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

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#71

Post by 972811 »

crazygringo wrote: post #40

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…

based on experience there could be a bunch of pretty innocuous reasons e.g. 1. some company wide simplification effort on user options 2. some weird coupling of the UI project to the backend project, where this functionality was an edge case that they could postpone til after launch

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#73

Post by bombcar »

ravenstine wrote: post #32
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.

The problem is search is incredibly fuzzy and only saved by relevance filtering.

So if you sort by price you get the strangest crap at the cheapest end.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#75

Post by fooker »

The pinnacle of perf-driven-development!

PM lists an OKR for increasing engagement.

PM launches a new version without the feature.

New version shows engagement(or whatever corpspeak metric) increased by N%.

PM gets a promotion.

Dev sees a missing feature, launches the feature.

Dev shows M people are using this new feature.

Dev gets a promotion for 'impact'.

And the cycle repeats, with minor variations for mature products. This is why startups even get a chance to compete with the giants.

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#76

Post by Alupis »

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.

This is always the excuse thrown around. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm not on Nike, Coke or mega-corp advertising level, but I do spend a lot with google's advertising apparatus, including on youtube-based adverts - not one time have I cared about how controversial or whatever a video might be. I simply want engagement from in-market potential customers... regardless of what content they're watching.

Who are these people that think a Nike commercial being randomly played before a video has anything to do with some sort of endorsement of the video's content?

Re: YouTube: Sort by oldest is back baby

#78

Post by HyperSane »

yafbum wrote: post #55
miohtama wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Advertisers have always had ways to block likes and dislikes. The problem was that dislike counts were abused by people driving dislikes on videos for inauthentic reasons (YouTuber supports cause X, we disagree with X, therefore let's all go dislike all of this YouTuber's videos). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_brigading Removing public dislike counts takes a good amount of wind out of such campaigns

[dead]
Post reply on HN