[HN Gopher] The Next Chapter for Learning on YouTube
___________________________________________________________________
The Next Chapter for Learning on YouTube
Author : nassimsoftware
Score : 170 points
Date : 2022-09-09 19:25 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.youtube)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.youtube)
| [deleted]
| iamcurious wrote:
| Should YouTubers hop on board of this? Or is the safest bet to
| assume Google will cancel it?
| ugh123 wrote:
| I'm pessimistic on their approach to "qualified creators" and
| what measure or qualifications they use to determine that.
|
| Theres no shortage of quacks, frauds, and fakers ready to "teach"
| you all they [don't] know on a subject, or worse: spread
| misinformation in the form of structured "educational" content.
|
| Just take a look at LinkedIn these days...
| w10-1 wrote:
| This announcement just confuses things. Is it just to warn edtech
| companies that Google is muscling its way in?
|
| The business model is unclear. There are no ads, so any income
| comes from more direct revenue sharing or user fees? If the
| teaching site embeds the video, what does google get?
|
| The technical model is unclear. This is only to watch embedded in
| a frame on the creator site, and not on youtube? Yet, google
| wants to control the community tab and do quizzes? It sounds like
| Google wants to own the entire interaction.
|
| It's unclear how or when to get started, and who this is relevant
| for. Who is qualified? Who do you contact?
|
| It violates the first rule of youtube: say it in seconds.
|
| And it's written as if the author/director is himself a creator,
| complete with personal anecdote about his kids. Must we present
| ourselves as such even for business communications?
|
| I suspect my expectations of google announcements are dated.
| djaychela wrote:
| I produce Music Tech-based educational content on YT. It started
| as a hobby and sideline to my main work (which at the time was
| classroom teaching of the same content). While I'm no longer
| working in classrooms (pandemic plus other reasons led to this),
| I'm still producing content, which I think is of good quality and
| worthwhile.
|
| The issue I have with it is that I refuse to produce attention-
| grabbing clickbaity titles or thumbnails. I don't like the whole
| algorithmically-driven race to the bottom of the brain stem, and
| have zero interest in producing the same. I've had plenty of
| comments from viewers who say the videos are great and
| informative, but if I'd just jazz things up a bit then I'd get
| more views.
|
| I'm just wondering how this will change (if at all) with this new
| program. It takes a LOT of time to produce decent content, and
| even more if you're going to provide a course and backup
| materials etc.. Writing curricula is HARD work, and writing
| tests, etc., that are actually valid is reasonably challenging
| and time consuming.
|
| I currently get about PS100 a month from YT, which definitely
| doesn't reflect the time I put into it (but I know it has other
| benefits as I sell a fair number of books partly as a result of
| the viewership). I know that the beasts of the platform (3b1b
| spring to mind) would do really well from this (and deservedly
| so), but I do wonder if things really need to change to make YT
| work well for genuinely-produced non-clickbait educational
| content.
| movedx wrote:
| I'm a creator too. I'm small on YouTube (3,880 subs; 6.4k views
| and about 293 hours watched in the last 28 days), but have a
| (relatively speaking) large Discord with 3,800 members. I have
| a mailing list of about 1,600. My goal and focus is to sell,
| but it's to sell a big package around the idea of IT education.
| I want to sell to people who want the interaction and
| community, not just the knowledge dump.
|
| And I'm the same. I won't do the over-the-top, hyped up
| character who uses the latest trends to grab your attention,
| like some sort of hollowed out clown that has no real joy in
| the middle.
|
| Instead, I just focus on writing my online courses, mentoring
| people, and building a community. If you're interested in the
| same thing, and I can help, reach out :-)
| arjvik wrote:
| Wow, nearly 100% of your subs participate in your community?
| That's amazing.
| kyleee wrote:
| that's not necessarily implied, the sets may overlap
| minimally
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Hey 3880 subs is pretty good. I'm still on 241. haha. It
| actually takes a lot of effort to get past 1000 subs/5000
| watch hours, which is the minimum for monetization.
| tolmasky wrote:
| You should put a link to your stuff in your Hacker New profile.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| This reminds me of a saying I've heard from Dean Graziosi
| (sales type guy).
|
| "Sell them what they want, give them what they need".
|
| I also dislike this whole game where you have to essentially
| mould yourself into this "mainstream click-baity character",
| but part of me recognises that if your goal is to sell, then
| you'd be wise to spend time on presenting your content in a way
| that is at least initially attention grabbing.
|
| One way to think of it is - you owe it to your audience to save
| them from worse educational experiences, and the only way to
| save them is to try to rank higher than these other more click-
| baity low-value videos.
