171–180 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We see a face with an (albeit fake) emotional reaction, our monkey brains say "that must be interesting!" It's very stupid, but not surprising that those videos get more engagement.
My emotional reaction to those is "this must be shit, they've had to put together this awful Clickhole picture just to try to make people watch it". I've literally never watched a single one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This explanation never really made sense to me. It's not like videos are hidden in a background and the thumbnail needs to stand out in our field of vision. Videos are presented front and center, and you're only looking at a few at a time. I presume everyone looks at all the video thumbnails; I just go left to right, top to bottom. Maybe if you were presented with hundreds of options at once and had to click on somet…
I just go left to right, top to bottom I doubt this is how most people's eyes actually scan a visual field. I expect there's a lot more randomness going on subconsciously, and that face-like features cause a higher subconscious dwell time. had to click on something quickly...but that's not how Youtube works. I think for most people it is. Scroll scroll scroll tap, all within a few seconds.
When you're only presented with a tiny bit of information, it doesn't take long to evaluate a decision. A few seconds is a long time. No one, at least to my knowledge, is opening youtube and clicking on the first thing they see in milliseconds. Hell, just variation in page loading time probably has a bigger effect on what we see first. Critically though, there's no deadline - even if you see something you want to watch quickly, you don't have to click on something if you don't see something you want to watch. Without time pressure, there's no need to make an impulsive click.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> an exaggerated face, a bit more than that Have you tested a difference between a regular expression (intrigued, skeptic, smiling...) and a goofy face? For science?
Yes. Goofy face always wins :( Though it gets an insane amount of backlash on HN (case in point: this thread).
I get so frustrated with the idiotic thumbnails on youtube video these days. I am sure it's all optimized for the maximum number of clicks/views but if I see a still that looks the way it does at the bottom of this page I generally just don't watch it on principle.
1- I've not watched it
2- Unsubscribed his channel
3- Irrelevant
4- I don't bite any "Geerling" content
I get so frustrated with the idiotic thumbnails on youtube video these days. I am sure it's all optimized for the maximum number of clicks/views but if I see a still that looks the way it does at the bottom of this page I generally just don't watch it on principle.
Believe me, I had a nice discussion yesterday with my sister (who helped me take pictures for the thumbnail), and we both agreed it's one of the dumbest things about current YouTube... The thing is, from all my own A/B testing, a face vs. no face will automatically get 20-30% more views (all else equal). And an exaggerated face, a bit more than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting fewer views (and likely much reduced watch time) means YouTube's algorithm quickly buries your video. You and I might use subscriptions on YouTube (just like I prefer RSS), but 99% of viewers for some reason just go to the home page and click on things YouTube recommends (regardless of whether they subscribe to a channel). If you don't get recommended, you don't get views, and it's even less likely that regul…
> Getting fewer views (and likely much reduced watch time) means YouTube's algorithm quickly buries your video. Question remains: so what? Unless you are monetizing your videos and intend to make significant money from “engagement”, why would someone single-minded let optimize for views or algorithm-friendliness? For this guy, I guess he’s trying to make a living from YouTube, so I guess… by all means growth hack you…
My guess is that everyone that uploads videos with catchy titles and thumbnails wants to monetize their videos eventually. Even if money isn't a motivation, getting more views probably has a value in itself for most content creators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the parent comment said still applies. Algorithm or not, you can become a top pop singer either by having a really good voice and being talented or by being singling about how you enjoy something controversial just to create outrage. The only difference is your audience.
The algorithm accounts for that. If you sound like a dying cat, your click through rate will be high, but your average watch length will be low. I agree there's a problem with how the algorithm drives creators to this stuff, but it's also not that unsophisticated that clickbait = success
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely my point. Where would you personally draw the line? Would you invent a new kind of unstoppable popup ad? Unbreakable DRM? Would you implement an overly complicated and error prone gym membership cancellation procedure? You can easily justify all that to yourself for selfish reasons. That does not mean that I have to think it is ok.
yea, i totally agree with everything you are saying except that making a silly face in a thumbnail does not carry the same ethical weight (or really any at all) as unbreakable DRM or malicious pop-ups or uncancellable subscriptions. So i guess, in conclusion, i don't agree with you at all and i think your argument is complete horseshit. cheers!