4 ms·

> If you quit, someone new will take your place. Why is this a bad thing? You wouldn't actually prefer if Google kept new creators from getting views just to

> If you quit, someone new will take your place. Why is this a bad thing? You wouldn't actually prefer if Google kept new creators from getting views just to benefit old creators who aren't producing as much content, would you? > Google wants you to kill yourself putting out as much content as possible, and doesn't care if you have to reduce quality or literally die as a result. No, Google does not want you to "literally die". They aren't taking anything away from old YouTubers by letting users watch content from new YouTubers. YouTube is an increasingly crowded content and more and more creators are vying for views and advertising dollars. You're ascribing a lot of malice to Google, but you're literally just describing market competition. The alternative (keeping new content creators locked out so old content creators could continue to profit more) is obviously not viable.

glenstein 5y ago
>Why is this a bad thing? Because it's a systematic force affecting any and all content creators on YouTube. Both the first person, and the person replacing them, would be under the same pressures. The incentive is for frequently released bites low effort content at the expense of high quality content. >You're ascribing a lot of malice to Google, but you're literally just describing market competition. Sometimes the product of market competition is a race to the bottom, which is great if we're talking solar panels, but less so if we're talking viability of a job and quality of a work product. I think the more charitable way of understanding the person you are responding to is that ought to be ways of rendering the model sustainable even for those not interested in racing to the bottom. Google is constantly in the process of restructuring the contours of the experience, the relationship between the audience and the creators, and we're calling everything that happens within those strictures "the market" even though they're a product of Google's discretion.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > Because it's a systematic force affecting any and all content creators on YouTube. It’s a systematic force for creators across all platforms, with or without YouTube. People make content on the internet and compete for attention. Google didn’t invent market competition. It doesn’t make sense for you to blame Google for new creators making new videos. > Both the first person, and the person replacing them, would be under the same pressures. To compete for viewers? Again, how is this Google’s fault? I have no idea what you actually expect Google to do. Limit new creators so the old creators don’t feel competitive pressure? Hide content from new creators so old creators don’t have to compete with it? I think you’re angry at the fact that competition exists in the free market, but you’re laying the blame at Google’s feet instead.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    It turns out competition can lower overall market quality.
    - eggy 5y ago
      Popularity and quality do not necessarily equate either, but I think there are many people not competing in this arena that would boost the overall quality. I remember the old commercials on TV about Slim Whitman claiming to have sold more albums than Elvis and The Beatles combined. Can anyone here name more than one song, if that, from Slim Whitman? I am in my late 50s and when I take a glance at the most popular Tik Tok or Instagram or YouTube accounts, it makes me think that a culture with lots of time and luxuries on its hands produces mainly garbage watched by people with seemingly nothing better to do, a lot of narcissism; I get guilty reading HN more than 20 min. per day, but I find the discussions thought-provoking, and having programmed since 1978 on a Commodore PET 2001, among familiar folks and subjects.
em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
"Why is this a bad thing?" It is not necessarily a bad thing, cause good and bad are metrics determined by different people's relative preferences. But I would say it would be nicer if there was more even spread in recommendations between the stars and the people who put out quality videos every so often but don't dedicate their life to being a superstar, rather than a heavily-lopsided. The original spirit was supposed to be "You"Tube, and now it is more like SuperStarTube. (But I don't want to come across as hating YouTube...I can accept it for what it has become and get my enjoyment out of it and I enjoy the benefit from people stumbling across my videos. I just want to present a different perspective.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ehnto 5y ago
I don't think that's what's happening, I think these quality niche creators are just flooded out by the views from videos that get much wider audience adoption. Stuff like "Win/Fail Compilation 246" that gest 10mil views with a new release every day is more profitable for YouTube to show than a science video that gets 1m views with a release once a month, which is high for a science video.
guru4consulting 5y ago
I guess there's always a trade-off and fine balance between suggesting older good quality videos vs giving chance to the new ones. YT algorithm is probably skewed towards quantity than quality.. that means often favoring someone who releases more frequently with decent quality compared to someone releasing great videos at a far less frequency.

glenstein 5y ago

>Why is this a bad thing? Because it's a systematic force affecting any and all content creators on YouTube. Both the first person, and the person replacing them, would be under the same pressures. The incentive is for frequently released bites low effort content at the expense of high quality content. >You're ascribing a lot of malice to Google, but you're literally just describing market competition. Sometimes the product of market competition is a race to the bottom, which is great if we're talking solar panels, but less so if we're talking viability of a job and quality of a work product. I think the more charitable way of understanding the person you are responding to is that ought to be ways of rendering the model sustainable even for those not interested in racing to the bottom. Google is constantly in the process of restructuring the contours of the experience, the relationship between the audience and the creators, and we're calling everything that happens within those strictures "the market" even though they're a product of Google's discretion.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Because it's a systematic force affecting any and all content creators on YouTube. It’s a systematic force for creators across all platforms, with or without YouTube. People make content on the internet and compete for attention. Google didn’t invent market competition. It doesn’t make sense for you to blame Google for new creators making new videos. > Both the first person, and the person replacing them, would be under the same pressures. To compete for viewers? Again, how is this Google’s fault? I have no idea what you actually expect Google to do. Limit new creators so the old creators don’t feel competitive pressure? Hide content from new creators so old creators don’t have to compete with it? I think you’re angry at the fact that competition exists in the free market, but you’re laying the blame at Google’s feet instead.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  It turns out competition can lower overall market quality.
  - eggy 5y ago
    Popularity and quality do not necessarily equate either, but I think there are many people not competing in this arena that would boost the overall quality. I remember the old commercials on TV about Slim Whitman claiming to have sold more albums than Elvis and The Beatles combined. Can anyone here name more than one song, if that, from Slim Whitman? I am in my late 50s and when I take a glance at the most popular Tik Tok or Instagram or YouTube accounts, it makes me think that a culture with lots of time and luxuries on its hands produces mainly garbage watched by people with seemingly nothing better to do, a lot of narcissism; I get guilty reading HN more than 20 min. per day, but I find the discussions thought-provoking, and having programmed since 1978 on a Commodore PET 2001, among familiar folks and subjects.

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago

"Why is this a bad thing?" It is not necessarily a bad thing, cause good and bad are metrics determined by different people's relative preferences. But I would say it would be nicer if there was more even spread in recommendations between the stars and the people who put out quality videos every so often but don't dedicate their life to being a superstar, rather than a heavily-lopsided. The original spirit was supposed to be "You"Tube, and now it is more like SuperStarTube. (But I don't want to come across as hating YouTube...I can accept it for what it has become and get my enjoyment out of it and I enjoy the benefit from people stumbling across my videos. I just want to present a different perspective.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ehnto 5y ago

I don't think that's what's happening, I think these quality niche creators are just flooded out by the views from videos that get much wider audience adoption. Stuff like "Win/Fail Compilation 246" that gest 10mil views with a new release every day is more profitable for YouTube to show than a science video that gets 1m views with a release once a month, which is high for a science video.

guru4consulting 5y ago

I guess there's always a trade-off and fine balance between suggesting older good quality videos vs giving chance to the new ones. YT algorithm is probably skewed towards quantity than quality.. that means often favoring someone who releases more frequently with decent quality compared to someone releasing great videos at a far less frequency.