Youtube should follow the same google recomandations as articles

[Zero3]

For those that don't know, google search engine "rewards" with first page suggestion those websites that have articles getting to the point, sticking to the point and that are broken down and segmented clearly so that you can find as easy as possible what you are looking for. In short, the better the user experience the more higher up you will be on it's recomandations.

Now move to videos on youtube, who are also owned by google and the focus isn't user experience anymore but more like minutes and seconds watched. How many times did you try and look up a question on youtube only to find 10 minute videos full of fluff just for a few seconds of a response? Or hell even gotten curious "through how many glass windows will an arrow go through" only to have to look for that answer in 15 minute videos full of other objects being thrown?

I am not saying that all videos should now be 1 minute long or less and just answer your question or scratch that curiosity itch, i am saying however that they should answer the question in the title of the video in the first minute and THEN add their fluff for those interested in more.

Would you like for google SEO recomandations for written articles to be the same for youtube videos?

[Yunru]

Download Channel blocker and filter shit that gets recomended to you. Youtube doesnt give a shit abauth creators that do that.
Its also designed in a way that 1 min videos dont realy make money (needs to be 10 min) and this forces content creators to increase the lenght of a video.

[Witchblade77]

youtube recommendations are bad enough already and they HAVE been forcing 1 minute videos no matter how often I curate my landing page and try to get rid of the channels that post them with exception of channels I already follow. youtube is trying to be ticktock and I just... do not want.

I want youtube to prioritize videos of the channels I subscribe to. I and I absolutely care more about them recommending me videos that are actualy relevant to my interests (whether its from new channels or the ones I subscribe to) than taking up space on my page with whatever nonsense is trending at any given moment.

[caractacus]

I know what you mean, like the previous comment, I have a blocker installed so I don't get recommendations or suggestions only what I have subscribed to. Still, if I want to search for some like "New mobile games" I get a load of videos that are clearly just commercial, over 10 mins long, and made by people that don't even play the games and are just regurgitating the flavour of the month. You just have to do your work search for quality content and subscribe to those channels. Remember if it's free then you are the commodity so you have to put some effort in to make it work for you.

[Rozz]

No, I'd prefer that the videos were curated by the viewers ( via comments, dislikes, and views) and my interests.

Youtube can be used to share and host information, but it is ultimately an entertainment platform. Having that sort of system would worsen the divide between content with low vs great effort.

[unfilteredJW]

No, I'd prefer that the videos were curated by the viewers ( via comments, dislikes, and views) and my interests.

Youtube can be used to share and host information, but it is ultimately an entertainment platform. Having that sort of system would worsen the divide between content with low vs great effort.

Oh you sweet, summer child.

[Elegiac]

No, I'd prefer that the videos were curated by the viewers ( via comments, dislikes, and views) and my interests.

So, basically worsening the existing rabbit hole problem that has helped radicalise people leading to a resurgence of fascism.

'Kay.

[Edge-]

So, basically worsening the existing rabbit hole problem that has helped radicalise people leading to a resurgence of fascism.

'Kay.

I mean, what's it supposed to do? Show you a ton of stuff you don't care about and won't want to watch?

This is the actual goal, delivering content that is relevant and interesting to users. I think it's pretty obvious Rozz didn't include extremists content in this, but I guess everyone is "the problem" unless they add every necessary qualification to their statement like, "...except for radical or hateful content or a dozen other things that I'm probably forgetting."

[caractacus]

I mean, what's it supposed to do? Show you a ton of stuff you don't care about and won't want to watch?

This is the actual goal, delivering content that is relevant and interesting to users. I think it's pretty obvious Rozz didn't include extremists content in this, but I guess everyone is "the problem" unless they add every necessary qualification to their statement like, "...except for radical or hateful content or a dozen other things that I'm probably forgetting."

Essentially this is correct and this would be a wonderful model in theory but it has one big flaw. Youtube only cares about what makes them the most add revenue, this leads to algorithms designed to keep you engaged for a long as possible.

Lets say you have two sides in some sort of conflict, side A and side B. The viewer takes an interest in side A so watches a video that favours that side. The Algorithm then says "hey this person likes side A, we need to recommend more videos but they need to be even more engaging" This usually means that the videos need to be more radical, more in favour of side A, often derogatory and attacking toward side B and often misinformed.

