3 ms·

> I guess it is a complete coincidence that popular "we are now hacker news" thread appeared on 4chan and four posts against real name policy on Youtube are now

by onli 13y ago

> I guess it is a complete coincidence that popular "we are now hacker news" thread appeared on 4chan and four posts against real name policy on Youtube are now on the front page of HN. All submitted within 24 hours. /s Possible. But on the other hand, that topic was a relevant topic here the last days anyway. > Is the bit about 80 n-words in a comment relevant? Yes, it is. Not alone, but given the argumentation that Youtube-comments did get even worse because of this change. Note, I can't judge that, Youtube isn't working for me atm. But she shows the argumenation and combines it with Youtubers leaving the plattform, at least for commenting. Failing even basic spamblock-checks is relevant and surprising (especially for Google, as Gmails spamfilter is great). > Put in perspective, this is absolutely nothing Wouldn't say that. Even if it's a small but vocal technically minded minority complaining: Ignoring those is not a good idea for a tech-company in for the long run. Look at Microsoft…

vdaniuk 13y ago
>Yes, it is. Not alone, but given the argumentation that Youtube-comments did get even worse because of this change. No, it is not. You cant cherry pick examples to prove your point. To argue that Youtube comments did get worse by supplying a single(10,100,10000) data point(s) is preposterous. One should do a comprehensive scraping of comments for many videos and many countries and many categories, analyze for quality and compare with previous data(without Google+ integration). Then you have a solid foundation for making conclusions. Anything else is just verturing into fantasy land.
- onli 13y ago
  This is not a scientific journal… Sure, we could use those principles for everything, but I doubt it is necessary here. To look at the opinion of the people hosting those channels, who are directly in contact with those comments, and to observe their reaction and base a first conclusion on that, is perfectly fine for me.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    Well, obviously we have very different criteria for judging arguments and data.
    - onli 13y ago
      Seems that way :) I think I should try to make that clear: I think that the article is fine. And I think it is alright to base a first conclusion on the reactions of the top-channels, and to report about those reactions given the context. The example given is just an example, and doesn't claim to be more, but it is a convincing one, especially combined with the other reports claiming the same thing: That the promotion of discussed=controversial=trolly comments on this G+ inclusion, as it seems to work now, is a bad thing for Youtube comments. And isn't it true that Google did say they will try to improve that? Could be taken as an additional point going for that observation. Note that I agree that this is not final - to be totally convinced about the topic, we have indeed to look at more data (and give it more time). Maybe Google will provide an argumentation following that. Though this is a hard problem to analyze objectively anyway, the subjective impression is what matters. PS: I don't think your argumentation warrants downvotes!
      - vdaniuk 13y ago
        We won't be able to find any common ground on this matter. I belive that subjective impression of random journalists or channel owners doesn't matter at all. So we'll agree to disagree.
        onli 13y ago
        > So we'll agree to disagree Agreed. And for that part, we can leave it at that. But… This comment thread starts to get a bit too deep, but I have one more thing to discuss I think is interesting: How would you measure the issue? Well, because you said you would like to get a data foundation and then measure the quality - compared to my position, that it is a subjective impression anyway and therefore perfectly fine to base reports on the subjective impression of visible people using the system. I even agree that it would be nice to have that data foundation. But how to do it that way? In my opinion, one can't simply measure length. Even swearwords are only a possible, but not a sufficient factor for spam. My first idea was to measure the use of the spam-button, but given that the G+-Inclusion might change the basis for that heavily (Comments lived on G+ before, where the circles change the dynamic), that might not be a fair comparison. So where do you see the possiblity to get that objective foundation for your line of reasoning?

by onli 13y ago

vdaniuk 13y ago

>Yes, it is. Not alone, but given the argumentation that Youtube-comments did get even worse because of this change. No, it is not. You cant cherry pick examples to prove your point. To argue that Youtube comments did get worse by supplying a single(10,100,10000) data point(s) is preposterous. One should do a comprehensive scraping of comments for many videos and many countries and many categories, analyze for quality and compare with previous data(without Google+ integration). Then you have a solid foundation for making conclusions. Anything else is just verturing into fantasy land.

onli 13y ago
This is not a scientific journal… Sure, we could use those principles for everything, but I doubt it is necessary here. To look at the opinion of the people hosting those channels, who are directly in contact with those comments, and to observe their reaction and base a first conclusion on that, is perfectly fine for me.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Well, obviously we have very different criteria for judging arguments and data.
  - onli 13y ago
    Seems that way :) I think I should try to make that clear: I think that the article is fine. And I think it is alright to base a first conclusion on the reactions of the top-channels, and to report about those reactions given the context. The example given is just an example, and doesn't claim to be more, but it is a convincing one, especially combined with the other reports claiming the same thing: That the promotion of discussed=controversial=trolly comments on this G+ inclusion, as it seems to work now, is a bad thing for Youtube comments. And isn't it true that Google did say they will try to improve that? Could be taken as an additional point going for that observation. Note that I agree that this is not final - to be totally convinced about the topic, we have indeed to look at more data (and give it more time). Maybe Google will provide an argumentation following that. Though this is a hard problem to analyze objectively anyway, the subjective impression is what matters. PS: I don't think your argumentation warrants downvotes!
    - vdaniuk 13y ago
      We won't be able to find any common ground on this matter. I belive that subjective impression of random journalists or channel owners doesn't matter at all. So we'll agree to disagree.
      - onli 13y ago
        > So we'll agree to disagree Agreed. And for that part, we can leave it at that. But… This comment thread starts to get a bit too deep, but I have one more thing to discuss I think is interesting: How would you measure the issue? Well, because you said you would like to get a data foundation and then measure the quality - compared to my position, that it is a subjective impression anyway and therefore perfectly fine to base reports on the subjective impression of visible people using the system. I even agree that it would be nice to have that data foundation. But how to do it that way? In my opinion, one can't simply measure length. Even swearwords are only a possible, but not a sufficient factor for spam. My first idea was to measure the use of the spam-button, but given that the G+-Inclusion might change the basis for that heavily (Comments lived on G+ before, where the circles change the dynamic), that might not be a fair comparison. So where do you see the possiblity to get that objective foundation for your line of reasoning?