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

YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 199 posts

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#31

Post by stefanos82 »

panick21_ wrote: post #24

I so wish youtube would have a more powerful search. Can I have something better then 'longer then 20min'? Like there are tons of things that go up to 3h or more. And often I might want 1h content but the 'longer then 20min' shows tons of stuff that is some 22min video.

I have noticed a pattern by YouTube's algorithm with long videos.

When I play a long video, for example synthwave music to get myself nostalgic with the '80s, I can see the suggested videos on my right are either of the same range or even longer than expected!

You cannot imagine how many diamonds I have discovered like that, which makes me very happy! ^_^

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#32

Post by ravenstine »

93po wrote: post #27

Great. Can we get Amazon to have price sorting work too please? And have it actually accurately show cost per unit across similar products? I have to believe it's deliberately broken in both cases which is fucking annoying.

As far as I'm aware, that feature never worked. Who knows why they even keep it. Surely they don't actually think we're that stupid that we won't notice that the price sorting doesn't work.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#33

Post by stefanos82 »

miohtama wrote: post #29
stefanos82 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and the dislike counting! I don't want to depend on an extension to know whether a video worth to watch or not.

The problem with dislike counting is that the customers of Youtube (advertisers) do not want it, because they are spooked to have their ads associated with perceived negativity.

They really need to fix this, because I have lost counting how many times I've got click-baited with a video that contained either violence in it or its content was completely unrelated to its thumbnail...therefore a visible dislike counter would have saved me from giving them views when they should have removed them from the platform as a whole.

If any YouTube developer is reading this, please fix this dangerous behavior by malicious actors that take advantage of the platform's relatively recent changes.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#34

Post by skeaker »

BasedAnon wrote: post #15

Now for them to bring back the 5 star rating system and video replies!

Video replies was a crazy idea in retrospect. Being able to anchor arbitrary videos to any other video at will is insanely ripe for abuse. If the feature existed today you would surely see thousands of spam videos with no relevance to the content they're replying to stuck underneath anything remotely popular. It's a wonder it ever worked as intended at all.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#37

Post by Manuel_D »

miohtama wrote: post #29
stefanos82 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and the dislike counting! I don't want to depend on an extension to know whether a video worth to watch or not.

The problem with dislike counting is that the customers of Youtube (advertisers) do not want it, because they are spooked to have their ads associated with perceived negativity.

Then they could have a like ratio threshold, below which ads do not get displayed. Arguably this is even better than the status quo: right now ads may display alongside scams and misinformation that would otherwise get disliked.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#38

Post by stefanos82 »

93po wrote: post #27

Great. Can we get Amazon to have price sorting work too please? And have it actually accurately show cost per unit across similar products? I have to believe it's deliberately broken in both cases which is fucking annoying.

TIL...that Privacy Badger extension and uBlock Origin affect the "Sort by" options in Amazon!

I have disabled both of them and got my results properly sorted by "Price: Low to High" while with both extensions on, it defaults to Featured!

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#39

Post by xmprt »

skeaker wrote: post #34
BasedAnon wrote: post #15

Now for them to bring back the 5 star rating system and video replies!

Video replies was a crazy idea in retrospect. Being able to anchor arbitrary videos to any other video at will is insanely ripe for abuse. If the feature existed today you would surely see thousands of spam videos with no relevance to the content they're replying to stuck underneath anything remotely popular. It's a wonder it ever worked as intended at all.

> It's a wonder it ever worked as intended at all

Even when it was available I've only ever seen a few cases of it working well. One prominent one was an educational YouTuber (Veritasium) asking users to post video replies with solutions to a physics puzzle/experiment that he was doing. Besides that, the feature was not used by creators and so spam videos and response girls were rampant in the video replies to most popular YouTubers.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#40

Post by crazygringo »

Confirmed. Now I'm just curious what the justification was for removing it, because it baffles me.

The option was removed as part of a general UX refresh that moved from a sort drop-down to pill buttons -- this general drop-down -> pill thing seeming to be a general trend on apps and websites now.

But it's hard to imagine why it was removed in the first place. Saving a minuscule amount money by reducing views of less-cached long-tail content doesn't seem important enough. Nor does there seem to be any compelling engagement reason to prioritize newer videos. And I'm not aware of an ad revenue reason, such as older videos being less monetizable.

Maybe it was just a misguided attempt at UX simplification that backfired?

Post reply on HN