[HN Gopher] YouTube removed dislike counts, so this guy made Rot...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube removed dislike counts, so this guy made Rotten Tomatoes
for YouTube
Author : thunderbong
Score : 289 points
Date : 2023-05-28 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bgr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bgr.com)
| Mobes wrote:
| Websites or services that act as personalized recommendation
| middle-men with a less "trashy" presentation for the
| recommendations themselves are a great idea. Essentially, I'd
| like "Rate Your Music" for all sorts of things. There's a reason
| why a handful few are trying to get those "Action Button" Youtube
| videos submitted to Letterboxd.
|
| I guess I also believe that plenty of platforms with user-
| generated content have boundless stuff to see, and making the
| platforms themselves responsible for recommendations gives them
| almost too much responsibility. I understand it's part of the
| business plan, but recommendations would become less toxic of a
| phenomenon if they weren't forced onto your regular user
| experience as you engaged with the platform.. and better if they
| were more individual and something you'd have to access
| separately. Like movie reviews in the paper!
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Websites or services that act as personalized recommendation
| middle-men
|
| These are impossible without a legal precedent to make
| adversarial interoperability legal again. While it was never
| explicitly made illegal, copyright law and the CFAA have
| successfully been used to curtail it.
|
| Software that wraps common services such as
| YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc and added its own features on top
| (such as custom recommendations, etc) is routinely attacked and
| taken down. That's why there are no _mainstream_ alternative
| clients for any of those services.
| hinata08 wrote:
| I don't get why the Reddit crowd cares so much about disliking...
| Mostly without even a comment or something.
|
| Everytime on groups that share a userbase with Reddit, and on
| YouTube, you get haters. You don't know who, you don't know why,
| they just downvotes and burry your comment and they're not able
| to comment back.
|
| It kills online discussions, make an echo chamber for the leading
| opinion, and kills any content that's a bit different.
|
| For exemple, some awesome song about Assassin's creed was
| featured on YouTube, a few years ago, next to related content.
| (Assassin des templiers)
|
| The quality and the realisation were sublime.
|
| But it got tons of thumbs down because it was in French, and
| haters only want content in English (filtering your exposition to
| international content was not the point of upvotes and
| downvotes!)
|
| So downvotes are pointless imo. It's great they get rid of it
| (and HN should do the same for the quality of the discussion)
| newZWhoDis wrote:
| >Everytime on groups that share a userbase with Reddit, and on
| YouTube, you get haters. You don't know who, you don't know
| why, they just downvotes and burry your comment and they're not
| able to comment back.
|
| I mean, this is exactly how HN works in any controversial
| thread.
|
| I've almost rage quit the site like 3 times from having written
| a fully thought out high-quality reply and gotten "you're
| posting too fast" garbage.
|
| Really dang, you couldn't have said that when I hit <reply>
| instead of <post>, so I don't waste my time typing a long
| comment only to have it hit a brick wall?! Ugh
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Hear, hear.
|
| Another term for downvotes is: _casual meanness_.
|
| If HN isn't willing to get rid of them, then they should at
| least cost you something: 10 karma points, maybe.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| Dislikes were a fantastic way to determine if a video had a
| misleading thumbnail or title at a glance. Now you have to
| waste time determining if the contents of the video are
| factual or not, which can become infuriating, especially for
| technical work that demands accurate information.
| kortilla wrote:
| It has nothing to do with meanness. It's community curation.
|
| Upvotes provide you a signal that some people like it.
| Downvotes provide you a signal that some people dislike it.
| They are completely different.
|
| Downvotes prevent unpopular things that have a fervent user-
| base from sitting on top.
| hinata08 wrote:
| > Downvotes prevent unpopular things that have a fervent
| user-base from sitting on top
|
| It's the definition of an echo chamber, isn't it ?
| krapp wrote:
| If it is, an echo chamber isn't always a bad thing.
| kortilla wrote:
| No, because in the youtube case it doesn't actually
| suppress it. It was an extra bit of information that you
| could use to determine if a video was likely misleading.