| klabb3 wrote:
| > but part of me recognises that if your goal is to _sell_ ,
| then you'd be wise to spend time on presenting your content
| in a way that is at least initially attention grabbing.
|
| The issue is, I think, exactly that everyone must be at least
| partially a salesman to get ahead. Is this what we want? Is
| there a way for YouTube to compensate for clickbaity titles
| and thumbnails? Are they incentivized to do so?
|
| Thinking back at teachers and teaching that I really liked,
| they aren't always the best salesmen, but they're always very
| good communicators, and good at speaking. I don't think that
| the content promoted by today's engagement machines are
| optimizing for that.
| tsumnia wrote:
| Just to add, most of us AREN'T trying to become big YouTube
| viral influencers. My channel has 2.5k viewers and all my
| videos were done because I want my in-class students to
| have a resource to review at home. I got my doctorate and a
| career as teaching faculty to teach students, not become
| another Computerphile. I love the channel and link it
| regularly, but again my passion is in helping people learn
| in the classroom. The "Thanks!" comments and $100 a year I
| get from YouTube are just nice bonuses to that end.
| insightcheck wrote:
| > "The issue is, I think, exactly that everyone must be at
| least partially a salesman to get ahead. Is this what we
| want?"
|
| Regardless of what we as a society want, and even if
| YouTube never existed, it's the reality that salesmanship
| is always important to some extent.
|
| Persuasive communication is important even outside of
| business: it's key for academia to get grants, it's
| important for non-profits to get funding and volunteers,
| and it's important for individuals who want to improve
| their lives (even in relationships). I know several people
| who are technically brilliant, but have abrasive
| personalities and/or fail to get their point across to key
| stakeholders, so they don't achieve what they want.
|
| There is a difference between honest salesmanship and sales
| pitches that include lies or fraud. It's necessary to sell,
| but you can play the game with some ethics instead of not
| playing at all and losing out.
| cillian64 wrote:
| The justification some youtubers (LTT comes to mind) use for
| clickbait video titles/thumbnails is that they feel that so
| long as the content itself is good then it doesn't matter
| what techniques they use to get people to watch it. Their
| logic is that there's nothing wrong with lying to get someone
| to watch your video so long as they enjoy it once they do.
|
| To me it the race to the bottom of clickbait video
| titles/thumbnails feels dishonest and harmful but it's hard
| to see what to do about it other than manual curation and/or
| alternative platforms which don't use recommendations to
| exponentially amplify click rates.
| swatcoder wrote:
| > if your goal is to sell, then you'd be wise to spend time
| on presenting your content in a way that is at least
| initially attention grabbing
|
| Or you bet against fads and hope that your consistent brand
| will develop an increasingly loyal and appreciative following
| over the long term.
|
| You could lose that bet, but sometimes cashing in on today's
| hot trends means washing out and being forgotten when they
| change. You're making bets every where you look.
| HardlyCurious wrote:
| There is certainly slimy YouTube tactics for attention and
| clicks, but not all successful YouTubers are doing slimy
| things.
|
| If your videos are genuinely interesting and / or useful, you
| need to be able to convey that fact to users, before they watch
| it. It isn't too much to ask.
|
| Just imagine a viewer asking you the question, "ok so why
| should I watch your videos over someone else's?". It is a fair
| question. And replying back, "you don't get to know that until
| you watch it" isn't a reasonable response.
| shuntress wrote:
| I was trying to think of a way to word this same thought.
|
| I would expand on it slightly by adding that _" Good
| Thumbnails"_ are complicated and are not necessarily _"
| Clickbait"_.
| kgc wrote:
| "Race to the bottom of the brainstem" is a great way to put it.
| jasan_s wrote:
| jasan_s wrote:
| shuntress wrote:
| People will never just spontaneously realize you exist and on
| their own seek out the media you produce.
|
| They have to discover you _somehow_. The YouTube Algorithm is
| at least partially concerned with enabling people who would
| like your channel to discover it.
|
| Regardless of how well you think YouTube does that, you have to
| admit it's not exactly a simple thing to do. YouTube is trying
| to maximize ad revenue by maximizing watch time. They are not
| trying to evenly distribute viewer attention among _" worthy"_
| channels.
| bergenty wrote:
| You can start of click bait and then gradually transition into
| what aligns with your worldview.
| lallysingh wrote:
| Click bait isn't different than wearing a funny hat to engage
| students in class.
| serf wrote:
| > Click bait isn't different than wearing a funny hat to
| engage students in class.
|
| what are you talking about?
|
| a student gets stuck going to class regardless of how goofy
| the teacher dresses, whereas I feel an extreme sense of
| revulsion when I click on a YT link with a meme-thumbnail or
| a clickbait title.
|
| your analogy fails since in this instance the 'student' gets
| to decide whether or not they participate in the course.
