5 ms·

I can confidently assure you that I've had that feature off for ages and could not possibly be happier about it.

mgraczyk 6y ago
It's definitely possible to have a good experience without personalization. Depending on how much you inherently value google not storing data about you, it may be the only way for you to be happy. But it's very unlikely the actual product experience would be worse with personalization enabled, measured by probability that a search includes something relevant near the top.
- singron 6y ago
  Of course the single best way to make the top more relevant is to block ads. On YouTube, I highly recommend turning off personalization and watch history, especially if you find yourself spending too much time there clicking recommended videos. Without history, it will pretty reliably recommend the same videos again and again, which can help you realize when you have seen a lot and might want to stop.
- ethbro 6y ago
  As someone who remembers the web before personalization, the product experience was better. It may be true that Google has over-invested in personalization-driven features, and under-invested in user-neutral features. Personalization belongs in the agent. Specifically, the agent that I own and control.
  - mgraczyk 6y ago
    So Google sends metadata for 5B videos to your browser, then your browser ranks them and shows you the best one? How would your agent do personalization?
    - ethbro 6y ago
      Why doesn't my browser compile and store my viewing habits, then construct searches for me? Searches which Google then executes? Centralized services have built personalization systems in which they operate the personalization algorithms. I don't have a problem with that, per se, except in that their interests (profit) and user interests (effectiveness) are only partially aligned. The biggest reason, as near as I can tell, these system architectures were built is that control of personalization algorithms means (1) a means and reason to collect and retain data on users (that can be used for targeted advertisement) & (2) a means to execute targeted advertisement (via insertion into "recommended" content). It's likely the only way these services are possible at the "free" price point. But it's disingenuous to suggest that they're the only model by which personalization could be realized.
- jjj123 6y ago
  There are lots of examples of where personalization results in a worse experience for users but better metrics for the tech company. Somehow the Instagram ads algorithm has figured out exactly what I’m self conscious about with my own body; all I see are ads for invisible braces, skin cleansers, and hair treatments. I don’t actually want to buy any of these things, and they make me feel bad to look at. A de-personalized Instagram experience would be far superior to me.
  - mgraczyk 6y ago
    You can click the ... menu, then "hide ad". It will show you fewer similar ads in the future. An unpersonalized IG ad experience would be teenage women's clothing and Netflix branding (assuming you're in the US). You probably don't want that either.
    - chottocharaii 6y ago
      Irrelevant ads in this situation, sounds like they are less annoying than invasive ads
    - tirpen 6y ago
      Why wouldn't I want that? It's not like I want to be successfully manipulated by ads, so getting shown irrelevant ads is just a big win in my book.
    - squiggleblaz 6y ago
      Well, that explains my IG account. They do seem to know something about me; and one point, they literally recommended some old friends (even tho I wasn't using enough of my name, or my history, or the same email address as in those days, and we had no independent friends in common).
    - jjj123 6y ago
      You mean like how every TV ad works? Yeah that sounds preferable.
option 6y ago
as another person who worked on personalization I can assure you that way over 90% of users prefer personalization. Decades of A/B tests have proven that. And yes, some people, myself included turn it OFF because of privacy concerns. But we are in a really small minority.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Is A/B testing focused on increasing the time people spend on YouTube or the actual benefits people get out of YouTube? A/B testing tends not to produce the result you want when the metrics you are going for are harmful.
  - mgraczyk 6y ago
    I don't work at Youtube, but different teams probably optimize for different things. Time spent is really, really hard to change directly, so they probably focus on things like p(like), p(watch > X% of vid), p(watches another video). Generally speaking there's no answer in principle to the question "is the time spent actually valuable". For the vast majority of people, time spent on Youtube cuts into time spent doing basically the same thing somewhere else. We're not all researching cures for AIDS or new sources of green energy. Most people just want to sit around being entertained.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  "When we A/B tested users against different kinds of personalisation, we consistently found that they liked personalisation" If your non-personalised experience is stunted in functionality because the core UX of the product is biased towards personalisation, it will be unsurprising if people "prefer" personalisation.