| pessimizer wrote:
| YouTube is, at all times, pro-echo chamber. So this is
| not their motive.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Perhaps. And also allow a brigade to suppress opinions they
| don't like.
| kortilla wrote:
| Youtube dislikes didn't go into a combined score. So
| there was no suppression. As a viewer it was an extra
| signal.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| sorry, I meant HN here
| pessimizer wrote:
| On HN you can showdead, so it doesn't matter. You can
| still read even flagkilled stuff.
|
| It allows us to review the moderation and decide if we
| approve of it. There's even a _vouching_ mechanism, which
| is absurdly parliamentary for web 2.0.
|
| edit: there are even mods running around saving stories
| that they think were unfairly judged.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| YouTube is plagued by low quality content with clickbait
| titles, descriptions, and images. Often they outright lie about
| the content. Any DIY is a crapshoot. Even if it's not a lie,
| often it doesn't work or it's actually dangerous. Videos with
| lots of downvotes is a quick and easy indicator not to bother
| watching the 10 minute video to discover if it's good quality.
| YouTube's intention here is clear: if one can't determine in
| advance when a video is poor quality, they'll be forced to
| watch those poor quality videos until they find a good one.
| This increases time on the platform and their advertising
| revenue.
| manicennui wrote:
| Many great videos have a lot of dislikes. I don't understand
| this argument. It's a useless metric. I don't care who wins
| the popularity contest.
| mike741 wrote:
| Many =/= Most. The dislike ratio was extremely reliable
| when it came to identifying clickbait. Maybe you don't care
| about that but many others do.
| wilg wrote:
| Dislikes have problems, and I'm not too bothered about it on
| YouTube since I literally never looked at it, but I do think
| that being able to quickly indicate something is low-quality
| content is valuable. Think of Twitter, where your only feedback
| is likes from people who agree with you, so your followers just
| reinforce your own thing in a positive feedback loop that echo
| chambers yourself much more than something like Reddit or HN.
| hinata08 wrote:
| Yeah, but especially on YouTube, you tell YouTube that you
| didn't like the opinion or the content, so that the AI only
| serves you the same things on a loop.
|
| And not only to you, but you also to the creator, who might
| be doing something great, As well as to everyone, as you
| burry the video if it's too downvoted.
|
| If you don't like something, just move on. Or reply to it.
|
| Because if you just downvote without commenting, the creator
| of a video doesn't know if it's low quality, or if there are
| just haters out there.
| mike741 wrote:
| The value of the dislike button was in warning other
| viewers about scams and clickbait. If you watch a bad
| video, realize its clickbait, and then simply move on that
| would be rewarding the clickbaiter and making the problem
| worse.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's just anti-short-seller bullshit. People running scams hate
| any way to mark things as scams, and they love praise removed
| from all context.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| The YouTube dislike button existed long before modern Reddit
| culture (lol) did. If anything, the Reddit vote system is quite
| different since it does not really show the absolute number of
| up and down votes, and they are even slowly moving towards
| phasing out the % of up/down votes display counter on posts. It
| never was available for comments in the first place.
|
| Plus, dislike also boosted engagement and could be good for
| your video, so again very far from the Reddit karma system.
| zeitgeist123 wrote:
| [flagged]
| poorUs wrote:
| [dead]
| SN76477 wrote:
| They made a mistake by removing the star rating system.
| dbeley wrote:
| I also started working on a similar website several weeks ago.
| It's called tuberank, feel free to check it out!
|
| https://tuberank.org/en
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Funny idea: What would happen, if a bunch of relatively well
| known Youtubers made it their mission to say at every video
| ending, that one should upvote for disliking a video and that
| they consider upvotes to be dislikes? If it became big enough of
| a movement, would upvoting also be removed?
| katamarimambo wrote:
| Didn't click surely LGBT people have less than 10% approval on
| this unless its a pre-misstep Milo Yannopoulos type
| activiation wrote:
| Smart idea... Hope it catches up
| andrewclunn wrote:
| If it does there will then be the "verified YouTube critic
| score" and the "audience score," where only the critic score is
| displayed at first glance. You know, because actual popular
| sentiment is the antithesis of advertising.