What you end up with is a system that for the viewer only endorses and increasingly advocates for one side of a perspective without challenging it. And for the content creator, encourages them to make increasing elaborate and exaggerating claims to get views.

[Daedius]

Would be nice... scrolling through the Short Video clips they're plague with bot accounts of Minecraft crap with 0 comments despite searching up Stand-up comedy.

Be nice if there was a filter to block them...

[Rozz]

Oh you sweet, summer child.

I'm saying this in reference to the death of many youtube animaters and the like compared to those disturbing youtube kids channels and 5-minute craft videos.
Short, low cost to make content is easier to mass-produce and the algorithm rewards its ease of consumption. But it doesn't really matter what I was referring to, it's true for most of channels on the platform not associated with large companies or the occasional Pewdiepie.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, what's it supposed to do? Show you a ton of stuff you don't care about and won't want to watch?

This is the actual goal, delivering content that is relevant and interesting to users. I think it's pretty obvious Rozz didn't include extremists content in this, but I guess everyone is "the problem" unless they add every necessary qualification to their statement like, "...except for radical or hateful content or a dozen other things that I'm probably forgetting."

This forum is literally this meme, don't sweat it and let them have fun. I just don't engage with it at this point

[Nihilist74]

It would be great if they could do this. I get sick of seeing videos that are labeled how Elon musk has already built a spaceship that goes faster than the speed of light.

[Endus]

Essentially this is correct and this would be a wonderful model in theory but it has one big flaw. Youtube only cares about what makes them the most add revenue, this leads to algorithms designed to keep you engaged for a long as possible.

Lets say you have two sides in some sort of conflict, side A and side B. The viewer takes an interest in side A so watches a video that favours that side. The Algorithm then says "hey this person likes side A, we need to recommend more videos but they need to be even more engaging" This usually means that the videos need to be more radical, more in favour of side A, often derogatory and attacking toward side B and often misinformed.

What you end up with is a system that for the viewer only endorses and increasingly advocates for one side of a perspective without challenging it. And for the content creator, encourages them to make increasing elaborate and exaggerating claims to get views.

The problem isn't, centrally, the recommendation algorithm. It's the lack of moderation over content that can be recommended. If Side B is a bunch of racist and factually false nonsense, it should be banned and cut from the service. It shouldn't exist to be recommended to and help in the radicalization of impressionable people.

The fundamental reality of letting everyone have their say is that it means you implicitly support the messaging of those people you platform. You provide them that platform to spread their message. It is not a neutral position, it's an abdication of responsibility. It's like a playground monitor saying they support all children, while ignoring that Billy and Tyler are holding Adam down and kicking him in the face repeatedly. That's not "neutral". That's supportive of Billy and Tyler's bullying. And worse, if we extend the metaphor, the monitor's directing people who want to go watch the kids beat up Adam so they can all get a good view. "Not taking sides" is taking a side, because you allow current abuses to continue; that's the side you're on.

Yes, in this case, the "playground monitor" is looking the other way because they're getting paid to. Which is worse. But it isn't the idea of directing people's interests that's the problem. It's allowing kids to beat up other kids and selling tickets to watch the abuse, in the first place. If that wasn't tolerated, if all the Billies and Tylers were kicked out and banned and potentially prosecuted criminally, the problems wouldn't exist.

Permission is endorsement. We've somehow lost sight of that simple fact.

[Zero3]

It seems my little rant mostly went towards the direction of personalized content. While that is all well and good and wish for it more to happen, i was ranting more about creators wasting time to stretch the timer to 10 minutes before getting to the point of the video. Here are two youtube videos i've found, both on different subjects that follow the way i prefer all youtube videos to be, conclusion/response/answer upfront and details after, to reach the video to 10 mins.

In this first example, the guy tells which ipad is best for which type of person, telling the direct conclusion 40-ish seconds in.
In this second example the dude rates the two services in the first 10 seconds.

I didn't have to listen to how their whole day went and "funny story" and whatever else just to find their thoughts and reasons (you can even read the comments on the second video about how shocked they are about a youtuber getting to the point lol).

