38 ms·

While I appreciate the sentiment and agree with his point of view, his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why

by lysol 14y ago

While I appreciate the sentiment and agree with his point of view, his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why these changes or wrong -- it just smacks of the same old 'Everything that's new sucks' sentiment that I can and do find on IRC every day already. Leave the analyses to the real UX folks.

libraryatnight 14y ago
I don't think it's meant to be an in depth critique, it's his feedback as a user. He doesn't need to be a design expert or UX expert to know that as a user something is annoying. The real UX folks should be listening to users, they don't have to agree or implement everything said, but they should be listening. The point seems to be don't rob people of functionality they've come to expect just to push sign-ups.
- huggyface 14y ago
  I don't think it's meant to be an in depth critique, it's his feedback as a user. It sounds like it's more his feedback as a creator, worried about what the functionality will do to users. But, you know, those are the breaks when you sharecrop on someone else's land: they retain the right to change things for their own benefit. Still don't quite understand the complaint, though. You've long needed a Google account to give feedback on YouTube. Now they call those accounts G+ accounts (just as Hotmail accounts became Live accounts, etc). What's the problem? sidenote -- gah, accidentally downvoted you when I was trying to select text. Apologies.
  - libraryatnight 14y ago
    When I read his blog post I assumed he has a YouTube account that is not linked to his Google account. You can unlink them[1]. It's also possible to have an account with Google without being on G+. My understanding of his complaint is that he was signed in to youtube, which is why it's billed as an 'upgrade.' He should be able to easily use YouTube with a YouTube account. I think that's where the complaint comes in, it's not just calling the account something different, it's making things more difficult for those who might want to keep some things separate. That doesn't make your points any less true, but I at least think I understand the complaint. edit: also no worries on the downvote ;) [1]http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=183819 http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...
ryanmolden 14y ago
UX folks? This is an actual end user expressing strong dislike of something and explaining why. That should have much more weight than "UX folks", unless it is a rare piece of dissat in otherwise glowing feedback, though I doubt it. I have a Google+ account but I would not sign in (or up for one) just to rate a video, I would just say "meh" and wander off elsewhere on the internet. I doubt that would be an uncommon reaction and would change the meaning of the up/down votes from "What do most people think of this video" to "What do Google+ users think of this video". Those are two very different metrics.
mullr 14y ago
The main reason he gives is that it increases the barrier to entry for liking a video, which is important for many content creators. (like him) This seems concrete and significant. I don't agree however with his assessment of this changing the funding equation for people getting production funded. As long as the change applies globally, everyone should feel the hit equally and it they should be able to correct for it.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  It won't hit people equally, though. It will hit people who have viewers who are signup-averse harder. Kids watching lolcats tend to be much more willing to sign up to anything so they can post their roflcopter than technically minded adults with interesting things to say. Guess which market Wheaton is going after?
iamgilesbowkett 14y ago
"While I appreciate the sentiment and agree with his point of view, his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why these changes [are] wrong" what you said is literally false. here's his in-depth critique: "I’m going to lose a crapton of potential upvotes for Tabletop, because the core of my audience is tech-savvy and may not want to “upgrade” to yet another fucking social network they don’t want or need... Those upvotes are incredibly important to us, because we need them to earn another season of our show... [this] will negatively affect how users can interact with us on YouTube." translation: "we might lose the ability to do our show, because this G+ +1 button introduces friction and a sign-up process we don't expect our users will bother to complete."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- TomGullen 14y ago
  > translation: "we might lose the ability to do our show, because this G+ +1 button introduces friction and a sign-up process we don't expect our users will bother to complete." Yeah, but he misses the next step in logical thinking which is that the changes will apply to everyone. This new button is for everyone, which means everyone will get less votes which means less are needed for him to continue to run the show.
  - erichocean 14y ago
    Everyone will get less votes in different proportions, based on their audience. It's not a linear adjustment for everyone.
    - TomGullen 14y ago
      Of course, but I imagine the proportional increase/decrease will probably be the same with the people he's competing with. That's not the point the author is arguing anyway.
  - iamgilesbowkett 14y ago
OzzyB 14y ago
Okay I'll bite: Look at where that G+ button is. It's big, its first, and it combines, as-one, an already existing feature -- the "Like" button. The G+ button isn't optionial, placed in a "secondary" position (i.e. to the right), or a single feature/choice. That's probably why users are getting upset with this, UX background or not.
mistercow 14y ago
> his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why these changes or wrong Well it's good that in addition to "go fuck yourself", he offered an in-depth critique of why these changes are wrong. I guess maybe you stopped reading before that? > Leave the analyses to the real UX folks. Whoa now, hold on just a goddamned minute. What "real UX folks" say only holds weight insofar as it accurately pertains to the interaction and communication of producers and consumers. When content producers say "This change breaks an important connection to our users", then "UX folks" had better listen good and hard.
ww520 14y ago
That's his express of strong emotion, which is a very important data point for UX. Emotion trumps cool analytic fact in any day for UX. When a user is extremely annoyed, you change you UI/UX.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  "Emotion trumps cool analytic fact in any day for UX." Uh, no, it doesn't, at least not at any responsible software project I've worked on. The whole reason you run experiments, A/B testing, etc is so that this doesn't happen.
abeh 14y ago
Does not seem like a UX issue, but rather a business decision.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by lysol 14y ago

libraryatnight 14y ago

I don't think it's meant to be an in depth critique, it's his feedback as a user. He doesn't need to be a design expert or UX expert to know that as a user something is annoying. The real UX folks should be listening to users, they don't have to agree or implement everything said, but they should be listening. The point seems to be don't rob people of functionality they've come to expect just to push sign-ups.

