4 ms·
Ugh I hate the "obviously padding time with rambling to meet X minutes long" where X = some arbitrary number the YouTube algorithm is prioritizing this quarter.
by I_Am_Nous 3y ago
Ugh I hate the "obviously padding time with rambling to meet X minutes long" where X = some arbitrary number the YouTube algorithm is prioritizing this quarter. Some things are worth a deep dive with pitfalls laid out in a methodical way. Most things are not.
- yogurthewise 3y agoJust skip to the main part of the video and watch on 2x then.
- seabrookmx 3y ago> X = some arbitrary number the YouTube algorithm is prioritizing This thing about video length is mostly a myth. "The algorithm" juggles many variables but I've seen no evidence content length is one of them. There was a very common pattern of rambling to meet the 10m mark because this was a threshold to add a midroll ad to your video and thus make more money. So your point still applies, it's just purely out of creator greed and not chasing youtube's heuristics.
- jezzamon 3y agoI believe creators get paid by watch time, so they are incentivised to make videos as long as possible
- seabrookmx 3y agoIf the algorithm preferred long videos, you'd be better off with one 10m video as opposed to two 5m videos as it would be pushed harder. Whereas if it was agnostic to video length, the latter would be OK. Regardless, you're correct that watch time may be a motivating factor in making them stretch content longer than it needs to be though. I don't think they get paid for watch time (it's all about ad impressions or CPMs) but it would positively impact their channel statistics.
- jezzamon 3y agoAh you're right. There was a change a while ago that did seem to favour creators that made longer videos over shorter ones, but it's not as cut and dry as watch time = more money