3 ms·
There seems to be something wrong with this argument. You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, righ
by stickfigure 8y ago
There seems to be something wrong with this argument. You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, right?
But then you think they can apply the algorithm more broadly? Wouldn't that just risk many more false positives and irate users?
- pgrote 8y ago>You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, right? No. As I said, their rules. I have no idea if it is a false positive since I cannot get an answer as to what guideline was violated. I could have violated one of their guidelines. Youtube doesn't owe me anything ... I use their service for free with unlisted videos to share with family. They make no money off the videos. My point was if they can flag something like my video, I am sure they can flag the ones given as examples attracting the other people. I can understand your point that false positives would generate more upset content creators who do make their videos public and would like ads run against them.
- stickfigure 8y agoYou point out that there are similar videos in the system that aren't getting flagged, which makes a pretty good argument that the algorithm is random and ineffective.
- arkades 8y agoNo. He’s arguing that if the algorithm is capable of detecting his video, it is capable of finding others like it - so if google wanted to remove such videos categorically, it can and currently chooses not to.