huggyface 14y ago
I don't think it's meant to be an in depth critique, it's his feedback as a user. It sounds like it's more his feedback as a creator, worried about what the functionality will do to users. But, you know, those are the breaks when you sharecrop on someone else's land: they retain the right to change things for their own benefit. Still don't quite understand the complaint, though. You've long needed a Google account to give feedback on YouTube. Now they call those accounts G+ accounts (just as Hotmail accounts became Live accounts, etc). What's the problem? sidenote -- gah, accidentally downvoted you when I was trying to select text. Apologies.
- libraryatnight 14y ago
  When I read his blog post I assumed he has a YouTube account that is not linked to his Google account. You can unlink them[1]. It's also possible to have an account with Google without being on G+. My understanding of his complaint is that he was signed in to youtube, which is why it's billed as an 'upgrade.' He should be able to easily use YouTube with a YouTube account. I think that's where the complaint comes in, it's not just calling the account something different, it's making things more difficult for those who might want to keep some things separate. That doesn't make your points any less true, but I at least think I understand the complaint. edit: also no worries on the downvote ;) [1]http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=183819 http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...

ryanmolden 14y ago

UX folks? This is an actual end user expressing strong dislike of something and explaining why. That should have much more weight than "UX folks", unless it is a rare piece of dissat in otherwise glowing feedback, though I doubt it. I have a Google+ account but I would not sign in (or up for one) just to rate a video, I would just say "meh" and wander off elsewhere on the internet. I doubt that would be an uncommon reaction and would change the meaning of the up/down votes from "What do most people think of this video" to "What do Google+ users think of this video". Those are two very different metrics.

mullr 14y ago

The main reason he gives is that it increases the barrier to entry for liking a video, which is important for many content creators. (like him) This seems concrete and significant. I don't agree however with his assessment of this changing the funding equation for people getting production funded. As long as the change applies globally, everyone should feel the hit equally and it they should be able to correct for it.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
It won't hit people equally, though. It will hit people who have viewers who are signup-averse harder. Kids watching lolcats tend to be much more willing to sign up to anything so they can post their roflcopter than technically minded adults with interesting things to say. Guess which market Wheaton is going after?

iamgilesbowkett 14y ago

"While I appreciate the sentiment and agree with his point of view, his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why these changes [are] wrong" what you said is literally false. here's his in-depth critique: "I’m going to lose a crapton of potential upvotes for Tabletop, because the core of my audience is tech-savvy and may not want to “upgrade” to yet another fucking social network they don’t want or need... Those upvotes are incredibly important to us, because we need them to earn another season of our show... [this] will negatively affect how users can interact with us on YouTube." translation: "we might lose the ability to do our show, because this G+ +1 button introduces friction and a sign-up process we don't expect our users will bother to complete."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
TomGullen 14y ago
> translation: "we might lose the ability to do our show, because this G+ +1 button introduces friction and a sign-up process we don't expect our users will bother to complete." Yeah, but he misses the next step in logical thinking which is that the changes will apply to everyone. This new button is for everyone, which means everyone will get less votes which means less are needed for him to continue to run the show.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Everyone will get less votes in different proportions, based on their audience. It's not a linear adjustment for everyone.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    Of course, but I imagine the proportional increase/decrease will probably be the same with the people he's competing with. That's not the point the author is arguing anyway.
- iamgilesbowkett 14y ago

OzzyB 14y ago

Okay I'll bite: Look at where that G+ button is. It's big, its first, and it combines, as-one, an already existing feature -- the "Like" button. The G+ button isn't optionial, placed in a "secondary" position (i.e. to the right), or a single feature/choice. That's probably why users are getting upset with this, UX background or not.

mistercow 14y ago

> his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why these changes or wrong Well it's good that in addition to "go fuck yourself", he offered an in-depth critique of why these changes are wrong. I guess maybe you stopped reading before that? > Leave the analyses to the real UX folks. Whoa now, hold on just a goddamned minute. What "real UX folks" say only holds weight insofar as it accurately pertains to the interaction and communication of producers and consumers. When content producers say "This change breaks an important connection to our users", then "UX folks" had better listen good and hard.

ww520 14y ago

That's his express of strong emotion, which is a very important data point for UX. Emotion trumps cool analytic fact in any day for UX. When a user is extremely annoyed, you change you UI/UX.

tomkarlo 14y ago
"Emotion trumps cool analytic fact in any day for UX." Uh, no, it doesn't, at least not at any responsible software project I've worked on. The whole reason you run experiments, A/B testing, etc is so that this doesn't happen.

abeh 14y ago

Does not seem like a UX issue, but rather a business decision.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]