3 ms·

Even though I generally prefer reading to watching, I've found in the past few years that YouTube is better for reviews, and I think it's actually because of th

Even though I generally prefer reading to watching, I've found in the past few years that YouTube is better for reviews, and I think it's actually because of this. If you don't actually recognize the channel, you can usually tell if it's worthwhile by subscriber count, the other (types of) videos they've posted, and usually just by watching for tens of seconds. Most paid reviews seem to say so (unlike written blogs), and you can judge their bias appropriately. Plus for many things, seeing it in action is much, much better than written descriptions or (carefully chosen) pictures. For example, it's hard to disguise a crappy oscilloscope UI in a video (and if the reviewer doesn't show that, be suspicious!)

learc83 6y ago
Youtube is better, but over the last few years, I've noticed that it's getting harder to find decent reviews, because the algorithm recommends so many fake review channels. It's better than a google search, but there's still so many terrible results to sort through. Youtube's algorithm encourages video farms that upload frequently even if they recycle content. Ann Reardon discusses this problem as it relates to recipe video's frequently on her cooking channel.
weinzierl 6y ago
> Even though I generally prefer reading to watching, I've found in the past few years that YouTube is better for reviews[..] My pet theory why YouTube is better is that there is no incentive to make videos longer. Blog post end up bloated and thin on real information because it is considered good SEO and apparently Google really tends to rank longer articles higher. Same is true for tech books, which are often bloated because the author has to reach their target page count. YouTube videos seem to be mostly as long as they need to be to tell the story they want to tell. This is not universally true for video content though. If you look at online learning platforms, like Udemy for example, you can find many courses that spread an hour worth of content over typically five or six hours. My fear is that Google will someday decide to make the length of a video a ranking factor and we will have the same bloated videos on YouTube too. > Most paid reviews seem to say so (unlike written blogs), and you can judge their bias appropriately. Producing decent video content is much more elaborate and expensive than written reviews. My suspicion is that on YouTube paid reviews are even more common than on blogs and the norm is just not to mention it. Doesn't mean they are useless of course, just as you wrote "judge their bias appropriately".
- gregmac 6y ago
  > My pet theory why YouTube is better is that there is no incentive to make videos longer. [...] YouTube videos seem to be mostly as long as they need to be to tell the story they want to tell. I don't think this is an accident: YouTube apparently ranks based on watch time / retention, so if you make your video too long and people don't watch to the end it hurts you.
- neutronicus 6y ago
  Ha. I strongly disagree. Any kind of machine maintenance video has so much preamble, when what I'm really after is like 25 seconds of silently accessing the part, pausing to circle stuff in red, and narrating stuff that's hard to see from the video
polytely 6y ago
You can still get hoodwinked by youtubers[0] who (to the untrained eye) look like they know what they are talking about but are actually grifters[1] wasting your time [0]: Siraj Raval (700k subscribers!): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A [1]: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/10/16/why-siraj-ravals-plagiarism-is-the-future-of-plagiarism/ https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/10/16/why-siraj-ravals-...

learc83 6y ago

Youtube is better, but over the last few years, I've noticed that it's getting harder to find decent reviews, because the algorithm recommends so many fake review channels. It's better than a google search, but there's still so many terrible results to sort through. Youtube's algorithm encourages video farms that upload frequently even if they recycle content. Ann Reardon discusses this problem as it relates to recipe video's frequently on her cooking channel.

weinzierl 6y ago

> Even though I generally prefer reading to watching, I've found in the past few years that YouTube is better for reviews[..] My pet theory why YouTube is better is that there is no incentive to make videos longer. Blog post end up bloated and thin on real information because it is considered good SEO and apparently Google really tends to rank longer articles higher. Same is true for tech books, which are often bloated because the author has to reach their target page count. YouTube videos seem to be mostly as long as they need to be to tell the story they want to tell. This is not universally true for video content though. If you look at online learning platforms, like Udemy for example, you can find many courses that spread an hour worth of content over typically five or six hours. My fear is that Google will someday decide to make the length of a video a ranking factor and we will have the same bloated videos on YouTube too. > Most paid reviews seem to say so (unlike written blogs), and you can judge their bias appropriately. Producing decent video content is much more elaborate and expensive than written reviews. My suspicion is that on YouTube paid reviews are even more common than on blogs and the norm is just not to mention it. Doesn't mean they are useless of course, just as you wrote "judge their bias appropriately".

gregmac 6y ago
> My pet theory why YouTube is better is that there is no incentive to make videos longer. [...] YouTube videos seem to be mostly as long as they need to be to tell the story they want to tell. I don't think this is an accident: YouTube apparently ranks based on watch time / retention, so if you make your video too long and people don't watch to the end it hurts you.
neutronicus 6y ago
Ha. I strongly disagree. Any kind of machine maintenance video has so much preamble, when what I'm really after is like 25 seconds of silently accessing the part, pausing to circle stuff in red, and narrating stuff that's hard to see from the video

polytely 6y ago

You can still get hoodwinked by youtubers[0] who (to the untrained eye) look like they know what they are talking about but are actually grifters[1] wasting your time [0]: Siraj Raval (700k subscribers!): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A [1]: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/10/16/why-siraj-ravals-plagiarism-is-the-future-of-plagiarism/ https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/10/16/why-siraj-ravals-...