3 ms·

Most content creators on YT want to grow their channel which is mostly at odds with covering complex topics in depth too much. Some channels, like Veritasium, d

Most content creators on YT want to grow their channel which is mostly at odds with covering complex topics in depth too much. Some channels, like Veritasium, do a decent job of taking complex subjects and presenting them to a wider audience - although many mathematicians and physicists do take issue sometimes. A pattern you'll often find on YT is similar to how Intel and other manufacturing companies do the "Tick" and "Tock" pattern. They'll release a difficult to research, complex and time consuming video, followed by a few easier to produce videos with a lower cost of entry knowledge wise to pay the bills. Tom7 is an interesting exception to this rule. He puts out about one video per year, but they're all very very well done. But, they're also tongue-in-cheek and he's not _really_ trying to teach you anything - but you'll probably learn something in the process!

potamic 5y ago
This is a huge problem with the wider web today, which is overrun by content creators who are motivated to make money over providing deep value content. The consequence of this is that those who are not in it for money, are marginalised. It is well understood, and psychologists will likely say the same, that the outcomes from people when they are intrinsically motivated generally surpasses that from extrinsic motivations. We have taken the web away from the former and handed it to the latter and in doing so we deprive ourselves of wonderful things many people have to offer. The web doesn't need paid content creators to survive. There are a huge number of people who are interested in participating for epistemic or community reasons and we need to safeguard these interests. I don't think it can be done in the web as it stands today. I think we really need to go radical and carve out a separate space for such interests. We need a new web.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  A small minority of us are moving over to the new peer to peer decentralised web because it feels much like the internet was before big tech destroyed all individuality: https://fediverse.party/ https://fediverse.party/
- libertine 5y ago
  But there's something I don't get about that way of thinking, like, who's stopping those who provide "deep value content" from making such content? It's not like Youtube makes you pay for hosted videos if they don't get monetized properly. So in a way those who are properly monetizing Youtube are helping to pay for a free platform, no? You may argue that such "deep value content" won't be boosted by the algorithms, and I don't see the problem of that either since it's such a niche content that wouldn't even make sense to be considered popular by the algorithm standards. Now you even have the "Bell Notifications" to get notified about new videos, so if that niche content finds true fans why can't they simply just do that? You have plenty of channels like that, and they still grow. Maybe the problem is the motivation for those who make such niche content that don't get the proper monetization, but that it's mostly a problem of the audience (not all niches are worth the same, because people have different behaviors and spending habits, and that's fine). That's why the "finances" niche is more valuable then "programmers" niche (or at least was some time ago, now I don't know). Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way?
  - adverbly 5y ago
    I believe the thinking is(someone else please chime in if this is incorrect): When the deep value creators are fighting for attention/views against "view efficiency optimizers", the deep value loses out, making it harder for them to make a living. Same reason quality journalism is on decline. It's a hard problem to solve as it occurs naturally in a competitive environment.
    - libertine 5y ago
      >When the deep value creators are fighting for attention/views against "view efficiency optimizers", the deep value loses out, making it harder for them to make a living. I understand that, and like you said, it's a hard problem to solve - and it's not a new problem. TV networks experienced the same thing, and that's why part of their models are successfully replicated by Youtubers. Edutainment is a good example of it, where you could engage the audience into learning while they have fun. So it seems like there's a mid term where education and entertainment feed off each other and pleases a wider audience - and back then the only algorithm was zapping. Because for the vast majority, probably, deep value is "boring", and that might even be amplified by the motivation behind using Youtube (which I dare to say is mostly for entertainment). Even for those who find entertainment and extreme value from "deep value creators", they might need to set a bit of time to be engaged to consume that content, and in the end if their "CPM" is not as valuable as other audiences "CPM" (because they engage less with ads, use adblockers, spend less money after engaging with ads, etc), the creator will get less value from those views... and that's just one of those things: it is what it is. You can't "blame" the audience, or the content creator, or even Youtube. In the end this revolves around value transactions. Maybe a solution is for the content creator to try to harvest the value from his "deep value created" directly from the audience since Youtube might not be getting that value out of them.
tmaly 5y ago
In my personal experience, producing long highly technical videos is a losing proposition. The YT algorithm is focused on keeping eyeballs on the platform. If your video does not retain the viewer, they drop off, this signals to the algorithm not to suggest the video to others. So for content creators, you spend quite a bit of production time making a long well made video. You get discouraged when you put in quite a bit of effort and it does not do well on the YT platform.