|
| If I had had the chance to walk out on goofy teachers through
| high school then -- just as one anecdote -- I wouldn't have
| graduated.
|
| so, in other words, clickbait 'engagement' style marketing
| will get your volume numbers up, but the hidden aspect is
| that there will be a market that pulls entirely away from you
| -- 'teachers' on YT will need to understand these market
| dynamics if they're really interested in teaching the masses
| rather than making money on viewership.
|
| If teachers K-12 were paid according to their student
| throughput that'd turn into a major humanitarian crisis, imo.
| nwienert wrote:
| You're baking in the assumption that goofy hat is 100%
| correlated with bad content, but I'd say 30% of my YouTube
| subscriptions do the goofy hat thing (usually just having
| somewhat baity thumbnails / titles) yet deliver great
| content.
|
| And honestly? I don't care. The content is good, and if the
| hat gets them more viewers then all the better.
| jmathai wrote:
| You're correct. Now imagine that the vast majority of
| teachers focused more on wearing funny hats to engage
| students than teaching them the material - because schools
| paid them more for that.
|
| Parents would probably be interested in alternatives.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I disagree.
|
| A click bait, is a _bait_ , a lure in all instances to get
| something _different_ what is expected.
|
| A fish wanting the worm gets the hook, a fox wanting the
| meat, gets the snap trap. The clicker wanting the content
| promised in the title, gets something different, not what is
| expected.
|
| > ... wearing a funny hat ...
|
| An instructor still delivers all the details and content as
| expected with or without the funny hat. Not so for click bait
| videos.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If that's the definition, then the thumbnails we're talking
| about aren't click-bait.
|
| The thumbnails are doing the funny hat thing.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Having good thumbnails and tiles is just marketing. If you want
| to sell or get the word out about what you are offering it
| helps to have a good marketing effort. Yes, creating the
| material is a lot of work, but that doesn't mean that marketing
| is something that doesn't need hard work.
| ant_li0n wrote:
| The problem is it isn't "good" thumbnails. It's that stupid
| fucking, "who farted?" face. Or more often for young women,
| it's "Uh-oh, I did a bad thing" face.
|
| I agree, race to the bottom of the brain stem. I sympathize
| with GP
| joegahona wrote:
| It's succumbing to these [1] types of thumbnails that it
| sounds like the GP is trying to avoid having to do.
|
| Andrew Huberman has tame thumbnail images that are
| professional and informative. Like others have said, there
| has to be a middle ground to explore.
|
| [1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nZQgszA0_80/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oay
| mwE...
| bombcar wrote:
| The middle ground I've seen is to concede a _bit_ to the
| clickbaters and make a _few_ clickbait videos that talk about
| what you do and what 's available in the other videos.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| It depends on what you want. Google is optimizing for eye balls
| so content that warrants more engagement is going to win. 2
| questions on the end of the spectrum to ask yourself...
|
| Do you want to build a community that is a reflection of your
| ideas?
|
| Do you want to build revenue by growing your channel regardless
| of the type of consumer you attract?
| sings wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| While obviously in a minority, GP should take heart in the
| fact there are viewers out there, myself included, that will
| actively avoid videos with click bait title cards.
|
| Silly facial expressions and "you won't believe..." type text
| are an instant turn-off for me. However, they are obviously
| effective in engaging a younger audience.
| barkingcat wrote:
| What exactly does "you won't believe" do?
|
| Whenever people say that I think "of course I don't believe
| ..." (ie that the topic is stupid, or that the decision of
| the day by xyz company is weird/bad/good, etc)
|
| why should I believe or not believe in someone who I don't
| know?
|
| If my mom says "you won't believe me if I told you you are
| not my son, but adopted" I'd be shocked.
|
| Random youtuber "you won't believe?" - heck I don't believe
| a word coming out of your mouth! Of Course I DON'T believe
| you.
| criddell wrote:
| > content that warrants more engagement is going to win
|
| What does that even mean?
|
| I'd be careful about using the language of silicon value ad
| companies. It changes how you think. One minute you're
| talking about content and community and the next thing you
| know you have metrics and are trying to measure engagement
| and are now making decisions based off something you could
| actually measure and not relying on your instincts,
| experience, and good taste.
|
| Instead, create videos (not content) for your fans / audience
| based on what you know works. Make it so good, your audience
| will want to support you.
|
| I think Justin Sandercoe does a good job of this. There is a
| community on his web site and a community on his YouTube
| channel, but more importantly he has _fans_ on every guitar
| forum on the internet. He sells books for people who want
| them and he has courses you can pay for, but they are mostly
| guides through his lessons which are all available for free
| on YouTube or reproductions of copyrighted work which he can
| 't give away for free.
