Agreed. I think dislikes are so important for tutorial / seminar / presentation videos in sieving out the good from the bad. The part about positive comments being upranked is also adversarial for learning.
No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
491–498 of 498 posts
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a "don't recommend channel" option if you click the 3 dots button on a video. I use this liberally for all sorts of reasons and it makes my recommendations much better.
A much better approach is to go to your history and delete it from your history (if you're signed in) this will change your recommendations so much harder.
Here's one better: just disable the watch history. Your subscriptions then have a much bigger influence on recommendations and you have more control.
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#493It appears to me YouTube does have dislike button. Do you mean you don't give NACK explicitly, and hence experiencing bad recommendations? Or the dislike button is not visible in your version of YouTube ?
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#494My YT frontpage was getting progressively worse. What seems to help me was to "restart the Youtube" - deleting all "not interested" signals I accumulated over years. Also deleting all dislikes too.
Click History on left panel, on the new page that loads, click MANAGE ALL HISTORY on right panel. On the next page, delete dislikes and YouTube "Not interested" feedback.
After that my YT homepage got lot better.
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely don’t understand why Google got it right with Circles, realizing we have different orthogonal interests… but all my YouTube subscriptions go in a giant pile, as if advanced math, news, and rap videos are fungible content. I want some ability to create sets of channels with a focus and only access that when I want to. I think the problem is that YouTube has always been a manipulative and exploitative platf…
> I genuinely don’t understand why Google got it right with Circles Do you mean on google plus? (Or did that feature make it to other parts of the gooverse?) The feature on Plus that I desperately wanted was "squares", or facets of your online presence that people could individually subscribe to. Just for instance, if Noam Chomsky had been an active poster on all kinds of topics on Plus, I would not subscribe to his…
Twitter and Instagram allow you switch between multiple accounts without entering the password again. So it's not hard to post and browser about different interest using different accounts
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#496I've recently heard about this YouTube account named Roel Van De Paar. If you've looked up any error message on YouTube recently, you've probably run into him. Because of the "no dislikes" change, he's everywhere now. And by everywhere, I mean EVERYWHERE. The account has over 2 million videos. Approximately 0.2% of ALL videos on the ENTIRE platform of YouTube can be attributed to this account, and if you check now th…
I misread your comment, thinking "2 million views" is not that much, how can it be 0.2% of the entire platform? Then I realized you said "videos" not "views"... That's insane.
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ranking based on what though? Number of comments? Number of references made to each video in other video descriptions?
Backlinks linking to the video on the web, number of views, likes, comments, NLP analysis of the title and the description of the video and yea references made to each video in other video descriptions is also good idea.
It's an interesting idea. But my gut feel is that only a minority of content actually is referenced elsewhere. It would be an interesting idea to test though!
Re: No Dislikes has officially ruined YouTube for me
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the case, but I don't see your logic either. There are far more than 1000 YouTube channels putting out good content. Far more than 10,000 perhaps. Why would I subscribe to a junk channel? I subscribe to topics or people I liked. Many put out a video or two a year. Some put out a video or two a day. I end up with perhaps about 100 videos a day to skim through the thumbnails/titles of, watch a handful.. happ…
That's certainly one way to use YouTube. It sounds pretty much like cable TV (but with a very low entry cost for producers). Very often a channel has a really interesting video that I like, but the other 250 videos are 'junk' to me. Subscribing based on that single video would not give me good quality recommendations at all. I enjoy discovering new videos, channels and topics, not just watching the same people or sta…
It sounds pretty much like cable TV (but with a very low entry cost for producers).
Broadly, yes. It's like how I watch TV. Hundreds of channels, I look through, pick things I like, watch them. Or even newspapers/magazines (which I still get) - I skim through and read the articles I like, rather than read the entirety of the thing.
I find on YouTube that having such a wide array of subscriptions tunes the recommendations in pretty well so most of them are up my street.
That's where a recommendation engine is supposed to shine, not fail miserably as it currently does. I always assumed this is how the majority of people use (used?) the platform.
I think it's probably a mix. Twitter might be a good demonstration of the dichotomy in approach. Some people are very noisily in support of seeing every single tweet from everyone they follow in chronological order (which surely only scales up to following 100-200 people), yet the algorithmic feed is the default and keeps Twitter pretty useful if you follow thousands.