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

‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 366 posts

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#271

Post by RyJones »

Minor49er wrote: post #214
GreenWatermelon wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't you click on "Not interested"? It only takes a couple of days for interesting stuff to disappear.

My luck with this has been pretty mixed. I tell YouTube that I'm really not interested in things like Jordan Peterson or ASMR by telling them to not recommend that video or that channel whenever they come up. If I'm lucky enough, those suggestions will die down a bit, sometimes for a few weeks it seems. But eventually, they will start popping back up.

I have said not interested in living on boats, making boats, repairing boats, or anything boat related and yet they still pump these videos at me. I wish there was a way to say “never show me a video about boats, in any context”

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#272

Post by jimktrains2 »

dageshi wrote: post #148
gaudat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the ads. I cannot underestimate the annoyance it has caused to viewers. Seeing the numerous memes making fun of those asset flip adware turned "games" makes me die a little inside. Now I actively push my normie friends to install uBlock Origin on their devices. And Vanced or NewPipe when it worked.

You could just pay for youtube premium?

Does youtube even advertise it? I would guess I would have to go into my profile and find it there, but I've never seen it mentioned by youtube.

Edit: Also, I think many are jaded by cable where you pay and still get ads. Hulu has an ad-free tier, but I forget the history and if that's existed from the start. I do remember there being a lot of outrage about paying and still getting ads at some point.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#273

Post by cratermoon »

A pure recommendation engine of the sort we learn about in class would simply aggregate user preferences based on whatever content-appropriate properties are available. A real-life recommendation engine is written and deployed as part of a business plan.

I think it's fair to say that all recommendation engines deployed by for-profit companies have some element of recommending things that drive more revenue for the company. The question is, how much does end user give up, in terms of getting actually interesting recommendations vs being recommended something that is more profitable for the company, in exchange for getting things of interest to their attention.

I've seen enough to be convinced, anecdotally, that YouTube's recommendation engine is heavily skewed towards revenue-driving. For example, how much of what YouTube recommends is influenced by their big-money media customers? What users get is as marginally interesting as necessary to addict viewers.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#274

Post by gxx »

Google and YouTube video search are terrible. I find the result poorly matches the query I typed, the results are hard to browse, and of course favor videos on YouTube ignoring better videos that may be on other sites.

Bing video search is by far better. Assuming you use DuckDuckGo type your search and follow it with !bv. The result is an excellent browsable display of videos that match your search well, that can be previewed by hovering over them, and the results aren't biased to just YouTube. You can also add emphasis to words in your search with the +/- operators and quotes.

Also the "up next" YouTube video is rarely as good as going back to the Bing search and choosing another video.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#275

Post by thelastwave »

qwerty1234599 wrote: post #157

If you want a glimpse of the average person's youtube experience, open the site in incognito and go to the "trending" tab. It's a completely different site depending on what you initially search for when you start using it. The problem is, 80% of youtube userbase never really typed a search query for anything in the first place, and as a result the stuff they get recommended and watch is pure shit.

> open the site in incognito and go to the "trending" tab.

I just tried that and all of the top trending videos were something called "My Best Friends" followed by a long scroll of NBA videos.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#276

Post by thelastwave »

galuggus wrote: post #159
qwerty1234599 wrote: post #157

If you want a glimpse of the average person's youtube experience, open the site in incognito and go to the "trending" tab. It's a completely different site depending on what you initially search for when you start using it. The problem is, 80% of youtube userbase never really typed a search query for anything in the first place, and as a result the stuff they get recommended and watch is pure shit.

I believe trending is hand curated by youtube

I really hope they are not hand picking only My Best Friend and NBA videos.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#277

Post by cratermoon »

vizzier wrote: post #268
crispyambulance wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually know what the "ingredients" are for recommendations. I don't think it's possible to draw conclusions from one's own experience with youtube recommendations and extrapolate it to others or to any sort of judgement about the quality of the algorithms. We are simply not privy to what, exactly, youtube is doing. I think it's wise to heed Guillaume Chaslot's warnings. In the same way that youtube exploit…

The stuff is what the stuff is brother. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/ajGX7odA87k?t=945

That's an amazing talk and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Congratulations, you beat YouTube's recommendations for me.

BTW I was already aware of all the questionable things AI is used for, but Mickens' analysis is beautiful.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#278

Post by falcrist »

gfxgirl wrote: post #44

I know I'm old but dang for some reason I really dislike recommendations from almost any company. For media I grew up in the 70s and had the TV Guide. I'd look through to see what I wanted to watch, circle some things and then watch. No spying what-so-ever. So, I like for example HN where AFAIK I'm not tracked so much and I choose what I want from the top of the list. Conversely I mostly hate Amazon, Netflix, Amazon…

I've said it many times now: people should be avoiding "the algorithm" as much as they can on streaming and social media sites.

On Facebook "avoiding the algorithm" entails creating a friends list of all your friends, then using the link to that list as a portal into facebook. Posts and shares are listed in chronological order without anything missing (which is absolutely NOT true for the normal news feed, even when "chronological order" is selected). No "so-and-so commented on this" or "so-and-so liked that". Just posts and shares. Scroll through the feed until you recognize something, and you're done.

On youtube, you really should be going straight to subscriptions first. If you want to look for recommendations that's perfectly fine, you can go to the home page... but don't go there by default.

On reddit, I recommend using /r/all as a portal with some of the more obnoxious subreddits blocked.

I'm aware that what you see is still influenced by the algorithm in these examples, but the impact is reduced by a lot.

Browse with intention. Make deliberate choices. Don't just let the algorithm lead you around.

Remember, "the algorithm"s on these sites aren't designed for your benefit. They're designed to increase the site's metrics. More clicks. More time on that website.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#279

Post by rsync »

thelastwave wrote: post #275
qwerty1234599 wrote: post #157

If you want a glimpse of the average person's youtube experience, open the site in incognito and go to the "trending" tab. It's a completely different site depending on what you initially search for when you start using it. The problem is, 80% of youtube userbase never really typed a search query for anything in the first place, and as a result the stuff they get recommended and watch is pure shit.

> open the site in incognito and go to the "trending" tab. I just tried that and all of the top trending videos were something called "My Best Friends" followed by a long scroll of NBA videos.

Yes - I had the exact same experience - lots of "best friends" content and then NBA video.

I watched one of the NBA videos so, touché, youtube.

Re: ‘YouTube recommendations are toxic,’ says dev who worked on the algorithm (2019)

#280

Post by kbelder »

hnarn wrote: post #205

Can we call this the Oppenheimer Syndrome? I see so many opinion pieces from software engineers lamenting how they've created this "horrible thing" by working on social media recommendation algorithm X, and it all fits neatly into this painfully predictable trope of how we should all live in a camper and use a Nokia from the 90s. Yeah, I'm jaded and of course there's merit at the bottom of all this, but I really can'…

The engagement engine doesn't end at YouTube. It's always active, everywhere, and this type of article exploits it.
Post reply on HN