4 ms·

I was an indie filmmaker. (It’s a hobby, we knew there was no money in it.) It was pretty clear to us that the YouTube algorithm was all about high volume, low

I was an indie filmmaker. (It’s a hobby, we knew there was no money in it.) It was pretty clear to us that the YouTube algorithm was all about high volume, low quality. The kind of ambitious projects that were all about writing and acting we could spend a year creating would never find a home our audience there. This has two consequences: 1. It sucks to be a producer for the platform. 2. The audience is pushed towards endless junk content instead of quality because that’s what the algorithm favors and incentivized producers to put into the world. It did not have to be this way. It still doesn’t. The algorithm is an intentional decision to favor one style of content and production over others.

dehrmann 7y ago
> the YouTube algorithm was all about high volume, low quality This is just a reflection of what humans want. It's how people want their entertainment, their food, their news, their clothes, etc. I respect people who try to legitimately deliver a quality product, but it's an uphill battle.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  High quality YouTube content gets views, it's used as an advertising platform for shows external to youtube.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    It's not that many people aren't willing to pay for high quality content, whether it's YouTube or a news site. It's that it's hard to monetize all the extra time and effort that goes into creating it relative to the (relatively speaking) junk filler.
- krageon 7y ago
  So to summarise, everyone wants bad things as long as there is a lot of it (or at least you think so)? That seems like the sort of claim you'd normally see some sort of reasoning for, which I would be interested in reading about.
  - asdf21 7y ago
    The reasoning is the entire free market, there are endless low quality goods that are "good enough" and still sell.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    It's not that people want "bad" things. But they're often not very discriminating about quality and, yes, they want quantity. How many people would sign up for an expensive streaming service that only carried a relative handful of critically acclaimed content? (Arguably HBO probably does come closest to this but even they have a lot of filler.)
- Accujack 7y ago
  It's what the corporation that owns the platform wants, not the humans watching it. Youtube is a business, and as part of Google it has to make money to justify its existence. The algorithm is representative of the promotions Google thinks will maximize views of monetized content which will drive revenue. Unfortunately as in many other areas, quality of content does not necessarily correlate to that content producing the most revenue, so Google is aiming for the sweet spot in the bell curve, which means whatever has the most appeal to the most people... the lowest common denominator.
umvi 7y ago
Somehow Mark Rober does pretty well only making 12 videos a year. The YouTube algorithm recommends his videos almost instantly upon release.
- Tokkemon 7y ago
  As he keeps saying -_-
- sithlord 7y ago
  Same with Primitive Technology; and he doesn't he talk!
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  The 8-Bit Guy and CGPGrey are both over a million subscribers and only release videos when they feel like it.
- kawfey 7y ago
  These and the aforementioned YouTubers have their videos accelerated to the top after 10 or more years of consistency in quality, non-controversy, and positive audience engagement. The Algorithm knows any video produced by those creators is going to be of high quality, high information, and have positive response from millions of people, so it behooves YouTube to push those videos to the top.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think that's true. Oversimplified for example has only been around for like 3 years. It's certainly true that "people will like this" is a factor in the recommendations, but that seems... correct? It would be pretty silly if Youtube kept pushing indie films people don't want to watch at them.
nradov 7y ago
You're wanting YouTube to be something that it isn't. That's like complaining that McDonald's doesn't serve much health food. Find another distribution channel.
- wccrawford 7y ago
  I see this a lot, with people wanting Steam, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Google Play, etc not having the ideal situation for them to find success, and wanting the company to change things for them.
ip26 7y ago
Isn't that basically what most cable TV was like?
randomdata 7y ago
> The kind of ambitious projects that were all about writing and acting we could spend a year creating would never find a home our audience there. Honestly, Youtube has become my video platform of choice precisely because I have no interest in that kind of content. While I am sure you do great work, the algorithm would be broken if you were recommended to me. I find the algorithm has done a great job of highlighting high quality channels that are up my ally. It sounds you would really be better off on a service more like Netflix, where the audience is looking for that kind of filmmaking.
- munificent 7y ago
  > It sounds you would really be better off on a service more like Netflix, where the audience is looking for that kind of filmmaking. Frankly, Netflix is going in the direction of YouTube too. They've lost most of their back catalog of films and are replacing it with mass-produced TV shows designed for binge consumption.
crisdux 7y ago
I think it's important to think of an ambiguous metric like quality and think of it across multiple dimensions. Quality to youtube means frequency, recency, personal, etc - attributes that create relationships between the creator and the audience.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mantap 7y ago
In my experience the algorithm simply recommends similar content to what you watch based on your viewing history. If you watch enough football videos then soon your entire frontpage will be football. There's a vast amount of high quality content on YouTube. What is not present are high production values. But that's fine really. In the end, production values are not important, it's the story you have to tell that matters.
- coffeefirst 7y ago
  That's true. Almost all my recommendations are live music, which is the correct interpretation of what I use youtube for.

