Seems to have issues when filtering by language. Pretty sure the top 5 shouldn't be 6 days old with [0]: https://i.imgur.com/b1OuV51.png
Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
81–90 of 96 posts
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#82I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view. I'm sold on algorithmic timelines now. That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those.
This is such a pretentious comment, but I can't disagree with it. It's not that YouTube is stupid, it's that most people watch really stupid videos and that trending algorithms are a black mirror. Everything you see in trending is the LCD of what average people are interested in. Twitter trends are being dominated by sports I couldn't care less about, Reddit's front page is constantly bombarded with FortniteBR posts,…
I wish youtube had a way to directly and instantly influence the algorithmically created view.
For example. I like all those electronics, physics and music theory videos, but after weeks of same old same old, I sometimes crave for something completely different. I would like to be able to see an orthogonal view to what I usually get just to be able to break out of that self reinforcing recommendation loop.
I could search for stuff I am not interested in and watch videos I don't like just to reset the assumption youtube has about the videos I want to watch but that is tedious and probably does not what I want.
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a pretentious comment, but I can't disagree with it. It's not that YouTube is stupid, it's that most people watch really stupid videos and that trending algorithms are a black mirror. Everything you see in trending is the LCD of what average people are interested in. Twitter trends are being dominated by sports I couldn't care less about, Reddit's front page is constantly bombarded with FortniteBR posts,…
I wish youtube had a way to directly and instantly influence the algorithmically created view. For example. I like all those electronics, physics and music theory videos, but after weeks of same old same old, I sometimes crave for something completely different. I would like to be able to see an orthogonal view to what I usually get just to be able to break out of that self reinforcing recommendation loop. I could se…
It can be even worse; I'm usually browsing youtube on my phone and then send videos I'm interested in to XBMC, so I see them on the big screen. Downside is that youtube doesn't count that as me having seen the video (even when logging in in the XBMC youtube app). So I get the same videos recommended for weeks. Literally the same; not just similar content. Makes discovering new things really hard.
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#84OK... opinion post here... hell with that... rant here. I have to say the whole notion of "trending" I find ridiculous, and even a bit offensive. That somehow because a zillion people find something interesting, that I should, too, makes clear that the best we've done in filtering is assume people are sheep and need to be "fed" as such. Even with the targeted suggestions they do when they look at my viewing history (…
> That somehow because a zillion people find something interesting, that I should, too, makes clear that the best we've done in filtering is assume people are sheep and need to be "fed" as such.
No, it's just basic human pshychology. People imitate other people. People like what other people like. This is wired into us on a very basic level.
Yes, these basic patterns are often stupid, from a purely rational persperctive. And yes, those of us who are trying to act more rationally (the HN, LessWrong crowd and others) see this behaviour as stupid. But it's irrational and naive to assume that it's easy or even possible to completely get rid of this basic behavioural patterns: they're wired in your brain on a very basic level, and you can only steer them and restrict them, but not remove it completely.
And one more thing: these patterns are quite often good rough heuristics to solve a lot of problems that we don't want to waste a lot of resources on. For example, if you don't want to be a fashion icon (reasonable assumption for most audience on this site), you can always just buy clothes from the most popular brand out there, and with very high probability, you'll get clothes that fit, are of reasonable quality and have neutral social signalling. Of course, if you invested a lot of time into your own research on the matter, you'd be able to find clothes that perfectly reflect your personality, more thoughtfully use cultural context, are of superior quality and may cost even less - but would you bother? Most of HN readers usually answer "no" to that, because they have other priorities in life.
Well, a lot of people just decide that their information diet on YouTube doesn't deserve such attention, and they're ready to watch whatever funny videos are just popular to fill their lunchbreak.
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#85You really have to pick a category. For example, "News & Politics" is decent. Of course, an alternate ranking does nothing to fix the problem of videos that have simply been banned by YouTube. Lots of good stuff is just missing now. Freedom of speech: tearing out a man's tongue doesn't prove him wrong, but it does prove that you fear his message and it strongly suggests that his message might be correct.
> ...but it does prove that you fear his message and it strongly suggests that his message might be correct.
