4 ms·

You’re making a lot of illogical counter arguments here. > Maybe I have a different understanding of how people use YT… You’re not disagreeing with my point t

You’re making a lot of illogical counter arguments here. > Maybe I have a different understanding of how people use YT… You’re not disagreeing with my point though. Just talking about it from the other end. But the point you’re making is the same as me: people don’t use YT because a specific content creator is on there. They use it because of the network effect. > Competitors don't really exist. Of course they do. There’s literally dozens of big videos sharing platforms. What you’re arguing is that there isn’t any platforms equivalent in size, which is true but that doesn’t mean that there are not competitors on the market. The problem isn’t a lack of competition, it’s the network effect. It’s the fact that most people watch YT, not $CREATOR who happens to also be on YT. > Once a large content creator leaves and demonstrates that it's a viable option, other content creators will follow. YT has already had large (millions of subs) creators leave their platform and it’s had little difference. Hence my point that people are not using YT for specific content creators. > Having more viewers than subscribers doesn't matter nearly as much as "the algorithm" and how many people get recommended a video. You’re making a straw man argument here because I wasn’t talking about the algorithm. I was talking about users. I was making the point that subscribers aren’t the full picture in terms of the number of viewers a creator might have. > People not logged in will not be recommended a flagged video, it will be unprioritized in search results too You’re making the assumption here that non-subscribed viewers aren’t logged in. That’s usually not the case. Lots of people will be logged in by default (because of GMail et al) but still not subscribing to every creator they enjoy. Example: I have subscribed to literally zero creators and still see everything you’re claiming I wouldn’t.

knaik94 4y ago
I see more clearly where you are coming from. I agree, we are looking at mostly the same conclusion from different perspectives. But "the algorithm" isn't a straw-man argument. I am saying viewers vs subscribers is a false dichotomy to care about. People at some point will stop going to Youtube when there is competition along with their favorite creators they actively watch. The main problem is competition. There are no viable competitors that feature match youtube in terms of feature richness and mobile experience. Having no effective competitors in size means Youtube doesn't need to do anything to keep content creators or users on its platform. People go to youtube because they know they will find something interesting. If there is another interesting site, they will start going to it as well and just go to both. The network effect is largely due to groups of creators on a platform. If you look at an example competing platform like Twitch, there are many people that just don't come to Youtube because their favorite group or individual creator does not livestream there. The number of people that watch Vods of previous live streams when it is later reuploaded to youtube show how few people convert between platforms. It's even more interesting what happens when a creator does switch. I have heard anecdotal stories that they don't get the same viewer base back, they mostly foster a new group of fans. It is especially hard to convert when they do an immediate switch due to contracts. The numbers on Twitch and Tiktok show they have a dedicated audience. Unfortunately those platforms aren't viable for long form content. When competition in a different space started and Youtube was behind, we saw how large Tiktok became. Youtube is still trying and partially failing with its shorts feature. If major creators leaving the platform doesn't effect youtube enough for it to change its poor policy, the overall experience will get worse on average for content creators and viewers. The content will become optimized to remove more and more adult oriented themes. That will cause a shift in the demographic. I didn't say content disappears, I said it becomes harder to find when it gets age restricted. It becomes deprioritized in search results and doesn't get recommended. I've even realized that if you don't search for the correctly spelled terms, Youtube will often refuse to autocorrect to age-restricted content in the results. Which I saw based on my tests with certain videos of mine and the accounts of my friends and family. It was multiple tests over 15 accounts. It does sometimes show up but it's becoming more and more rare. I am surprised you get recommended age restricted content, I don't despite subscribing to the creators and do get recommended their other videos.
- laumars 4y ago
  There have been plenty of video platforms with a great mobile experience that have gone under. And I’d argue that YTs mobile app isn’t even that good. You can’t make technical argument for why something gains traction. Most people don’t choose a platform because it’s technically better. > But "the algorithm" isn't a straw-man argument. I am saying viewers vs subscribers is a false dichotomy to care about. I called it a straw man argument because you were arguing against a point I wasn’t making (though it was a little harsh calling it that on my part because I think this is really just a misunderstanding) The point I was saying about viewers had nothing to do with algorithms nor anything else technical. It was just to remind people that the number of people on the platform is greater than the number of subscribers. So the network effect is larger than the figures suggest. Discussions about algorithms et al are interesting but not related.
  - knaik94 4y ago
    I think "the algorithm" is the only reason Youtube is popular at all. It's also the reason Tiktok became popular. "The algorithm" more than anything else explains both Youtube's popularity for long form content and its failure for short form vertical video content as well as livestreaming. "The algorithm" recommends new videos based on what you previously watched and that depends on creators emulating others and creating content in similar areas. "The algorithm" dictates not only what the viewer can find but also what creators will spend time making and what areas new creators will try out. It's hard to predict what new thing will become popular on Youtube but it is easy to predict when the performance of similar videos is so readily accessible. View count is the first thing anyone reads after the title and creator of a video by design.
    - laumars 4y ago
      That’s a fair point. :)