| devmunchies wrote:
| Even Rotten Tomatoes has changed this recently to break the
| audience score into 2 new categories. "Verified Audience" and
| "General Audience". Disney was probably putting pressure on
| RT after years of putting out garbage and getting review
| bombed.
| watwut wrote:
| There would be no need for review bomb if they were widely
| disliked. The issue is that they were not widely disliked
| and certain groups are angry other people consume this
| content.
| devmunchies wrote:
| Disney has been underperforming at the box office for a
| while now. Review bombs are a symptom of not focusing on
| the product (entertainment, story).
|
| And to my original point, if review bombs are a symptom,
| then "verified reviewers" is addressing the symptom, not
| the problem. Same reason YouTube took down dislikes. It
| was around the time the Rings of Power was getting
| wrecked by LoTR fans.
| mike741 wrote:
| > There would be no need for review bomb if they were
| widely disliked.
|
| This is circular reasoning. You're calling something a
| "review bomb" because you're assuming from the outset
| that its not widely disliked, despite the large amount of
| negative reviews suggesting it is in fact widely
| disliked.
| dbhalla4 wrote:
| [flagged]
| qwertox wrote:
| I think they didn't just remove dislike counts, but are actively
| suppressing negative comments.
|
| If I watch a speech of someone from the German (right-wing) AfD
| party, which I very rarely do and start reading the comments, I
| feel like I'm visiting an echo chamber. Zero negative comments
| which simply can't be the truth.
| [deleted]
| gavaw wrote:
| [flagged]
| nativeit wrote:
| It could be that YouTube secretly supports right-wing German
| political parties, and is suppressing alternative views in the
| comments, or it might be that YouTube just thinks the world is
| too cynical and suppresses any comment with a negative tone
| irrespective of political bent, OR--and stay with me on this--
| the channel itself may be moderating its own comment sections
| out of pure self-interest, and YouTube as an organization isn't
| particularly interested in the goings on of local German
| politics. Who can say?
| DaveExeter wrote:
| There is a lot of shadowbanning on Youtube!
| bspammer wrote:
| They are, but indirectly via the video recommendation
| algorithm.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I don't think YouTube themselves are doing that. As the
| uploader, AfD can absolutely just remove all negative comments
| they don't like. And they've been able to do that since YouTube
| started.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| My understanding is that comments with negative sentiments
| get held for moderation and bigger channels never go through
| and approve them so they're effectively shadow banned
| comments
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Can they filter out words automatically? Like I know that
| tons of people seemingly love to be moderators (for free) so
| maybe some channels just have enough mods to delete stuff
| very fast, but sometimes the whole comment section is just
| too clean. Do YouTube channels have more advanced moderator
| tools now?
|
| The funny thing is that I started to get that impression on
| videos of Moroccan politics of all things. Not some western
| culture war topic haha.
| drewtato wrote:
| There's also the option to manually approve every comment.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Can they filter out words automatically?
|
| Yep. See "Blocked Words"
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9483359?hl=en
| diimdeep wrote:
| YouTube monopoly is really hurting internet and the world.
|
| YouTube at this point is globalized TV controlled by one country:
| U.S.
|
| It got so bad that for countries that do not have their own
| platforms, YouTube become as worse as adversarial subversive NGO
| that dictates one narrative and suppresses other narratives. i
| have seen in recent years countless examples of channels wiped
| from platform for holding opinionated views not aligned with Neo-
| liberal west.
|
| Removing features so that you watch what they want you to watch.
| w7 wrote:
| Pretending there isn't a difference between "opinionated views"
| and collaborating with Russian military while spreading
| disinformation doesn't help you.
|
| The examples you've provided have done the latter.
|
| Stop using indirect language to hide your beliefs.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| I don't know about monopolisation (other than Google/YT's
| massive reach) but their shadow banning of comments is
| something I find worrying. You can't say something without
| double checking if it's been binned, and it doesn't have to be
| that controversial.
|
| I made a comment on some chap making a living from scraping and
| mentioned mozrepl, tried submitting about 5 variations of it
| but it never stuck. So all those millions of comments on there,
| who's to say what the middle ground is (other than the filter).
