4 ms·

this is sad because youtube is and always has been extremely resistant to public pressure. it doesn’t matter how much people complain, this is going to happen.

this is sad because youtube is and always has been extremely resistant to public pressure. it doesn’t matter how much people complain, this is going to happen. same for removing dislikes to protect corporations from negative press, same for every piss-poor UI redesign, same for hiding viewer totals, same for desperately trying to copy tiktok tangentially, there is one lesson content providers need to learn from tiktok. listen up, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and Youtube, and no doubt soon Twitter: Improve. Your. Algorithm. you do not need twist your content into a copycat format, like a teenage girl following fashion trends. tiktok is successful because it has an incredibly effective algorithm. that’s it. it’s no more complex than that it’s insane to me that these platforms with masses of content freely available to them are so delighted to jump straight to abandoning all of that and cloning another app. just use the content that is already there, but show it to me better I regularly go to my youtube recommended feed. what do I see? 5 videos I’ve already watched. 4 videos I’ve passed up on watching countless times. 3 videos I have no interest in, and maybe 1 that I might consider watching. why? because youtube’s algorithm is awful. the solution to this is not for them to pivot to stupid information bytes, but for them to make a better damn algorithm

logicalmonster 4y ago
> the solution to this is not for them to pivot to stupid information bytes, but for them to make a better damn algorithm Keep in mind that the best algorithm is always the human mind. People know what they like and that makes them happy. If you're following creators X, Y, and Z, you don't need a fancy algorithm to expose their videos to their followers, you just a place to show their videos in the order published. Better YouTube algorithms might help in some cases like discovery of totally new channels and creators that people might be interested in. YouTube should go nuts and do whatever crazy experiments they want on some recommendations page. But the solution of trying to dictate precisely what users see all of the time through making the entire site a big algorithm-festival will always be suboptimial.
- hedora 4y ago
  If only there were a podcasts application for video. RSS, etc surely support such things, right?
Guidii 4y ago
> 5 videos I’ve already watched Are you signed in and/or using the same device?
- barbazoo 4y ago
  Not OP but I get tons of videos I've already watched. It's funny how terrible their recommendations are at this point :)
execveat 4y ago
To be fair, HN commenters probably all have opted out of the Personalized Ads. Have you done it, by the way?
- permo-w 4y ago
  yes I have, but what has this got to do with it?
techdmn 4y ago
No need to denigrate teenage girls.
parkingrift 4y ago
> Improve. Your. Algorithm. These established sites are now designed to show you content most profitable to them, not the content you’re most likely to like. This is why YouTube will endlessly recommend news videos to me. I’ve never watched a news video on YouTube, and any time I see it on my “Home Screen” I flag it as “Don’t show me this.” Is the algorithm comically idiotic? No, it’s trying to shove profitable (for them) content down my throat. These platforms are fundamentally broken and we’re just waiting around for the actual implosion.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
>this is sad because youtube is and always has been extremely resistant to public pressure. it doesn’t matter how much people complain, this is going to happen. Well of course they are. YouTube isn't a public utility. And we aren't its customers, we're its product. I think Instagram, youtube, and even a couple of porn sites have realized that they get really good engagement out of their product (users) with shorts and that's why they're doing it. HN folks are not the target demographic, and we're a tiny minority, so they don't care what we think, even if we're justifiably annoyed. I'd love to see a better algorithm on youtube too, but that's not their priority.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Surely as a paid subscriber I am a customer?
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Lol you poor thing. No, you pay for the privilege of propping up Google's revenue. They'll still track everything you do and sell that to advertisers.
Aunche 4y ago
>same for removing dislikes to protect corporations from negative press I like how the internet accepts this as a fact, despite there being zero evidence for this. It doesn't matter that corporations were historically a lot less likely to hide dislikes than independent creators. It doesn't matter that corporations that get a lot of dislikes aren't ones that that advertise much on Youtube (e.g. CNN), so they wouldn't have any leverage. It doesn't matter if they threatened to stop advertising, they'd hurt themselves as much as they'd hurt Google because the existence of the dislike button doesn't make ads any less valuable. What matters is that Google is a big corporation, and big corporations are all friends with each other. People, think this sort of vague outrage towards "the elite" is productive, but ironically it just screws them over. Any sleazy politician or cryto influencer can peddle the same vague outrage to easily amass support.
- rfrey 4y ago
  What's your explanation, then? The "protect advertisers" theory wasn't just born out of outrage IMO, it's also the simplest explanation.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    > it's also the simplest explanation Care to address all the reasons why I described this is unlikely? > What's your explanation, then? The simplest explanation is their official one that they want to protect smaller creators from brigading. The simplest cynical explanation is that they noticed from A/B tests that hiding dislikes increases user retention, which is more profitable for them. It's likely a mix of both.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    IIRC that decision was made shortly after Wojcicki (YT chief at the time) posted a video that got some incredibly huge quantity of dislikes vs likes, and/or Biden had the same issue. Don't recall the exact timeline. Dislikes disappeared shortly afterwards. Seems more likely it was in response to powerful people being upset at being disliked than commercial imperatives.
- throwuwu 4y ago
throwuwu 4y ago
If they bring back the old algo then they’ll summon he who must not be named again and democracy dies.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> the solution to this is not for them to pivot to stupid information bytes, but for them to make a better damn algorithm Keep in mind that the best algorithm is always the human mind. People know what they like and that makes them happy. If you're following creators X, Y, and Z, you don't need a fancy algorithm to expose their videos to their followers, you just a place to show their videos in the order published. Better YouTube algorithms might help in some cases like discovery of totally new channels and creators that people might be interested in. YouTube should go nuts and do whatever crazy experiments they want on some recommendations page. But the solution of trying to dictate precisely what users see all of the time through making the entire site a big algorithm-festival will always be suboptimial.