[Witchblade77]

and I'm still weirded out that THIS is your complaint, years late. because in the last year at least youtube direction was to promote shorts as much as possible. because they want to be ticktock. to the point where almost every long form (and I mean long form as in 40 minutes or longer video essays, tutorials etc) channel that I follow started posting under 1 minute videos on their channel... that are either previews or snippets of their regular videos because THAT is what you have to do, to get promoted by youtube nowadays. and all I bloody want is videos that can be whatever length they need to be.

and no, you do NOT solve it by having algorithm prioritize specific video length, quite the opposite. take length entirely out of monetization equation. maybe letting people sort search results by length, I don't know, just being able to sort search results in general would be nice.

[Endus]

and no, you do NOT solve it by having algorithm prioritize specific video length, quite the opposite. take length entirely out of monetization equation. maybe letting people sort search results by length, I don't know, just being able to sort search results in general would be nice.

You kinda have to monetize by length to some degree, because otherwise, spamming short videos ends up more profitable than putting the work in for longer videos. It just needs to be proportional to length; a 30-second video with 100,000 views should pay the creator 1/10th the amount of a 5-minute video with the same view count. Since the latter's 10 times longer. Monetization based on views/minute of content, basically, so the only reason to prefer a given length is if it pulls in more viewers.

[Witchblade77]

You kinda have to monetize by length to some degree, because otherwise, spamming short videos ends up more profitable than putting the work in for longer videos. It just needs to be proportional to length; a 30-second video with 100,000 views should pay the creator 1/10th the amount of a 5-minute video with the same view count. Since the latter's 10 times longer. Monetization based on views/minute of content, basically, so the only reason to prefer a given length is if it pulls in more viewers.

have you watched youtube on the phone recently? not every channel does this, but multiple channels I watched on it - did and it literally made me want to delete the app from my phone so that I'm not even tempted to fire it up again.

every. damn. MINUTE there would be an ad. it was impossible to watch or do anything. At one point I was trying to follow, of all things, a stretching routine and there was an ad after each. and every. STRETCH.

whether the video is 5 minutes or 55 - youtube lets you monetize to a degree that is obscene - already. not to mention.. becasue of how much youtube promotes shorts right now - making 30 second to a minute videos is already more profitable then longer form videos. what you are suggesting is just going to create a lot more videos that are padded solely to get the extra AdSense money, and its exactly what OP is complaining about. so we are back to square one. "only let people have 1, maybe two adds per vid?" you say? are we still doing "short videos get less money for the same add" deal - you get padding that way. limit how many adds you can put in a video, but without limiting payout? we have what we have right now, with majority of creators jumping on youtube shorts bandwagon.

to be honest, I don't know how to solve this other then letting people sort their search results. as long as you have paychecks involved, people will find the most optimal way to get their paycheck and prioritize that when making their videos. even people who create most of their content to be high quality in a way that they would prefer to do. because at this point video creation is a full time job for many MANY people. (and if you take monetarization OUT of the picture entirely, a lot of higher quality channels will basically die/move on elsewhere, leaving only lower effort messing around stuff behind. which might not necessarily be a bad thing, unless you are using youtube for means other then pure entertainment)

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't think I have ever seen a situation where people who only associated with who they wanted to and never who they don't leading to conflict, most of the time it's the opposite. I really can't be bothered with why someone believes the Earth is flat. I don't want to know, better yet, I don't want to live around them or have any real interactions with such individuals ever.

I do realize though in our structure in society it's better professionally and academically confront conflict and disagreement. The problem is however when that encroaches on every facet of life. People need their down time and personal time segregated from people who's values are simply not shared. Which is why I have always found that on the another side of that saying "I'm socially Liberal but fiscally Conservative a load of shit."

Some people encounter conflict through no fault of anyone, and others on the other hand do not. If Youtube is doing what they can like many other online communities to people according to whom they want to engage in socially, GREAT! Again nobody really needs to hear everyone's fucking opinion on everything and give it a full hearing. In court sure, but online when you're relaxing, nah!

[Yunru]

Fun thing, but youtube right now is totaly un-useable. (checked in 3 different browers to be sure its not from my side and its also reported on is it down sites)

[Xjev]

They need to extend the video for more than 10 minutes or so for Ad revenue. Thats why they repeat the question, or go off topic before answering the premise of the title of the video. A 30 second "to the point" video wont do any good for publisher. See how to the point and short my answer is, hope you enjoyed it.