record it during my next iteration, but then we fall back to making time to do it.
I produce Music Tech-based educational content on YT. It started as a hobby and sideline to my main work (which at the time was classroom teaching of the same content). While I'm no longer working in classrooms (pandemic plus other reasons led to this), I'm still producing content, which I think is of good quality and worthwhile. The issue I have with it is that I refuse to produce attention-grabbing clickbaity title…
Take a look at Veritasium's perspective on this issue [1]. Veritasium reflects on clickbait thumbnails from the content producer perspective, and balances that against the motivation behind YouTube's algorithms. His final conclusion is that cilckbait isn't all bad, and that it serves an important purpose for both viewers and content creators. His classification of clickbait into different types is also fascinating. […
But around the time they implemented their "clickbait" titles and thumbnails, it had the opposite effect on me. They all just *seemed* like so many other videos: bland and tasteless. The content itself hasn't much changed, but the allure certain has diminished for me. I've stopped watching their videos.
Compare that to Curious Droid, or Practical Engineering, which still use descriptive titles, sometimes questions, but always exactly about the subject.
I produce Music Tech-based educational content on YT. It started as a hobby and sideline to my main work (which at the time was classroom teaching of the same content). While I'm no longer working in classrooms (pandemic plus other reasons led to this), I'm still producing content, which I think is of good quality and worthwhile. The issue I have with it is that I refuse to produce attention-grabbing clickbaity title…
From Wikipedia:
> Clickbait is ... designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link ..., being typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading.
Think about it the other way, for all the time you spend producing content in an effort to help others, wouldn't it be more rewarding to you to help as many people as possible? As a user of YouTube, when I search for help with something, I typically start with result that visually looks like it's going to provide me the best answer, as that's the only thing to go on. If the title and thumbnail looked low-effort, I assume the content would look low-effort as well. Maybe that's an intentional aesthetic choice, it can definitely work for some content.
HOWEVER, if the video were to actually deceive me, I would just stop going to that creator entirely. This should be true for most viewers and YouTube is encouraged not to provide misleading results. Otherwise, trust in the results would diminish searching directly through YouTube.
If you're making educational content to be embedded into another site, you don't need YouTube. Because you are not using Google for video discovery. So put your video elsewhere. Vimeo, PeerTube, etc. Preferably multiple places. Relying on Google to maintain a non ad supported product is very risky. Basing a business on it is suicidal. See the infamous list of dead Google services.[1] [1] https://killedbygoogle.com/
The best exemple is when youtubers leave for reasons related to monetization. They always came back when they foud out that not only do other platform don't pay them (without a pay wall) but good platform will actually charge them for the hosting. finding your own ads is also really fucking hard when google isn't doing it for you.
Free unlimited 4k@60 video hosting is a hard to beat when users are extremely hostile to paying for thing they used to have for free (look at the feedback from. Youtube premium)
I produce Music Tech-based educational content on YT. It started as a hobby and sideline to my main work (which at the time was classroom teaching of the same content). While I'm no longer working in classrooms (pandemic plus other reasons led to this), I'm still producing content, which I think is of good quality and worthwhile. The issue I have with it is that I refuse to produce attention-grabbing clickbaity title…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well maybe, but on the other hand this makes pay walling far more trivial and accessible, so it'll likely be even more common. Google just wants that Nebula money.
(FYI, Nebula is a bad analogy, because it exists not to do anything like courseware, but rather because a bunch of creators don't believe in YouTube as a long-lasting + stable revenue engine that won't betray them one day. There's nothing YouTube could offer to make the channels with Nebula extras switch back to posting only on YouTube. Other than, maybe, offering them a contract that basically makes YouTube into a B…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the new paid videos are ad-free, so the user would no longer be offering anything monetizable. A company offering free, ad-free video streaming does not turn a profit.
That's a pretty big assumption that offering this service would not result in these users also spending more time on other, non-education related content on YouTube that is monetized. There are also other ways to monetize the product. I think that two things can both be true: creators should be paid for their work, commensurate with the value they provide, and learning should be free (or of negligible cost) to the pe…
It isn't a big assumption at all because this is an external embedded player (so the user is not 1 click away from the youtube homepage, they will be in a completely separate app), with no watch-next recommendations or external links.
This is designed explicitly to not compel the viewer into continuing on to watch unrelated youtube videos.
> a new YouTube embedded player that shows content on commonly used education apps without distractions like ads, external links or recommendations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well maybe, but on the other hand this makes pay walling far more trivial and accessible, so it'll likely be even more common. Google just wants that Nebula money.
(FYI, Nebula is a bad analogy, because it exists not to do anything like courseware, but rather because a bunch of creators don't believe in YouTube as a long-lasting + stable revenue engine that won't betray them one day. There's nothing YouTube could offer to make the channels with Nebula extras switch back to posting only on YouTube. Other than, maybe, offering them a contract that basically makes YouTube into a B…
The classes are advertised on the Nebula homepage to subscribers, but require additional payment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solution proposed by Google: Force through Manifest v3, coincidentally make blocking YouTube ads impossible
Solution proposed by viewers: Firefox is now the definitive Youtube viewing platform.