4 ms·

Some of your criticism seems to be directed at video length and not a clickbaity title. If a video takes 10 minutes to tell me a single piece of information, th

Some of your criticism seems to be directed at video length and not a clickbaity title. If a video takes 10 minutes to tell me a single piece of information, the title isn't the issue with that video.

infogulch 5y ago
Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse here, but what if there's a human reason why 10m videos are popular. Maybe 10 minutes is just the minimum time needed to get across a non-trivial idea to a broad audience. Sure, the platform itself encourages that length implicitly but maybe that's not an arbitrary decision and is based on the human capacity to absorb information.
- jrootabega 5y ago
  10 minutes is the original minimum video length youtube required before you could place midroll ads. It's now 8 minutes, but 10 is still a goal that many "creators" aim for. What it mostly results in is low-quality, low-information videos that are padded out to be just long enough to show you: - pre-roll ads - embedded sponsored content - plug for your patreon/other videos - reminder to like/subscribe/comment - a tiny nugget of actual content SOMETIMES - mid-roll ads - post-roll ads I agree that 10 minutes feels about right if you were actually trying to convey a good chunk of information in good faith, but that's just not what happens on youtube. Maybe 10 minutes was a good threshold for midroll ads for the same reason that it would have been a good threshold for quality videos. Videos like the linked one, while technically longer, just result in more and more mid-roll ads. In fact while attempting to watch this one, I got just past his embedded sponsorship plug, when youtube ambushed me with the "Ads in 3... 2... 1..." type of ad that makes it impossible to tell just how much of the video is compromised by ads before watching it.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    10-25 minutes or so seems like the sweet spot for a lot of podcasts, informational videos, presentations, and the like when they're genuinely trying to inform/entertain. It's hard to really communicate a lot of information or have a meaningful discussion in a shorter period of time unless it's very focused (how to...) and a lot of those would better be text and a photo. And a lot of hour long interviews etc. tend to feel like they go on too long.
    - jrootabega 5y ago
      Feels right to me. You can sink that amount of time into something without really feeling like it's a large commitment of time or energy, while also feeling satisfied if you liked it. It's just a shame that on youtube, the advertising pressure erodes such content away.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        While there are logistical issues with shorter presentations at multi-track physical events, I've come to think that 25-30 minutes is a better sweet spot for conference presentations than 45-50 minutes. (With the exception of workshops/tutorials in most cases.) And it's where I've ended up with my podcasts. Less than 12 or so feels like you're barely getting started and get past about 30 and, as a listener, I'm generally losing interest. It's no coincidence that longer professionally produced podcasts almost always have segments or otherwise break up the content.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    I think within the video in question is the beginnings of a good justification for this. He views his job as getting his educational content in front as many people that can learn from it as possible. Part of that is making sure he can afford to do so, so we should consider holistically whether breaking from the ad roll time format is better in the end or not. if he can keep up the quantity and quality of videos, then maybe it's worth breaking with that format. If he can't, then maybe it's not. The is a similar question as to whether scientists should break from universities and corporate labs and fund their research and experiments without ties to those institutions, which will necessarily have some impact on the science being carried out in small and sometimes large ways. Personally, I suspect that there would be a large drop in both quality and quantity if this were to become the norm.
  - infogulch 5y ago
    So you're saying that if it's 10m then it's only because ads, and if it's longer it's only because more ads. There's no valid reason for a video to be longer than 9 minutes according to you. That sounds absurd to me. You're not actually arguing a point, you're just complaining about ads. I also despise YT ads. (Embedded ads are less annoying because they can be at least slightly relevant to the content.) How much time do you spend watching ads? How much is your time worth? Some recommend valuing your personal time at $50/h. YouTube Premium family membership is $18 and gives 6 people ad-free viewing which comes to $3/person/month. At these rates you break even at 3.6 minutes of ads. That could be just 2 videos.
    - jrootabega 5y ago
      I think there are valid reasons, just that you will rarely encounter such videos, be able to identify them if you do, be able to seek them out consistently, and that those who produce them will probably not do so for very long.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      > and gives 6 people ad-free viewing which comes to $3/person/month Six people who live in the same household, to be clear.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  A discussion between @ghaff and myself a few months ago on this aspect. I find 10--30 minutes a sweet spot as well, with an information-dense 10 minutes highly preferable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27337668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27337668 For a deeper discussion pulling in more references and nuances, 20--60 minutes can work, but the content's got to deserve it. Excessive filler content ("Mayday: Air Disaster", The History Channel, "The Gift Shop Sketch" is of course the exemplar: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc https://yewtu.be/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc) is absolutely maddening.