It's definitely possible to have a good experience without personalization. Depending on how much you inherently value google not storing data about you, it may be the only way for you to be happy. But it's very unlikely the actual product experience would be worse with personalization enabled, measured by probability that a search includes something relevant near the top.

singron 6y ago
Of course the single best way to make the top more relevant is to block ads. On YouTube, I highly recommend turning off personalization and watch history, especially if you find yourself spending too much time there clicking recommended videos. Without history, it will pretty reliably recommend the same videos again and again, which can help you realize when you have seen a lot and might want to stop.
ethbro 6y ago
As someone who remembers the web before personalization, the product experience was better. It may be true that Google has over-invested in personalization-driven features, and under-invested in user-neutral features. Personalization belongs in the agent. Specifically, the agent that I own and control.
- mgraczyk 6y ago
  So Google sends metadata for 5B videos to your browser, then your browser ranks them and shows you the best one? How would your agent do personalization?
  - ethbro 6y ago
    Why doesn't my browser compile and store my viewing habits, then construct searches for me? Searches which Google then executes? Centralized services have built personalization systems in which they operate the personalization algorithms. I don't have a problem with that, per se, except in that their interests (profit) and user interests (effectiveness) are only partially aligned. The biggest reason, as near as I can tell, these system architectures were built is that control of personalization algorithms means (1) a means and reason to collect and retain data on users (that can be used for targeted advertisement) & (2) a means to execute targeted advertisement (via insertion into "recommended" content). It's likely the only way these services are possible at the "free" price point. But it's disingenuous to suggest that they're the only model by which personalization could be realized.
jjj123 6y ago
There are lots of examples of where personalization results in a worse experience for users but better metrics for the tech company. Somehow the Instagram ads algorithm has figured out exactly what I’m self conscious about with my own body; all I see are ads for invisible braces, skin cleansers, and hair treatments. I don’t actually want to buy any of these things, and they make me feel bad to look at. A de-personalized Instagram experience would be far superior to me.
- mgraczyk 6y ago
  You can click the ... menu, then "hide ad". It will show you fewer similar ads in the future. An unpersonalized IG ad experience would be teenage women's clothing and Netflix branding (assuming you're in the US). You probably don't want that either.
  - chottocharaii 6y ago
    Irrelevant ads in this situation, sounds like they are less annoying than invasive ads
  - tirpen 6y ago
    Why wouldn't I want that? It's not like I want to be successfully manipulated by ads, so getting shown irrelevant ads is just a big win in my book.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    Well, that explains my IG account. They do seem to know something about me; and one point, they literally recommended some old friends (even tho I wasn't using enough of my name, or my history, or the same email address as in those days, and we had no independent friends in common).
  - jjj123 6y ago
    You mean like how every TV ad works? Yeah that sounds preferable.

option 6y ago

as another person who worked on personalization I can assure you that way over 90% of users prefer personalization. Decades of A/B tests have proven that. And yes, some people, myself included turn it OFF because of privacy concerns. But we are in a really small minority.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Is A/B testing focused on increasing the time people spend on YouTube or the actual benefits people get out of YouTube? A/B testing tends not to produce the result you want when the metrics you are going for are harmful.
- mgraczyk 6y ago
  I don't work at Youtube, but different teams probably optimize for different things. Time spent is really, really hard to change directly, so they probably focus on things like p(like), p(watch > X% of vid), p(watches another video). Generally speaking there's no answer in principle to the question "is the time spent actually valuable". For the vast majority of people, time spent on Youtube cuts into time spent doing basically the same thing somewhere else. We're not all researching cures for AIDS or new sources of green energy. Most people just want to sit around being entertained.
FridgeSeal 6y ago
"When we A/B tested users against different kinds of personalisation, we consistently found that they liked personalisation" If your non-personalised experience is stunted in functionality because the core UX of the product is biased towards personalisation, it will be unsurprising if people "prefer" personalisation.