dehrmann 7y ago

> the YouTube algorithm was all about high volume, low quality This is just a reflection of what humans want. It's how people want their entertainment, their food, their news, their clothes, etc. I respect people who try to legitimately deliver a quality product, but it's an uphill battle.

friendlybus 7y ago
High quality YouTube content gets views, it's used as an advertising platform for shows external to youtube.
- ghaff 7y ago
  It's not that many people aren't willing to pay for high quality content, whether it's YouTube or a news site. It's that it's hard to monetize all the extra time and effort that goes into creating it relative to the (relatively speaking) junk filler.
krageon 7y ago
So to summarise, everyone wants bad things as long as there is a lot of it (or at least you think so)? That seems like the sort of claim you'd normally see some sort of reasoning for, which I would be interested in reading about.
- asdf21 7y ago
  The reasoning is the entire free market, there are endless low quality goods that are "good enough" and still sell.
- ghaff 7y ago
  It's not that people want "bad" things. But they're often not very discriminating about quality and, yes, they want quantity. How many people would sign up for an expensive streaming service that only carried a relative handful of critically acclaimed content? (Arguably HBO probably does come closest to this but even they have a lot of filler.)
Accujack 7y ago
It's what the corporation that owns the platform wants, not the humans watching it. Youtube is a business, and as part of Google it has to make money to justify its existence. The algorithm is representative of the promotions Google thinks will maximize views of monetized content which will drive revenue. Unfortunately as in many other areas, quality of content does not necessarily correlate to that content producing the most revenue, so Google is aiming for the sweet spot in the bell curve, which means whatever has the most appeal to the most people... the lowest common denominator.

umvi 7y ago

Somehow Mark Rober does pretty well only making 12 videos a year. The YouTube algorithm recommends his videos almost instantly upon release.

Tokkemon 7y ago
As he keeps saying -_-
sithlord 7y ago
Same with Primitive Technology; and he doesn't he talk!
colejohnson66 7y ago
The 8-Bit Guy and CGPGrey are both over a million subscribers and only release videos when they feel like it.
kawfey 7y ago
These and the aforementioned YouTubers have their videos accelerated to the top after 10 or more years of consistency in quality, non-controversy, and positive audience engagement. The Algorithm knows any video produced by those creators is going to be of high quality, high information, and have positive response from millions of people, so it behooves YouTube to push those videos to the top.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't think that's true. Oversimplified for example has only been around for like 3 years. It's certainly true that "people will like this" is a factor in the recommendations, but that seems... correct? It would be pretty silly if Youtube kept pushing indie films people don't want to watch at them.

nradov 7y ago

You're wanting YouTube to be something that it isn't. That's like complaining that McDonald's doesn't serve much health food. Find another distribution channel.

wccrawford 7y ago
I see this a lot, with people wanting Steam, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Google Play, etc not having the ideal situation for them to find success, and wanting the company to change things for them.

ip26 7y ago

Isn't that basically what most cable TV was like?

randomdata 7y ago

> The kind of ambitious projects that were all about writing and acting we could spend a year creating would never find a home our audience there. Honestly, Youtube has become my video platform of choice precisely because I have no interest in that kind of content. While I am sure you do great work, the algorithm would be broken if you were recommended to me. I find the algorithm has done a great job of highlighting high quality channels that are up my ally. It sounds you would really be better off on a service more like Netflix, where the audience is looking for that kind of filmmaking.

munificent 7y ago
> It sounds you would really be better off on a service more like Netflix, where the audience is looking for that kind of filmmaking. Frankly, Netflix is going in the direction of YouTube too. They've lost most of their back catalog of films and are replacing it with mass-produced TV shows designed for binge consumption.

crisdux 7y ago

I think it's important to think of an ambiguous metric like quality and think of it across multiple dimensions. Quality to youtube means frequency, recency, personal, etc - attributes that create relationships between the creator and the audience.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mantap 7y ago

In my experience the algorithm simply recommends similar content to what you watch based on your viewing history. If you watch enough football videos then soon your entire frontpage will be football. There's a vast amount of high quality content on YouTube. What is not present are high production values. But that's fine really. In the end, production values are not important, it's the story you have to tell that matters.

coffeefirst 7y ago
That's true. Almost all my recommendations are live music, which is the correct interpretation of what I use youtube for.