knaik94 4y ago

I see more clearly where you are coming from. I agree, we are looking at mostly the same conclusion from different perspectives. But "the algorithm" isn't a straw-man argument. I am saying viewers vs subscribers is a false dichotomy to care about. People at some point will stop going to Youtube when there is competition along with their favorite creators they actively watch. The main problem is competition. There are no viable competitors that feature match youtube in terms of feature richness and mobile experience. Having no effective competitors in size means Youtube doesn't need to do anything to keep content creators or users on its platform. People go to youtube because they know they will find something interesting. If there is another interesting site, they will start going to it as well and just go to both. The network effect is largely due to groups of creators on a platform. If you look at an example competing platform like Twitch, there are many people that just don't come to Youtube because their favorite group or individual creator does not livestream there. The number of people that watch Vods of previous live streams when it is later reuploaded to youtube show how few people convert between platforms. It's even more interesting what happens when a creator does switch. I have heard anecdotal stories that they don't get the same viewer base back, they mostly foster a new group of fans. It is especially hard to convert when they do an immediate switch due to contracts. The numbers on Twitch and Tiktok show they have a dedicated audience. Unfortunately those platforms aren't viable for long form content. When competition in a different space started and Youtube was behind, we saw how large Tiktok became. Youtube is still trying and partially failing with its shorts feature. If major creators leaving the platform doesn't effect youtube enough for it to change its poor policy, the overall experience will get worse on average for content creators and viewers. The content will become optimized to remove more and more adult oriented themes. That will cause a shift in the demographic. I didn't say content disappears, I said it becomes harder to find when it gets age restricted. It becomes deprioritized in search results and doesn't get recommended. I've even realized that if you don't search for the correctly spelled terms, Youtube will often refuse to autocorrect to age-restricted content in the results. Which I saw based on my tests with certain videos of mine and the accounts of my friends and family. It was multiple tests over 15 accounts. It does sometimes show up but it's becoming more and more rare. I am surprised you get recommended age restricted content, I don't despite subscribing to the creators and do get recommended their other videos.

laumars 4y ago
There have been plenty of video platforms with a great mobile experience that have gone under. And I’d argue that YTs mobile app isn’t even that good. You can’t make technical argument for why something gains traction. Most people don’t choose a platform because it’s technically better. > But "the algorithm" isn't a straw-man argument. I am saying viewers vs subscribers is a false dichotomy to care about. I called it a straw man argument because you were arguing against a point I wasn’t making (though it was a little harsh calling it that on my part because I think this is really just a misunderstanding) The point I was saying about viewers had nothing to do with algorithms nor anything else technical. It was just to remind people that the number of people on the platform is greater than the number of subscribers. So the network effect is larger than the figures suggest. Discussions about algorithms et al are interesting but not related.
- knaik94 4y ago
  I think "the algorithm" is the only reason Youtube is popular at all. It's also the reason Tiktok became popular. "The algorithm" more than anything else explains both Youtube's popularity for long form content and its failure for short form vertical video content as well as livestreaming. "The algorithm" recommends new videos based on what you previously watched and that depends on creators emulating others and creating content in similar areas. "The algorithm" dictates not only what the viewer can find but also what creators will spend time making and what areas new creators will try out. It's hard to predict what new thing will become popular on Youtube but it is easy to predict when the performance of similar videos is so readily accessible. View count is the first thing anyone reads after the title and creator of a video by design.
  - laumars 4y ago
    That’s a fair point. :)