|
| The most important thing for his success (IMHO) is that he
| has created a lot of very high quality videos. He doesn't do
| clickbait titles or images. Just video after video of great
| stuff.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| >Make it so good, your audience will want to support you.
|
| You used the same type of voice you criticized, I'm
| confused why you're projecting this narrative onto my
| comment.
|
| I'm obviously pointing out that clickbait content will get
| more engagement. I'm trying to make the OP ask themselves
| what they want... which I believe is very clear.
| [deleted]
| sedivy94 wrote:
| I think there exists a middle ground that doesn't devalue your
| content, sell your soul, sacrifice your authenticity, keep up
| with the joneses, etc. That being said, hard pass on the
| clickbaity thumbnails and titles. When folks suggest "jazzing
| things up", they might be looking for some vlogging and
| conversational segments. You, as a personality, are just as
| marketable and appealing as the content you produce. You are
| the brand.
|
| An example of an overcorrection would be posting short one-off
| videos that address specific problems and solutions with titles
| such as "When Should I Apply Reverb?" or "My Top 5 VST
| Plugins". If producing lectures is your strong suit, well, we
| need more of that...
| heartbreak wrote:
| Would you consider Daniel Naroditsky's educational content to
| be clickbait? If not, that might be a decent middle ground to
| target.
| lancesells wrote:
| Could you share your channel? Always interested in educational
| music content.
| Pr0ject217 wrote:
| Would you mind sharing a link to your content? Thank you.
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| Can't wait for Google to kill this feature set 9 months after
| release.
| svnpenn wrote:
| YouTube killed learning on their platform, when they killed the
| downvote.
|
| They removed the one metric that people had to signal that
| content is crap. So now people have to trust that "the algorithm"
| is filtering out all the junk. Which of course we know doesn't
| happen. The algorithm only cares about engagement, it doesn't
| care if the content is of good quality or even truthful.
| Koshkin wrote:
| > _content is crap_
|
| But that would be just someone's personal opinion (or worse).
| Why should I care? Besides, people discuss things on forums,
| and a more detailed review is more useful than a simple vote.
| Finally, it is often not that hard to see whether the
| presentation or the content is worth your while from the first
| few minutes of watching it. (There are, of course, some cases
| when watching is made difficult because of the presenter's
| excessive showing their face or gesticulation, or having a
| distracting accent, but even those do not necessarily deserve
| being called "crap.")
| svnpenn wrote:
| Is this a serious comment? Your comment here is so obviously
| misguided that it borders on comedy. If you're serious, I can
| give a serious reply.
| pferdone wrote:
| Yeah, how will I know a course is worth it without visible user
| feedback?
| asciimov wrote:
| As a kid that grew up poor, all I can think about is great...
| another way to divide the haves and the have-nots.
|
| Society benefits when education is free. Keeping educational
| content behind a paywall just speaks to greed.
| ddlutz wrote:
| I'm surprised it's taken this long, honestly. Seeing other sites
| which in some ways just clone Youtubes functionality but are
| focused on education, where creators can make courses and sell
| them (Udemy for example), it just makes sense to me.
| forbiddenvoid wrote:
| When you say 'clone Youtube's functionality' do you just mean
| host and play videos? That's a pretty narrow definition, and
| one that I don't think YouTube deserves to have a monopoly on.
| UmbertoNoEco wrote:
| Animats wrote:
| If you're making educational content to be embedded into another
| site, you don't need YouTube. Because you are not using Google
| for video discovery. So put your video elsewhere. Vimeo,
| PeerTube, etc. Preferably multiple places.
|
| Relying on Google to maintain a non ad supported product is very
| risky. Basing a business on it is suicidal. See the infamous list
| of dead Google services.[1]
|
| [1] https://killedbygoogle.com/
| amadvance wrote:
| Youtube allows unlimited videos with unlimited size and with
| good quality completely for free. You can also keep ads
| disabled if you want. No other service is even comparable.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Youtube, please fix your search function. Only show me the
| content I'm searching for, not something completely unrelated to
| my search "just in case I like it", also work on your
| recommendation system cause it still sucks... and stop trying to
| shove "shorts" don't my throat as well... There is a good reason
| I use Youtube and not Tik Tok...
| cphoover wrote:
| this so much...
| balls187 wrote:
| Ukrainian version sounds cool.
|
| But also sounds like major pandering to me.
| bluehat974 wrote:
| I hope they will propose dynamic exercices like Khanacademy
| an1sotropy wrote:
| Youtube has great individual creators like 3blue1brown, but I'm
| skeptical that youtube itself will supply the additional human
| curation and editing role required to make an educational
| resource that is consistently coherent and useful across a range
| of topics (like say, khanacademy.org).