| bojan wrote:
| My experience in the Netherlands is completely different than
| what you are saying.
|
| When not logged in, the front page is full of right to extreme
| right content, always a click or two away from conspiracy
| theories and/or Thierry Baudet, the leader of the FvD, which is
| basically a neo nazi party.
| galoisscobi wrote:
| Don't be evil, unless I guess it starts hurting the ad money.
| eastbound wrote:
| So your experience is exactly the same: Online US-controlled
| media can create uprest, extremism, hate subgroups in foreign
| countries at will.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Perhaps people in the Netherlands value right content over
| left content more than you realize.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Or perhaps outrage increases engagement, and YouTube
| optimizes for engagement (i.e. ad revenue)
| [deleted]
| AntiRemote wrote:
| [dead]
| antman wrote:
| Those look more like similar than completely different
| experiences.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I noticed the same thing in the US. When logged in I get
| mostly suggestions of stuff I tend to watch, which includes a
| few left leaning commentators and some more centrist news
| sources like NPR. If I check logged out, I get tons of right
| wing, own-the-libs type content with a lot of "men's rights"
| stuff.
| iinnPP wrote:
| Why is Men's rights in quotes?
|
| Oddly enough, when I log out and use a new browser I get
| nothing but CBC, CNN, Fox, and things like Mr. Beast.
|
| None of which I watch.
|
| I would suggest watching some things outside your bubble.
| Watch it from the mindset of a poor person who isn't sure
| where their next meal will come from.
|
| As an FYI, some of the contents of men's rights extend to
| family court and have an obviously devastating impact on
| children. Some of those children are boys, whom will
| inevitably become men. There's also a population of men but
| not cis men.
| doix wrote:
| You should try to read things more charitably/interpret
| them in good faith. I'm assuming they are referring to
| content that claims to be about "men's rights" but is
| actually redpill-ish and just plain women bashing.
|
| Similarly, there is a lot of content that claims to be
| "feminist" content but really it's just women saying all
| men are trash.
|
| Both are extremely harmful for gender equality and both
| tend to get recommended pretty happily by YouTube.
| iinnPP wrote:
| I based my assumption on the entirety of the post
| including what they watch when logged in, what I note
| while viewing similar shows, and the mention of "own-the-
| libs."
|
| Admittedly, that isn't quite at the bar I prefer. As
| such, I removed my pointed criticism at the end, leaving
| the more important and informative piece intact.
| bmarquez wrote:
| > more centrist news sources like NPR
|
| NPR is not considered centrist, but left-leaning.
|
| When I check logged out I get CNN and Fox side by side,
| along with a lot of non-political basketball and Mr. Beast
| type stuff. Content probably varies on your IP address.
| manicennui wrote:
| NPR is only left-leaning when you ignore how far right
| all US politics are.
| s3p wrote:
| This is quite a narrative. I think the correct perspective is:
| YouTube caters to local governments, which often want to limit
| what their population has access to. Many countries regulate
| their speech much more heavily than the United States.
|
| You watch what your government wants you to watch.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Why is it always the same types of people peddling the same
| noise?
|
| You're constantly posting russian propaganda here, with links
| to russian propagandist telegram channels, foxnews.com, RT,
| propagandist twitter accounts, propagandist youtube channels...
| and of course you're singing the wonders of Elon Musk next to
| this.
|
| "Blah blah the west, liberals, etc" -- please. You'll jump at
| the opportunity to defend Russia and whine about "The West" the
| first chance you'll see. Don't pretend you're in favour of
| anything just in this world.
| glogla wrote:
| The story goes, the internet propagandists that are paid for
| the work are paid more if people respond. Best to just
| downvote, flag, move on.
| crazygringo wrote:
| OK, I'll ask -- can you give some specific examples of wiped
| channels? What is an example of an NGO promoting one narrative
| and what are the other narratives being suppressed? What are
| countries this is happening in?
|
| I'm genuinely interested in the specifics here. I always want
| to be knowledgeable about different narratives.
|
| Because my impression was that YouTube will serve you up
| recommendations on any topic you watch, because its goal is to
| serve ads, not to further a neoliberal narrative over others.