I find it strange that one would believe this A) means people are scared, and B) means the message is more likely to be correct.
For example, if we were to watch two random idiots arguing or "debating" over a complex and highly nuanced topic, if neither of these "debaters" has any expertise or really any understanding of the wider issues which may need to be considered, its incredibly unlikely either of these people will come to anything close to the "correct" answers. While one of them may make more convincing arguments, this means very little.
If my car mechanic makes a convincing argument,links me to a bunch of youtube videos, and official looking webpages which all tell me I should use homeopathic medicine and the guy I'm sitting next to me simply says "Nah, doctors are totally way better, dude." Neither of those two people are trained in medicine, but should I listen to the mechanic because his argument was more convincing? No, of course not.
Having an innate ability to use Sophistry absolutely does not indicate whether or not their position should be trusted. And refusing to engage with a Sophist is in no way an indication of being fearful of their message.
It's so weird when people believe "debate me bro, a random idiot, or you're wrong and I'm correct." is in any way a rational conclusion to make.
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#86I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view. I'm sold on algorithmic timelines now. That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those.
> I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view.
The trending page isn't algorithmically created. It's curated by google employees.
> That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those.
Then don't. I'm sure most people probably think what you are watching is awful. Isn't that the point of youtube. You watch what you are interested in? Do you think we should all be forced to watch what you want?
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#87I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view. I'm sold on algorithmic timelines now. That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those.
And all those people are voters.
I'm not sure this is the right conclusion to draw from my jokey comment.
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#88I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view. I'm sold on algorithmic timelines now. That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those.
> I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view. The trending page isn't algorithmically created. It's curated by google employees. > That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those. Then don't. I'm sure most people probably think what you are watching is awful. Isn't that the point of youtube. You watch what you are…
The funny part is: I watch a fair sum of video game content. I used to be part of that industry. The reason the content triggers me is less because of Fortnite Battle Royale (although I think the format is boring, it's less boring than predecessors) is inherently bad but because the people I see there are like... frightening people.
> The trending page isn't algorithmically created. It's curated by google employees.
It's a hybrid.
> Isn't that the point of youtube. You watch what you are interested in? Do you think we should all be forced to watch what you want?
No, wasn't this the entire premise of my joke explained back to me? If so... I mean... thanks for the review, "liftbigweights."
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#89You really have to pick a category. For example, "News & Politics" is decent. Of course, an alternate ranking does nothing to fix the problem of videos that have simply been banned by YouTube. Lots of good stuff is just missing now. Freedom of speech: tearing out a man's tongue doesn't prove him wrong, but it does prove that you fear his message and it strongly suggests that his message might be correct.
> ...but it does prove that you fear his message and it strongly suggests that his message might be correct. I find it strange that one would believe this A) means people are scared, and B) means the message is more likely to be correct. For example, if we were to watch two random idiots arguing or "debating" over a complex and highly nuanced topic, if neither of these "debaters" has any expertise or really any under…
That is a different situation. Nobody is banning the advocate of homeopathic medicine.
YouTube actually bans videos. They leave up plenty of incorrect things that are nonthreatening, so correctness is clearly not the determining factor.
This is not a matter of refusing to debate. It is a matter of refusing to let alternative opinions exist at all.
Re: Fair Trending: Objectively-Ranked Trending YouTube Videos
#90I was not expecting the truth to be SO much worse than the algorithmically provided view. I'm sold on algorithmic timelines now. That Youtube is awful. People are awful. Fortnite Battle Royale is awful. I don't want to see any of those.
This is such a pretentious comment, but I can't disagree with it. It's not that YouTube is stupid, it's that most people watch really stupid videos and that trending algorithms are a black mirror. Everything you see in trending is the LCD of what average people are interested in. Twitter trends are being dominated by sports I couldn't care less about, Reddit's front page is constantly bombarded with FortniteBR posts,…
Please let people dislike trivial things without calling it "pretentious."
My comment is obviously something of a joke. It doesn't really hurt anyone except staunch FortniteBR fans, and we all know they don't have souls so that fine.