4 ms·

> Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? Youtube optimizes for watch time. Most people don't want to spend their afternoons having their views chal

> Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? Youtube optimizes for watch time. Most people don't want to spend their afternoons having their views challenged. Any algorithm that properly optimizes for watch time of the masses will learn to validate views.

la_barba 7y ago
Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.
- chronial 7y ago
  I don't want to assume bad faith, but I have the impression that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What about my statement is speculation? • Youtube themselves state that they optimize for watch time. • I don't want to go and search for papers on this, but I don't think the idea that people prefer to have their views validated instead of challenged is in any way controversial or speculation. • It's also not speculation to state that people want to spend their time doing things that gives them positive emotions. You clearly won't get "objective proof" on this, because the only way to actually proof this would be to do a formal study on it. And why would anyone to a study on such an obvious non-controversial topic?
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Maybe it seems confrontational to you but, I don't think "how do you know this" is the same as "can you make a reasonable guess". I don't want to have a personal back and forth with you on this, because it doesn't serve any purpose.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Parent made broad claims without evidence. Maybe those convinced you. They did not convince me. If you cannot respect that then what is the point of a discussion? Also, I said I want "some objective proof". You twisted that into "complete proof". Its funny that you are doing the exact thing you're accusing me of.
    - skinnymuch 7y ago
      I didn’t do the same thing at all. You’re seemingly continuing the same trend. There have been multiple people now all claiming the same thing about Youtube’s algo. Of course nothing convinced me because I already knew. It’s an obvious thing to many people who use YouTube to a certain degree. So did other people here. I didn’t do the same thing as you because I didn’t post around multiple times asking for the same thing from multiple people and acting sort of obtuse like they are saying something isolated.
      - la_barba 7y ago
        'Oops, my bad' would have been a nice reply, but oh well. Anyway, have a nice day.
        skinnymuch 7y ago
        Keep up your passive aggressive persona. Have a nice day!
nathan_long 7y ago
Somewhat tangential, but unless you have a goal of using a product as much as possible, any algo that optimizes engagement is not your friend. It's like a waiter who always wants you to order more food.

la_barba 7y ago

Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.

chronial 7y ago
I don't want to assume bad faith, but I have the impression that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What about my statement is speculation? • Youtube themselves state that they optimize for watch time. • I don't want to go and search for papers on this, but I don't think the idea that people prefer to have their views validated instead of challenged is in any way controversial or speculation. • It's also not speculation to state that people want to spend their time doing things that gives them positive emotions. You clearly won't get "objective proof" on this, because the only way to actually proof this would be to do a formal study on it. And why would anyone to a study on such an obvious non-controversial topic?
- la_barba 7y ago
  Maybe it seems confrontational to you but, I don't think "how do you know this" is the same as "can you make a reasonable guess". I don't want to have a personal back and forth with you on this, because it doesn't serve any purpose.
skinnymuch 7y ago
I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Parent made broad claims without evidence. Maybe those convinced you. They did not convince me. If you cannot respect that then what is the point of a discussion? Also, I said I want "some objective proof". You twisted that into "complete proof". Its funny that you are doing the exact thing you're accusing me of.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    I didn’t do the same thing at all. You’re seemingly continuing the same trend. There have been multiple people now all claiming the same thing about Youtube’s algo. Of course nothing convinced me because I already knew. It’s an obvious thing to many people who use YouTube to a certain degree. So did other people here. I didn’t do the same thing as you because I didn’t post around multiple times asking for the same thing from multiple people and acting sort of obtuse like they are saying something isolated.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      'Oops, my bad' would have been a nice reply, but oh well. Anyway, have a nice day.
      - skinnymuch 7y ago
        Keep up your passive aggressive persona. Have a nice day!

nathan_long 7y ago

Somewhat tangential, but unless you have a goal of using a product as much as possible, any algo that optimizes engagement is not your friend. It's like a waiter who always wants you to order more food.