| But if YouTube is hiding certain narratives, I definitely want
| to be aware, to understand what kinds of categories they fall
| into. Can you share what you've observed?
|
| Edit: best I can tell (looking through comment history) is that
| the commenter is upset specifically with YouTube banning
| content and channels that "denies or trivializes" Russia's
| invasion of Ukraine:
|
| > _YouTube has also been able to operate in Russia despite
| cracking down on pro-Kremlin content that has broken guidelines
| including its major violent events policy, which prohibits
| denying or trivialising the invasion. Since the conflict began
| in February, YouTube has taken down channels including that of
| the pro-Kremlin journalist Vladimir Solovyov. Channels
| associated with Russia's Ministries of Defence and Foreign
| Affairs have also been temporarily suspended from uploading
| videos in recent months for describing the war as a "liberation
| mission". YouTube's chief product officer, Neal Mohan, said:
| "We have a major violent events policy and that applies to
| things like denial of major violent events: everything from the
| Holocaust to Sandy Hook. And of course, what's happening in
| Ukraine is a major violent event. And so we've used that policy
| to take unprecedented action."_ [1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/22/youtube-u...
| [deleted]
| labrador wrote:
| My take: YouTube provides the tools, then people use them in
| a biased way. If liberals in your country are good at
| technology and conservatives are not, the liberal point of
| view will look like it's being pushed.
|
| Something happened yesterday to me that really drove it home.
| An AI scam started showing up for me. Before I realized a
| scam, I made a comment pointing out that what they were
| saying was incorrect. They deleted my comment, reported my
| email address to YouTube as a scammer so shutting me down
| real quick. It was then I noticed they had 50k subscribers
| despite only being a couple of days old and they had a
| product to sell in the description. Clearly, the people
| behind this account were tech savvy.
|
| tl;dr: The viewpoints of tech savvy groups in your country
| are going to win out. Info promotion and suppression is not a
| conspiracy of tech companies.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > If liberals in your country are good at technology and
| conservatives are not, the liberal point of view will look
| like it's being pushed.
|
| Awareness of the rules makes a difference too.
|
| If a particular political group is frequently posting
| videos that flagrantly break the TOS (as might happen with
| particularly polarized members), they're much more likely
| to get reported and banned before they make much headway.
| It's creators that sit firmly within the rules or carefully
| run right up alongside their boundaries that do well in the
| long term.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| > If a particular political group is frequently posting
| videos that flagrantly break the TOS... they're much more
| likely to get reported and banned before they make much
| headway.
|
| They are also able to get feedback and learn how to
| adapt, in the cat-and-mouse game of spam/SEO/wrongthink.
| IMO, these groups are the ones that know how to exploit
| the algorithms best, because they have a ruthless
| survivalship happening.
| olejorgenb wrote:
| Also curious about some specific examples.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34907079 Is one example
| OP has posted about before, but light on details.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| This has also been my experience. Whenever I view the YouTube
| homepage signed out or in an incognito window, the
| video/creator selection is almost wholly alien and often very
| unaligned with my personal views.
| pests wrote:
| Well, duh.
|
| Its personalized.
|
| If you signed out - how do you expect them to show you
| personalized results?
|
| Of course the homepage you see is different than the
| default or what others see.
|
| I'm very happy with the state of my homepage and the
| recommended videos they push to me. Everything is very on-
| topic to my interests and what I have curated as my watch
| history over the years.
|
| I do agree the default experience is pretty bland and
| lackluster.
| eastbound wrote:
| Youtube lacks a button "Show me something else".
|
| I'm stuck in a local minimum, but I keep hearing about
| valleys of people watching entirely different stuff. I
| tried searching but the search keeps returning "content I
| might be interested in" (ie absolutely unrelated to the
| search) and it's impossible to "discover more".
|
| (And in France, the "discover" tab is swamped by rap
| videos).
| espadrine wrote:
| A button was actually introduced a couple of years ago
| for that! It is called the "New to you" button:
| https://9to5google.com/2021/10/25/youtube-new-to-you/
|
| I use it regularly, but it is well-hidden (usually, the
| rightmost tag in the ribbon of buttons at the top).