hedora 4y ago
If only there were a podcasts application for video. RSS, etc surely support such things, right?

Guidii 4y ago

> 5 videos I’ve already watched Are you signed in and/or using the same device?

barbazoo 4y ago
Not OP but I get tons of videos I've already watched. It's funny how terrible their recommendations are at this point :)

execveat 4y ago

To be fair, HN commenters probably all have opted out of the Personalized Ads. Have you done it, by the way?

permo-w 4y ago
yes I have, but what has this got to do with it?

techdmn 4y ago

No need to denigrate teenage girls.

parkingrift 4y ago

> Improve. Your. Algorithm. These established sites are now designed to show you content most profitable to them, not the content you’re most likely to like. This is why YouTube will endlessly recommend news videos to me. I’ve never watched a news video on YouTube, and any time I see it on my “Home Screen” I flag it as “Don’t show me this.” Is the algorithm comically idiotic? No, it’s trying to shove profitable (for them) content down my throat. These platforms are fundamentally broken and we’re just waiting around for the actual implosion.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

>this is sad because youtube is and always has been extremely resistant to public pressure. it doesn’t matter how much people complain, this is going to happen. Well of course they are. YouTube isn't a public utility. And we aren't its customers, we're its product. I think Instagram, youtube, and even a couple of porn sites have realized that they get really good engagement out of their product (users) with shorts and that's why they're doing it. HN folks are not the target demographic, and we're a tiny minority, so they don't care what we think, even if we're justifiably annoyed. I'd love to see a better algorithm on youtube too, but that's not their priority.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Surely as a paid subscriber I am a customer?
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Lol you poor thing. No, you pay for the privilege of propping up Google's revenue. They'll still track everything you do and sell that to advertisers.

Aunche 4y ago

>same for removing dislikes to protect corporations from negative press I like how the internet accepts this as a fact, despite there being zero evidence for this. It doesn't matter that corporations were historically a lot less likely to hide dislikes than independent creators. It doesn't matter that corporations that get a lot of dislikes aren't ones that that advertise much on Youtube (e.g. CNN), so they wouldn't have any leverage. It doesn't matter if they threatened to stop advertising, they'd hurt themselves as much as they'd hurt Google because the existence of the dislike button doesn't make ads any less valuable. What matters is that Google is a big corporation, and big corporations are all friends with each other. People, think this sort of vague outrage towards "the elite" is productive, but ironically it just screws them over. Any sleazy politician or cryto influencer can peddle the same vague outrage to easily amass support.

rfrey 4y ago
What's your explanation, then? The "protect advertisers" theory wasn't just born out of outrage IMO, it's also the simplest explanation.
- Aunche 4y ago
  > it's also the simplest explanation Care to address all the reasons why I described this is unlikely? > What's your explanation, then? The simplest explanation is their official one that they want to protect smaller creators from brigading. The simplest cynical explanation is that they noticed from A/B tests that hiding dislikes increases user retention, which is more profitable for them. It's likely a mix of both.
- origin_path 4y ago
  IIRC that decision was made shortly after Wojcicki (YT chief at the time) posted a video that got some incredibly huge quantity of dislikes vs likes, and/or Biden had the same issue. Don't recall the exact timeline. Dislikes disappeared shortly afterwards. Seems more likely it was in response to powerful people being upset at being disliked than commercial imperatives.
throwuwu 4y ago

throwuwu 4y ago

If they bring back the old algo then they’ll summon he who must not be named again and democracy dies.