|
| I'm also curious what benefits youtube would provide a
| creator/educator like, say, musician Charles Cornell, who is
| already perfectly able to sell his course that he advertises in
| his youtube videos.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Try Crash Course.
| willhinsa wrote:
| Can we go back to the chapter on YouTube where we had downvotes
| so we can tell whether or not a video is going to be high quality
| and informative or not?
| movedx wrote:
| I don't understand YouTube's move to remove the downvote button
| - cyber bullying? What I will say though is it actually hasn't
| stopped me from being able to identify a bad video. If a "bad"
| video had 1,000 upvotes and (previously) had 10,000 downvotes,
| combined with a high view count and engage via the comments,
| just removing the downvotes still tells me everything I need to
| know: 1,000 upvotes on a high view count video with high
| engagement? Probably a bad video.
|
| But again, I don't know why they removed it? /shrug
| moffkalast wrote:
| We all know why they removed it, they were butthurt over
| their cringe rewinds consistently getting downvoted into
| oblivion. /s
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think it was less Youtube's ego and more the ego's of its
| advertiser and IP-hoarding-company patrons
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| FWIW there's an addon [1] that can help with this.
|
| [1] https://www.returnyoutubedislike.com
| arberx wrote:
| Are Google announcements a little underwhelming in general?
|
| I never hear about a new product or changes from them.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I think that's because they barely release new products.
| sp332 wrote:
| They're tightening up and cancelling more projects.
| https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/google-ceo-hints-...
| DistractionRect wrote:
| I would say so, unless it's something they are betting big on
| like with Google+, I often only learn about a new google
| service when I hear it's being killed. I've always found it odd
| that for an advertising company they don't seem to do a good
| job at plugging their own services.
| alexb_ wrote:
| Maybe I'm wrong for immediately thinking of the worst case
| scenario, but the moment I saw "Pay To Watch" I immediately
| thought about those garbage courses that will give you the
| "secret" to making gazillions of dollars in the stock market. I
| wonder how YouTube is going to approach content like that. This
| definitely won't just start with "qualified creators", and even
| if it does, the people deciding who is qualified may not be 100%
| accurate (or even worse, being "qualified" gives more legitimacy
| to a scam product).
| Entinel wrote:
| I am affiliated with a few Youtubers from a wide variety of
| topics and the general gist I have gotten from all of them is
| that they don't want to charge for content nor they do really
| want to do sponsorships or Patreon. They just want their CPMs to
| not be absolute garbage like they used to be.
| sp332 wrote:
| This says they're not putting ads on these videos though?
| Entinel wrote:
| Yes? That doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Youtube isn't
| putting ads on the paid courses but that doesn't help most
| Youtubers. Youtubers that want to sell courses are already
| doing that on Udemy and Teachable. What Youtubers want is
| their CPM on their regular videos to not be in the toilet.
| Jemm wrote:
| Can we please now have a UI that doesn't cover the content when
| paused.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Dear lord, yes, please! I have so much space on my screen. Just
| please leave the video as the creator made it!
| kache_ wrote:
| I've learned so much from youtube, I've routinely provided tips
| to people who generate great content. It's awesome to see them
| invest more into this :)
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| > Every day, people come to YouTube to learn something new.
|
| True.
|
| > shows content on commonly used education apps without
| distractions like ads, external links or recommendations
|
| External links seem important on educational files, and I kind of
| like recommendations when I'm browsing educational stuff, but
| whoo, no ads on educational stuff? That's great!
|
| > Next year, qualified creators can begin offering free or paid
|
| There it is.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Just to play Devil's Advocate (and I can't believe that I'm
| arguing for YouTube here): Why shouldn't they charge for a
| useful service? And it does sound like they're removing other
| major problems with using their platform for this purpose.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Problem: Creators want to be paid more for their content
| (great content, good content, bad content, etc)
|
| Solution proposed by Google: Lets charge customers who view
| this content so that we can pay creators more without losing
| revenue.
|
| Solution proposed by Consumers: Lets give creators a larger
| share of youtube's profits. We're already paying for the
| service by offering our data, our youtube premium
| subscriptions, and other forms of MTX monetization.
|
| TLDR; Youtube is double dipping in the guacamole bowl,
| despite having billions of pounds of guacamole.
| green_on_black wrote:
| Solution proposed by shareholders: Why do you think you're
| entitled to our profits?
| EarlKing wrote:
| Solution proposed by viewers: Why do you think you're
| entitled to my attention? [ _installs adblock_ ]
| Miraste wrote:
| Solution proposed by Google: Force through Manifest v3,
| coincidentally make blocking YouTube ads impossible
| moffkalast wrote:
| Solution proposed by viewers: Firefox is now the
| definitive Youtube viewing platform.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > having billions of pounds of guacamole.