| pests wrote:
| Interesting! Never noticed that before. I'll check it out
| thank you.
|
| On my iPhone it is now the third tag in the ribbon right
| next to All.
| pests wrote:
| So it is true there can be some local minimum problems.
| Sometimes I'll get on a random topic binge for a few days
| and I'll notice my homepage changing (sometimes for the
| worse.)
|
| In terms of getting out - hard to say. I rarely if ever
| use search on YouTube or even most of the discovery
| features unless there is a very specific video I'm
| looking for. I don't search specific topics or interests
| to find content. I don't even use the "subscriptions-
| only" view because I like seeing the algorithm recommend
| new things to me and I know good content from any of my
| subscriptions will bubble up if it is good. A few
| YouTubers I do watch religiously and will personally
| check their page every so often.
|
| Most of the content I watch and people I subscribe too I
| found pretty organically. Something will pop up on the
| homepage that I like. I'll check out more of their
| videos. Then the next day that person and similar
| channels will start showing up in the algo. Eventually
| I'll subscribe if its consistent quality. Rinse and
| repeat.
|
| My current homepage consists of indie gamers playing new
| games, some technology channels like LTT or similar, low-
| level electronics and circuit board design, a few
| programming channels, documentaries for speedrunning
| history, some DIY channels for DIY or furniture building,
| Ancient Egypt and its conspiracies, game devlogs. I have
| a guilty pleasure for Minecraft but its been a few weeks
| since I watched anything related so looking now its
| completely fallen off the algo.
|
| Every so often I'll get a channel rec from reddit or here
| and I'll check them out.
|
| Oh - don't be afraid to curate your watch history. If I
| watched something I didn't like I go into my watch
| history and remove that video so it no longer has
| influence on the algo. I like my history to be an archive
| of what I have watched so I can find it again though so
| this is rare.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| Ya I regularly wipe my cookies and start over with YouTube
| and the politically charged fresh slate recommendations are
| definitely not Neo-liberal.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Yeah. "Neo-liberal" is defiantly not how I'd describe
| YouTube political content. Everything I get is far right
| bullshit.
| _a9 wrote:
| I think the youtube algo just serves you what it thinks
| will get you engaged (hate watching?). In the past I've
| gotten both right and left extremist content. I
| eventually set my youtube settings to delete everything
| that is older than 3 months, my feed has been way more
| usable since I did that. That plus using revanced to
| remove all the stupid shorts and news/promo sections from
| the app.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| YouTube always gives me the vague "people in your area
| and time of day" answer, which is totally bullshit. It's
| content driven. You watch a video about fighter jets, or
| Ukraine, get Matt Walsh telling you how we have to
| eliminate trans kids. Watch an Alan Watts or Terrance
| McKenna video, get an ad about how the ancient Egyptians
| used magic flutes to generate antigravity fields to build
| the pyramids.
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
| kiba wrote:
| I worked hard to make my youtube feed mostly free of
| political content.
|
| One time, PragerU stuff starts appearing in my
| recommendation....I cannot ban it fast enough.
| s3p wrote:
| I'm not sure why you were downvoted for this. Maybe HN
| readers are mostly far-right, lol.
| eep_social wrote:
| I have noticed that there is a contingent that seems to
| downvote but not respond to new comments with leftward
| inclination. Usually the comments recover but presumably
| enough do not that it's worth the effort.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| It's a very real thing.
| midasuni wrote:
| YouTube bans basic daytime adverts because of American
| puritanical beliefs.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| Which daytime advertisements are you referring to?
| gliixo wrote:
| There is a Firefox extension that brings it back...
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Innovative Idea:
|
| Instead of a single dislike button, force the user to select a
| dislike reason, with choices such as:
|
| - title doesn't match content
|
| - content is in unexpected language
|
| - content is in low visual quality
|
| etc.
| Scokee wrote:
| Wouldn't it make more sense to install an extension that shows
| the dislike count again? https://returnyoutubedislike.com/ I've
| been using it since YouTube removed the dislikes and it's worked
| very well...
| stemlord wrote:
| Please as least click the link before posting comments
| thunkshift1 wrote:
| That extension wouldn't probably last 6 months on the google
| owned chrome extension store
| capableweb wrote:
| It is there already?
