4 ms·

Concerning YouTube, he does have a point though. In terms of raw mass, the amount of "audio"-videos outweighs actual videos, i.e. videos intended to be consumed

Concerning YouTube, he does have a point though. In terms of raw mass, the amount of "audio"-videos outweighs actual videos, i.e. videos intended to be consumed because of their audio content, e.g. vloggers who just look at the camera and talk about stuff. But it does feel like it's missing a summary - it's kinda cool, you might say. Here's one: Mainstream application of headphones has made people think "hotter" more often (and that is the revolution).

CharlesW 7y ago
> In terms of raw mass, the amount of "audio"-videos outweighs actual videos… That surprises me. Do you have a source? From surveying a bunch of podcasters, I've found that typical audio-only podcast episodes posted to YouTube have very little engagement compared to the same content distributed as a podcast. (Note that some podcasters can show you good "View" counts, which increment even if someone listens for just 30 seconds. But when you look at detailed analytics it seems like YouTube is an ineffectual platform for audio, and that it's probably a net negative on your audience if it's usurping even a few potential podcast subscribers.)
- klingonopera 7y ago
  > That surprises me. Do you have a source? No, I don't, but I second the request. Finding that on the internet is tough ("youtube videos composition" yields... well, not what I'm looking for). I'm inferring it from the 500h/min new video upload rate on YT, and having made content myself. As soon as something needs editing or cutting, your efficiency takes a dive. On second thought, it could also be a lot of screen recorded (e.g. game stream recordings) that contributes to that number. But rest assured, anything that's just point, record and upload will (usually) far outweigh anything that's point, record, edit and upload. Maybe I'm just bad at it, but editing a 1h videos takes... well at least 1h (most of the time), because you also have to view the content itself, when you edit.

CharlesW 7y ago

> In terms of raw mass, the amount of "audio"-videos outweighs actual videos… That surprises me. Do you have a source? From surveying a bunch of podcasters, I've found that typical audio-only podcast episodes posted to YouTube have very little engagement compared to the same content distributed as a podcast. (Note that some podcasters can show you good "View" counts, which increment even if someone listens for just 30 seconds. But when you look at detailed analytics it seems like YouTube is an ineffectual platform for audio, and that it's probably a net negative on your audience if it's usurping even a few potential podcast subscribers.)

klingonopera 7y ago
> That surprises me. Do you have a source? No, I don't, but I second the request. Finding that on the internet is tough ("youtube videos composition" yields... well, not what I'm looking for). I'm inferring it from the 500h/min new video upload rate on YT, and having made content myself. As soon as something needs editing or cutting, your efficiency takes a dive. On second thought, it could also be a lot of screen recorded (e.g. game stream recordings) that contributes to that number. But rest assured, anything that's just point, record and upload will (usually) far outweigh anything that's point, record, edit and upload. Maybe I'm just bad at it, but editing a 1h videos takes... well at least 1h (most of the time), because you also have to view the content itself, when you edit.