infogulch 5y ago

Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse here, but what if there's a human reason why 10m videos are popular. Maybe 10 minutes is just the minimum time needed to get across a non-trivial idea to a broad audience. Sure, the platform itself encourages that length implicitly but maybe that's not an arbitrary decision and is based on the human capacity to absorb information.

jrootabega 5y ago
10 minutes is the original minimum video length youtube required before you could place midroll ads. It's now 8 minutes, but 10 is still a goal that many "creators" aim for. What it mostly results in is low-quality, low-information videos that are padded out to be just long enough to show you: - pre-roll ads - embedded sponsored content - plug for your patreon/other videos - reminder to like/subscribe/comment - a tiny nugget of actual content SOMETIMES - mid-roll ads - post-roll ads I agree that 10 minutes feels about right if you were actually trying to convey a good chunk of information in good faith, but that's just not what happens on youtube. Maybe 10 minutes was a good threshold for midroll ads for the same reason that it would have been a good threshold for quality videos. Videos like the linked one, while technically longer, just result in more and more mid-roll ads. In fact while attempting to watch this one, I got just past his embedded sponsorship plug, when youtube ambushed me with the "Ads in 3... 2... 1..." type of ad that makes it impossible to tell just how much of the video is compromised by ads before watching it.
- ghaff 5y ago
  10-25 minutes or so seems like the sweet spot for a lot of podcasts, informational videos, presentations, and the like when they're genuinely trying to inform/entertain. It's hard to really communicate a lot of information or have a meaningful discussion in a shorter period of time unless it's very focused (how to...) and a lot of those would better be text and a photo. And a lot of hour long interviews etc. tend to feel like they go on too long.
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    Feels right to me. You can sink that amount of time into something without really feeling like it's a large commitment of time or energy, while also feeling satisfied if you liked it. It's just a shame that on youtube, the advertising pressure erodes such content away.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      While there are logistical issues with shorter presentations at multi-track physical events, I've come to think that 25-30 minutes is a better sweet spot for conference presentations than 45-50 minutes. (With the exception of workshops/tutorials in most cases.) And it's where I've ended up with my podcasts. Less than 12 or so feels like you're barely getting started and get past about 30 and, as a listener, I'm generally losing interest. It's no coincidence that longer professionally produced podcasts almost always have segments or otherwise break up the content.
- kbenson 5y ago
  I think within the video in question is the beginnings of a good justification for this. He views his job as getting his educational content in front as many people that can learn from it as possible. Part of that is making sure he can afford to do so, so we should consider holistically whether breaking from the ad roll time format is better in the end or not. if he can keep up the quantity and quality of videos, then maybe it's worth breaking with that format. If he can't, then maybe it's not. The is a similar question as to whether scientists should break from universities and corporate labs and fund their research and experiments without ties to those institutions, which will necessarily have some impact on the science being carried out in small and sometimes large ways. Personally, I suspect that there would be a large drop in both quality and quantity if this were to become the norm.
- infogulch 5y ago
  So you're saying that if it's 10m then it's only because ads, and if it's longer it's only because more ads. There's no valid reason for a video to be longer than 9 minutes according to you. That sounds absurd to me. You're not actually arguing a point, you're just complaining about ads. I also despise YT ads. (Embedded ads are less annoying because they can be at least slightly relevant to the content.) How much time do you spend watching ads? How much is your time worth? Some recommend valuing your personal time at $50/h. YouTube Premium family membership is $18 and gives 6 people ad-free viewing which comes to $3/person/month. At these rates you break even at 3.6 minutes of ads. That could be just 2 videos.
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    I think there are valid reasons, just that you will rarely encounter such videos, be able to identify them if you do, be able to seek them out consistently, and that those who produce them will probably not do so for very long.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > and gives 6 people ad-free viewing which comes to $3/person/month Six people who live in the same household, to be clear.
dredmorbius 5y ago
A discussion between @ghaff and myself a few months ago on this aspect. I find 10--30 minutes a sweet spot as well, with an information-dense 10 minutes highly preferable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27337668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27337668 For a deeper discussion pulling in more references and nuances, 20--60 minutes can work, but the content's got to deserve it. Excessive filler content ("Mayday: Air Disaster", The History Channel, "The Gift Shop Sketch" is of course the exemplar: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc https://yewtu.be/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc) is absolutely maddening.