3 ms·
Tell HN: I hate links to videos in discussions
This is a rant of sorts, but I'm seeing this more and more, not just on HN, but in lots of places.
Folks will be discussing some topic (the genre doesn't seem to matter) and a commenter will respond with something like, "yeah, this is just like..." or something similar, and include a youtube (or other video) link without any context or reason why it's relevant or any inkling as to the content of such a video.
What then? Now I either have to go off whatever site I'm reading and watch some video that may or may not have anything to do with the subject at hand.
Even worse, like most people I can read a lot faster than some talking head in a video can get to the point, thus wasting my time.
Or I can just move on to the next comment and ignore the video link. Which might be rather unfortunate, as there may actually be something useful/interesting/informative going on.
For my own part, I may sometimes link to videos, but only in the context of a comment where I'm actually making the point in the comment itself and linking to the video to either support my point, provide additional context and/or act as a citation of something I've quoted/referenced in my comment.
Seeing stuff like "This is why $issue is how it is" or "$RandomPerson will [blow your mind|explain everything|is so profound]" with no context or other information really doesn't add anything valuable to the discussion at hand.
For pity's sake, if you're on a discussion site, then discuss stuff! If a video presents an interesting viewpoint or useful information, include it in your comment with a note that the linked video provides more informtion/context/argument, etc.
But a comment that contains nothing but "this is amazing" or "$person nailed it here" is, quite literally, clickbait. And not even good clickbait.
I get that some folks aren't native English speakers and may feel that the video will provide a much better explanation of their thoughts than the poster thinks they can exposit. But please, at least provide some kind of context!
I come to discussion sites to discuss, not watch videos. If I wanted to watch videos, I'd do that instead.
/rant
I generally just ignore such links/comments, because I'm here (and elsewhere) to discuss stuff.
Am I being overly judgemental here, or do others also feel that such "comments" reduce the value of a discussion if it's necessary to go off-site to view (sometimes hours-long) videos just to figure out what the commenter is banging on about?
Your thoughts?
- throwaway743 5y agoUm maybe just ignore them?
- nobody9999 5y agoWow. I wish I'd thought of that. Gosh, that changes everything. /s As I said in my submission: I generally just ignore such links/comments, because I'm here (and elsewhere) to discuss stuff. Then again, there are eleven whole sentences before I wrote that. Who wants to read a tome like that, so I guess it's unsurprising you didn't make it that far. I guess I need to work on my concision, eh?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoWell, first, throwaway kind of deserves the snark, but you're descending to the same level, which is not ideal. Second: I think there's a difference between an article being a video, and a reply being a video. An article that's a video you can just skip, just like you can an article that's on a subject that you're not interested in. (Even there, though, it's kind of annoying: We use domain name to decide how trustworthy the article is, and what kind of bias it has. Well, youtube.com doesn't tell us anything.) But a reply is part of a conversation. A video totally destroys that dynamic. No, I am not going to follow your link to spend an unknown amount of time watching a video from an unknown source just to try to figure out what your point is. Tell me, or be ignored. Video replies pretty much don't exist for me. I don't care how compelling you think the evidence is, you failed to convince me, because you couldn't tell me. ("You" meaning "people who post links to videos", not the parent.) There is a place for videos in replies: To answer questions like "Where did he/she say that?" "Why, here, in this CNN interview, about the 14:40 mark." That's perfectly valid. Other than that kind of use, though, no.
- nobody9999 5y ago>Well, first, throwaway kind of deserves the snark, but you're descending to the same level, which is not ideal. You're right on both counts, IMHO. I did consider just ignoring it, but I guess I'm a little cranky today. My bad. As for the rest of your comment, I couldn't agree more. In fact once I read it, to butcher an old joke[0], I thought it would have been better if your comment was the "Tell HN" post and mine was the comment. [0] http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/367478_a-musician-of-more-ambition-than-talent-composed-an-elegy-at-the-death-of-composer-edward-macdowell.html http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/3674...
- riidom 5y agoI also rarely click videos. Even less often, I include video links in my own comments. But the next time I do, I am going to include a timestamp for the relevant part. And if this isn't possible (because all 40mins of talk are 'relevant') - then I don't wanna post it anymore. And of course I wish everyone would do like that, but then, it's internet.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoAgreed. I hate videos as part of discussions too. They tend to be a really ineffective method to explain something because they are tailored to the shortest possible follower. Written consent is much more easily absorbed at one's own speed. Also in video the ads/spam ("by the way look at this from our sponsor") are much more easily ignored. I hate people replying to IMs with voice messages anyway. Even a call is better than that :)