5 ms·

He specifically said in the video that he hasn't been doing this in the past, but plans to "get better at it". I think one of his videos that qualifies as pure

He specifically said in the video that he hasn't been doing this in the past, but plans to "get better at it". I think one of his videos that qualifies as pure clickbait is "Can a Wind-Powered Car Go Faster Than The Wind?". It was 20 minutes, and nearly completely devoid of any real information. Certainly not 20 minutes worth, and very different from the rest of his videos. It did spawn more videos about how the car actually worked that were worth watching.

4ad 5y ago
> It was 20 minutes, and nearly completely devoid of any real information. It's entertainment, not a scientific lecture. As entertainment, it contained far more information that the vast majority of competing entertainment. > and very different from the rest of his videos. I must disagree here, I think most of his videos contain very little information as well. Less than I would like, in any case. > It did spawn more videos about how the car actually worked that were worth watching. How is this not a good thing? It's great for people who actually want more information, and it's great for the creators who provide said information. It makes the creator community (I hate that term) healthy.
epidemian 5y ago
I understood that he's been doing more clickbaity titles for the past year or two, but maybe i misunderstood. For the first video about the wind powered vehicle, yes i agree. It was more of a story and spectacle than any actual information. Still quite entertaining i think, but maybe disappointing if you wanted to learn something, which is usually the spirit of the channel.
kbenson 5y ago
> It did spawn more videos about how the car actually worked that were worth watching. Yes, including one by him, in which he specifically addresses the shortcoming of the video you are referencing and notes it's an example of what he considers a failure of him providing enough information in the video.
- gmiller123456 5y ago
  I never understood this type of reasoning, where just because the creator(s) acknowledge their shortcomings, you're not allow to not like the video because of it, or complain about it. So I'll repeat, "I didn't like the video", don't take it personally.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    If it's a criticism of the video in isolation, then that holds merit. It sounded to me like it was a criticism of his technique and how he does things. That he acknowledged that as a mistake to rectify makes it less valid as a critique of that as long as he actually changes.
    - gmiller123456 5y ago
      The person I was replying to asked for a specific example, I provided one. I still like his content, still subscribe, and have watch most of his videos since. Seems like some people are just taking this as a "hate on Vertasium" post.

4ad 5y ago

> It was 20 minutes, and nearly completely devoid of any real information. It's entertainment, not a scientific lecture. As entertainment, it contained far more information that the vast majority of competing entertainment. > and very different from the rest of his videos. I must disagree here, I think most of his videos contain very little information as well. Less than I would like, in any case. > It did spawn more videos about how the car actually worked that were worth watching. How is this not a good thing? It's great for people who actually want more information, and it's great for the creators who provide said information. It makes the creator community (I hate that term) healthy.

epidemian 5y ago

I understood that he's been doing more clickbaity titles for the past year or two, but maybe i misunderstood. For the first video about the wind powered vehicle, yes i agree. It was more of a story and spectacle than any actual information. Still quite entertaining i think, but maybe disappointing if you wanted to learn something, which is usually the spirit of the channel.

kbenson 5y ago

> It did spawn more videos about how the car actually worked that were worth watching. Yes, including one by him, in which he specifically addresses the shortcoming of the video you are referencing and notes it's an example of what he considers a failure of him providing enough information in the video.

gmiller123456 5y ago
I never understood this type of reasoning, where just because the creator(s) acknowledge their shortcomings, you're not allow to not like the video because of it, or complain about it. So I'll repeat, "I didn't like the video", don't take it personally.
- kbenson 5y ago
  If it's a criticism of the video in isolation, then that holds merit. It sounded to me like it was a criticism of his technique and how he does things. That he acknowledged that as a mistake to rectify makes it less valid as a critique of that as long as he actually changes.
  - gmiller123456 5y ago
    The person I was replying to asked for a specific example, I provided one. I still like his content, still subscribe, and have watch most of his videos since. Seems like some people are just taking this as a "hate on Vertasium" post.