potamic 5y ago

This is a huge problem with the wider web today, which is overrun by content creators who are motivated to make money over providing deep value content. The consequence of this is that those who are not in it for money, are marginalised. It is well understood, and psychologists will likely say the same, that the outcomes from people when they are intrinsically motivated generally surpasses that from extrinsic motivations. We have taken the web away from the former and handed it to the latter and in doing so we deprive ourselves of wonderful things many people have to offer. The web doesn't need paid content creators to survive. There are a huge number of people who are interested in participating for epistemic or community reasons and we need to safeguard these interests. I don't think it can be done in the web as it stands today. I think we really need to go radical and carve out a separate space for such interests. We need a new web.

peakaboo 5y ago
A small minority of us are moving over to the new peer to peer decentralised web because it feels much like the internet was before big tech destroyed all individuality: https://fediverse.party/ https://fediverse.party/
libertine 5y ago
But there's something I don't get about that way of thinking, like, who's stopping those who provide "deep value content" from making such content? It's not like Youtube makes you pay for hosted videos if they don't get monetized properly. So in a way those who are properly monetizing Youtube are helping to pay for a free platform, no? You may argue that such "deep value content" won't be boosted by the algorithms, and I don't see the problem of that either since it's such a niche content that wouldn't even make sense to be considered popular by the algorithm standards. Now you even have the "Bell Notifications" to get notified about new videos, so if that niche content finds true fans why can't they simply just do that? You have plenty of channels like that, and they still grow. Maybe the problem is the motivation for those who make such niche content that don't get the proper monetization, but that it's mostly a problem of the audience (not all niches are worth the same, because people have different behaviors and spending habits, and that's fine). That's why the "finances" niche is more valuable then "programmers" niche (or at least was some time ago, now I don't know). Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way?
- adverbly 5y ago
  I believe the thinking is(someone else please chime in if this is incorrect): When the deep value creators are fighting for attention/views against "view efficiency optimizers", the deep value loses out, making it harder for them to make a living. Same reason quality journalism is on decline. It's a hard problem to solve as it occurs naturally in a competitive environment.
  - libertine 5y ago
    >When the deep value creators are fighting for attention/views against "view efficiency optimizers", the deep value loses out, making it harder for them to make a living. I understand that, and like you said, it's a hard problem to solve - and it's not a new problem. TV networks experienced the same thing, and that's why part of their models are successfully replicated by Youtubers. Edutainment is a good example of it, where you could engage the audience into learning while they have fun. So it seems like there's a mid term where education and entertainment feed off each other and pleases a wider audience - and back then the only algorithm was zapping. Because for the vast majority, probably, deep value is "boring", and that might even be amplified by the motivation behind using Youtube (which I dare to say is mostly for entertainment). Even for those who find entertainment and extreme value from "deep value creators", they might need to set a bit of time to be engaged to consume that content, and in the end if their "CPM" is not as valuable as other audiences "CPM" (because they engage less with ads, use adblockers, spend less money after engaging with ads, etc), the creator will get less value from those views... and that's just one of those things: it is what it is. You can't "blame" the audience, or the content creator, or even Youtube. In the end this revolves around value transactions. Maybe a solution is for the content creator to try to harvest the value from his "deep value created" directly from the audience since Youtube might not be getting that value out of them.

tmaly 5y ago

In my personal experience, producing long highly technical videos is a losing proposition. The YT algorithm is focused on keeping eyeballs on the platform. If your video does not retain the viewer, they drop off, this signals to the algorithm not to suggest the video to others. So for content creators, you spend quite a bit of production time making a long well made video. You get discouraged when you put in quite a bit of effort and it does not do well on the YT platform.