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/youtube-dislike-
| bu...
|
| Not sure how long it's been there, but it's been approved by
| someone, you think they'd remove it after that?
|
| Edit: looking at the reviews of the extension, it has reviews
| from a year ago (until I stop going backwards) so seems
| you're wrong
| bertman wrote:
| This is literally in the second paragraph of the article.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think these are actually two different things.
|
| One shows dislikes. One provides a big picture review page for
| whole channels.
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| Remember that you can't use an extension on all browsers and on
| all platforms. So, having a common platform makes sense.
| gsich wrote:
| Those should be called "crippled" platforms or browsers.
| qwytw wrote:
| Desktop Safari has extensions yet that plugin does not
| support it. At some point developing for anything but
| Chromium ceases to make sense since your potential users
| can just install Chrome, so who cares..
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| And then people say why is market share of Firefox
| decreasing.
|
| If extension developers spend just a little time porting
| their extension, then they can point either way.
|
| By forcing your customers to only support chrome, you are
| helping chrome build a monopoly overtye browser based
| internet where all extensions and work and play happens
| only on chrome.
|
| Please do better.
|
| And yes. I have an extension that is built for Firefox
| and chrome so I have some skin in the game
| rollcat wrote:
| > Desktop Safari has extensions
|
| As a desktop Safari user: Safari _theoretically_ has
| extensions. Apple made it painful and expensive for
| developers to publish, and so the ecosystem is in an
| abysmal state, with ultimately the users losing.
|
| I'm torn between paying for extensions (that are free for
| other browsers) as a way to say "sincerely thank you" to
| those developers who bother, and absolutely not paying -
| to send a message, that this system sucks.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > Apple made it painful and expensive for developers
|
| The most Apple thing to ever have Appled.
| alvarezbjm-hn wrote:
| https://www.returnyoutubedislike.com/install
|
| Works for firefox, chrome, opera, brave, edge, tapermonkey
| userscript.
|
| Firefox android not supported natively, You have to use
| newpipe fork. I havent tried tampermonkey in ff android, be
| right back.
| nntwozz wrote:
| Return YouTube dislike is available as a toggle in setting
| with Yattee on iOS/macOS. The app is available on tvOS as
| well, it runs Piped or Invidious as the backend and filters
| out all the ads too. Very nice on the Apple TV.
|
| https://github.com/yattee/yattee
| ttctciyf wrote:
| It's just guessing, and rather inaccurate, isn't it?[1] I don't
| see the point.
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R43m7I9GOpM
| doodlesdev wrote:
| It's not _guessing_ per se. The dataset includes dislikes
| from before YouTube removed it from the API, from then
| onwards any dislikes in the interface while using the
| extension get sent to their backend and get registered. The
| numbers are _extrapolated_ (but not guessed) of course since
| not every YouTube will be using the extension. Take a look at
| the FAQ [0] where this is better explained.
|
| [0]: https://returnyoutubedislike.com/faq
| katbyte wrote:
| It's a guess. Maybe an educated guess, but it's still a
| guess.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Strictly speaking, sure. But calling every data-
| extrapolated result a "guess" wrongly, IMO, lumps it in
| with guesses based on no evidence.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I'm sorry, but the extension has a grand total of 14k
| users.
|
| There are some 368 million _DAILY_ active users on
| youtube.
|
| It is making claims based on a dataset of roughly 0.0003%
| of the population of users.
|
| It's a GUESS. A bad one at that, since the people who
| install that extension are absolutely not representative
| of the general youtube user.
|
| If we expand it out to the 2.28 BILLION monthly active
| userbase... the data from the 14k users is basically
| meaningless.
|
| ---
|
| Think of it this way - if you were seconds in the day,
| those extension users are 25 seconds. if I were to try to
| measure any sort of meaningful data in a day by using 25
| seconds of data, I would likely be horribly, horribly
| wrong.