|
| We've determined by our standards that you have too much
| guacamole. But, we refuse to see the hypocrisy of this
| hand-wavy standard that we've got way too much guacamole
| ourselves compared to another arbitrary entity. We also
| think, based on our own subjective assessment that
| guacomole is bad for you and you must reduce consumption.
| Correct strategy according to our experts is that we need
| to coerce those who have too much guacomole (again based on
| our subjective assessment) must give it to those who we
| think do not have enough. It is morally approved by insert-
| current-virtue-thing.
|
| Subjectivism has taken over objectivism.
| jahewson wrote:
| But the new paid videos are ad-free, so the user would no
| longer be offering anything monetizable. A company offering
| free, ad-free video streaming does not turn a profit.
| forbiddenvoid wrote:
| That's a pretty big assumption that offering this service
| would not result in these users also spending more time
| on other, non-education related content on YouTube that
| is monetized. There are also other ways to monetize the
| product.
|
| I think that two things can both be true: creators should
| be paid for their work, commensurate with the value they
| provide, and learning should be free (or of negligible
| cost) to the person doing the learning. There are
| exceptions to the latter when there isn't a platform
| involved, like personalized tutoring or coaching, but in
| general.
|
| YouTube can achieve both of those goals, and advertising
| is not the only solution. What bothers me most about this
| announcement is that they aren't doing anything _new_.
| This is basically a carbon copy of Udemy's value prop,
| leveraged by YT's existing massive scale. Other than the
| videos being hosted on YouTube, it doesn't do anything
| that other platforms haven't already been doing for
| years.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Both options are available. I don't see the issue here.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Then go to a different video hosting service I guess.
| Bloating wrote:
| Its almost like we're forced to watch their ads, as if
| Youtube is the only way to occupy our minds
| asciimov wrote:
| In what way do I get to know the quality of the content ahead
| of time?
|
| Some community measure of the content quality perhaps?
| Something opposite of a Like button?
| nabakin wrote:
| By no external links or recommendations, I think they're
| talking about the links to other videos they show after the
| video being currently watched has finished because they are
| talking about the embedded YouTube player
| scifibestfi wrote:
| The "qualified" part is sus.
|
| But otherwise isn't being able to charge directly a good thing
| assuming creators remove ads and any product placement?
| Bilal_io wrote:
| Probably what they meant by that is a beta by invitation
| only. That may lead to an open beta based on metrics and not
| hand picked creators, and eventually open to anyone who wants
| to participate. But I am just speculating.
| lb4r wrote:
| Many creators of educational content on Youtube already have
| paid content alongside their free. Except, the paid is
| currently hosted on other platforms like Udemy and Patreon. As
| long it's not an exclusive deal which forces them to only use
| YouTube, I don't really see that many problems with it. In the
| end, it will likely draw in more creators, which translates to
| more educational content, both free and paid, and hopefully
| better, as competition grows.
| towaway15463 wrote:
| As long as they offer both and not one or the other this should
| be ok. I'm hoping this allows creators to build more in depth
| courses consisting of a large number of videos. Right now I
| mostly have to go to Udemy et al for that sort of thing. Being
| able to preview some of a course on YouTube with ads and then
| buy the whole thing if I like it sounds like a win. I'll
| reserve judgment until it launches though, it is an Alphabet
| product after all.
| 7speter wrote:
| >Right now I mostly have to go to Udemy et al for that sort
| of thing.
|
| So pretty much, with launching a model where viewers might
| pay, Youtube is launching a Udemy competitor, no?
| derefr wrote:
| The alternative isn't these creators giving their content away;
| the alternative is these creators using one of the dozens of
| paid-video-course hosting platforms that have sprung up. This
| isn't going to put a paywall in front of any content that
| didn't already have a paywall in front of it.
| zwaps wrote:
| On your very last point, you seem to be wrong. These
| commercial platforms are neither accessible for everyone, nor
| do they offer the sort of reach as youtube. The choice then
| is paid content somewhere, or ads on youtube.
|
| By contrast, you now can chose between ads and no ads, both
| on youtube (and the former likely with algorithmic support).
|
| That's a different calculus that - as it seems to me - should
| imply more paid content than before, contradicting your
| statement.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well maybe, but on the other hand this makes pay walling far
| more trivial and accessible, so it'll likely be even more
| common.
|
| Google just wants that Nebula money.
| mertd wrote:
| How should the creators be rewarded for their effort?
| Bloating wrote:
| with Thumbs Up, of course. Do you kno whow much effort it
| takes to login and click?
| eimrine wrote:
| More subscribers for increasing their revenue from other
| videos, maybe yt-premium or even some protection against
| infamous random ban because of needness to support learning
| materials.
| [deleted]
| jahewson wrote:
| > More subscribers for increasing their revenue from other
| videos
|
| That's not an answer as much as it's moving the question.
| 101008 wrote:
| Off-topic, but since when .youtube is a valid TLD? And any
| company can apply to have their own TLD?
| sp332 wrote:
| Yes, it's been 10 years since ICANN opened it up and let anyone
| with $185,000 apply for a new TLD. https://www.cern/
| avian wrote:
| Privately owned top-level domains have existed for almost 10
| years now:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain#Expan...
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Does it bother anyone else that YouTube has its own TLD
| (.youtube)?
|
| TLDs used to carry a lot of weight, and used to signify something
| besides individual entities/companies... but it feels to me like
| that designation is becoming rather diluted.
| Ayesh wrote:
| Oh yeah, that's what I was just about to comment.
|
| One can arrange their own TLD for under $200,000 initial fee,
| plus around $25,000 a year (IIRC).
|
| I imagine there will be a whole TLD auction game, but among
| those with deep pockets and governed by an organization that
| doesn't seem to take their job seriously. ICANN looks like a
| cash grab nowadays to me. I don't mean any offense to the
| engineers behind it, just that the administration seems quite
| greedy.
| 9dev wrote:
| It bothers me that we still have those useless suffixes
| attached to domains. What does ,,org", ,,com", ,,net" even mean
| to the average user? Nothing. It's nothing but a pointless
| ritual at this point, and after ICANN chose to add thousands of
| generic domains, they don't have any significance left at all,
| except that nice names are very expensive now. It would be
| easier for everybody if we simply removed that extra step that
| is TLD names.
| nephanth wrote:
| Regional TLDs like .us .uk .fr .ru etc. do make sense though
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Until they're useful for making a catchy address, like
| me.ga (which wasn't hosted in Gabon)
| moffkalast wrote:
| I still don't know why ICANN gets to tell people what they
| can or cannot have as their TLD name. It's just a string, it
| doesn't cost anything more to compare on the DNS server if
| it's custom or standard.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I don't know if every ICANN restriction can be justified
| from first principles, but there definitely has to be some
| strategy to ensure nobody sets up a .(U+0585)rg TLD.
| asciimov wrote:
| Nope. It does not bother me at all as I don't care for the
| people that profit from sitting on domain names.
| HellsMaddy wrote:
| The full list: https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db
|
| Interestingly, a number of corporations that registered their
| own TLDs seem to have since let them go. You can see them by
| searching for "Not assigned" on that page.
| vsareto wrote:
| It hasn't for a while
|
| https://icannwiki.org/.ninja
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| apple and many others have em too.
|
| Nearly no one knows the meaning of .com
|
| also the US centric monopoly of .gov is probably antithetical
| to many early internet ideals.
| sofixa wrote:
| > also the US centric monopoly of .gov is probably
| antithetical to many early internet ideals.
|
| .edu is much worse IMO.
| [deleted]
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Personally, I'm quite happy with the proliferation of top level
| domains. It seems like the alternative was a completely
| unnecessary layer of indirection; it's not like every .com was
| a company or every company used a .com, so they weren't even
| strongly meaningful before.
| Ralo wrote:
| Fantastic, so all those tutorial video you've been watching for
| free on Youtube?
|
| That's now a course for $14.99, BUT DONT YOU WORRY
|
| you get a quiz with it now.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Yaaaaaay...
| mindcrime wrote:
| _Next year, qualified creators can begin offering free or paid
| Courses to provide in-depth, structured learning experiences for
| viewers. Viewers who choose to buy a Course can watch the video
| ad-free and play it in the background._
|
| So you're cloning Udemy? Meh. Not much to be excited about so
| far.
|
| _Finally, to help learners apply what they've learned, we're
| introducing Quizzes -- a new way for creators to help viewers
| test their knowledge._
|
| That could be somewhat useful, but..
|
| _For example, a math creator who recently posted a series on
| algebra can create a Quiz on the Community tab to ask their
| viewers a question related to a concept taught in their latest
| video._
|
| Does anybody ever actually visit the "Community" tab of a
| channel? Why add this extra friction? Hasn't the technology
| progressed to the point that quizzes could be integrated right
| into the video player? For that matter, why not have "adaptive"
| videos where your quiz results can affect the video that you see
| (like triggering an extra in-depth explanation for notoriously
| tricky topic if the quiz taker scores below a certain level,
| etc.).
|
| I hope this works out and provides some value, but I have my
| doubts as it stands.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >Does anybody ever actually visit the "Community" tab of a
| channel?
|
| They don't want creators funneling users to external sites like
| Patreon. They want 100% of their income going through Youtube.
|
| Same reason they roll out the "most replayed" feature, to make
| it easier to skip in-video sponsor segments.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Does anybody ever actually visit the "Community" tab of a
| channel?
|
| Yes.
| bombcar wrote:
| > Does anybody ever actually visit the "Community" tab of a
| channel?
|
| Channels have community tabs?
| cafed00d wrote:
| YouTube has had the content and engineering UI to beat Coursera
| or iTunes U since 2009. As a nerdy little kid from Bangalore, I
| remember _really_ learning how to write code from Mehran Sahami's
| programming paradigms videos from back in the day. (While we're
| on the subject of Mehran-appreiciate: we're all still geometers
| living in the times of Euclid OR we're all coders living in the
| times of Mehran? :)).
|
| Couple that with benefits of YT Premium, there's a ton of
| engaging features they can build here that very likely make it a
| super sustainable product long term. I'm super excited!
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I'm wary to rescind educational truth and censorship to YT.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Good stuff - I could have never imagined how much I could learn
| through YouTube - it has basically taken my Spanish from a very
| rudimentary level to being able to almost watch Netflix series
| without subtitles (via Dreaming Spanish, which is hosted on
| YouTube).
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Tiktok has replaced youtube for me. Shorter form video means less
| of a chance to sell me junk, more "in the flesh" content from
| real people.
|
| For example I wanted to find a specific room on a cruise ship and
| someone recorded it in 30 seconds on tiktok. The _specific_ room!
| Youtube is becoming cable TV, too many grifters and long form
| content for no reason other than to make a buck.
|
| On tiktok, I found great content for replacing a toilet flush
| mechanism, drilling pilot holes into wood to hang lights, a
| cruiseship stateroom walkthrough, CPU benchmarks, GPU benchmarks,
| Anker charging device review, it doesn't stop there.
|
| Google should most definitely be afraid. They are losing this
| game.
| cobertos wrote:
| > shows content on commonly used education apps without
| distractions like ads, external links or recommendations
|
| It's almost like they know how addicting their recommendations
| and other "distractions" are. They have to make a separate
| product to actually create a healthy environment for learning.
| ballenf wrote:
| I think it's more so that many schools use unofficial YouTube
| frontends that already hide ads & recommendations. The
| elementary schools in my area do anyway.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Maybe just me, but I'm not really excited for established
| YouTubers to sell more stuff and expand their empires. It's
| already a winner-take-all game of attention.
|
| The beauty of YouTube is finding like a retired professor who
| puts up their lectures on an account with a couple thousand
| subscribers.
|
| It is not having a click-bait worthy thumbnail, over-produced
| video, and barely learning anything while being mindlessly
| entertained.
|
| YouTube will kill many services in the process like skillshare,
| udemy, etc. They will continue to get bigger and bigger or this
| will fail miraculously.
| an1sotropy wrote:
| They might (do that kind of killing), but I'd also like to
| think that good educators are a segment that will be wary and
| savvy enough to steer clear of something that doesn't support
| the learning that they want to foster, so other learning
| platforms will endure. Basically I don't think that selling
| education works like selling ads. But I'm not objective (being
| an educator).
| ytyl wrote:
| I spend hours per week learning on youtube. The strength of it is
| finding 10 year old obscure videos with gems that aren't covered
| by big content houses. I've gone hundreds of hours deep into
| subjects I would not have if I had to pay and sign up and quiz
| and be quantized. All the while taking ads in the face like a
| good boy. I've always worried about the day Youtube starts
| killing (what I think is) its best feature, and I think we are
| finally there.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Yeah, I don't need details and we don't need this.
|
| The real issue is, the world loves and perhaps needs "universal
| video hosting," something like "the open web" but for video.
| Right now, "Youtube" is that.
|
| And they're not a completely awful steward of it, but we need
| better. The for-profit model is not ideal.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| A lot of noise in the signal over there. I find YouTube to be
| full to the brim with absolutely brain-rotting stuff like
| "Brightside!", "Quickfacts!", "Get smarter every day!", and stuff
| that is more on the dumb trivia side than actual, usable
| knowledge.
| orsenthil wrote:
| To me it feels like youtube is trying to do some Udemy here.
| adamc wrote:
| If you have to _buy_ the course to get access to this, I am not
| sure it will matter. I watch lots of youtube videos, and I pay
| for courses from places like udemy, but... I don 't see myself as
| converting the things I already pay a youtube subscription (or a
| Nebula subscription, etc.) to watch into paid courses.
|
| If it's cheap enough to temp companies like udemy to use it,
| fine, but then if would effectively be invisible to me. I don't
| _care_ how udemy hosts their videos.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-09 23:00 UTC)