|
| Ex: My water company billed me and it's bullshit, I've
| been carefully tracking usage data for 30 seconds after I
| wake up every day, and I never measure any usage! Why are
| they billing me?
|
| Holy cow, I measured our water usage today and we used a
| whole gallon over the 25 seconds I measured!!! We're
| blowing through nearly 3000 gallons a day!
|
| ---
|
| Both are horribly, horribly wrong estimates. A sample
| size that small is not very valuable.
| _a9 wrote:
| Where do you get 14k from? The chrome store says 4
| million users and firefox says 400k. And an unknown
| amount of users using the many modded mobile youtube
| clients that have it builtin.
| scraptor wrote:
| It doesn't matter how representative the data is of the
| wider userbase as long as as it accurately represents the
| opinions of the people who use the extension, since those
| are the only people who see the result. The sample size
| is only an issue insofar as most videos won't get any
| votes.
| mike741 wrote:
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/return-youtube-
| dis...
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/return-
| youtub...
|
| 4,000,000+ users on chrome with 14k reviews. Maybe you
| are mistaking the review count for the user count?
|
| Even if it were just 0.0003% that's still the same
| sampling rate as the average Gallup poll using 1000
| people to represent the USA's 300,000,000+ population.
| [deleted]
| idonotknowwhy wrote:
| It seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe the other users are
| similar to me.
| s3p wrote:
| It's more valuable than having an invisible dislike
| count. If i found out one person with the extension (that
| I also use) disliked the video, that is infinitely more
| helpful than just having a blank dislike button with no
| statistics.
| noirscape wrote:
| Keep in mind that the type of people who are going to use
| this extension will also likely only view a specific
| domain of video content. While yes, it'll be a very small
| sample size on the whole, those users will still be
| representative of the broad strokes for that kind of
| content.
|
| Like, let's say that the audience is specifically going
| to be interested in tech content (not too big of a
| stretch). With tech content, there's a couple of standout
| creators that are... at least somewhat universally
| interesting/viewed (ie. Tom Scott). As a result, you can
| fairly reliably conclude that any dislike count on those
| creators will be at least percentage-wise accurate
| enough. OTOH, let's say that this audience is not
| interested _at all_ in "prank videos". (This is a
| personal bias - this is something I cannot stand myself.)
| As a result, those videos will have less registered data
| on the backend, and as a result the dislike counter for
| those extensions will be less accurate as a result, but
| for the audience that has this extension installed it
| won't matter.
|
| Others have already pointed out that the extension has
| about half a million users already, but even if it was as
| low as you are suggesting, it can still be very useful in
| that specific criteria.
|
| I don't think anyone is doing serious usage analysis on
| dislike/like counts with the data from this extension,
| people just like having a general idea on what the ratio
| is.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| > Think of it this way - if you were seconds in the day,
| those extension users are 25 seconds. if I were to try to
| measure any sort of meaningful data in a day by using 25
| seconds of data, I would likely be horribly, horribly
| wrong.
|
| How many seconds (or fractions of) did you spend looking
| at the page? How could you have missed the actual
| download count if not for likely closing the tab as soon
| as you saw the review count, which was just to the left
| of it?
| mach1ne wrote:
| Rather biased, too. Though in this case towards the
| preferences of the user.
| spurgu wrote:
| The guess is accurate enough to be _way_ better than
| nothing.
| asutekku wrote:
| The video you linked showed it being relatively accurate
| though.
| ttctciyf wrote:
| It did not. In one case it had the number of dislikes
| correct, but the other cases showed it out by up to 50% -
| and these were videos that had dislikes registered _before_
| youtube disappeared them.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Being off by up to 50% is plenty of signal.
| Fogest wrote:
| The video linked is also a small YouTuber with not many
| views on their videos. Looking at the comparisons it
| actually gave a pretty close count. Sure it's not exact,
| but considering it's a small niche YouTuber it seems to
| be giving a fairly decent approximation. On even larger
| YouTube channels it's likely going to give you an even
| better sample of whether people like or dislike the
| video.
| lelandfe wrote:
| https://automaton-media.com/en/column/20230125-17606/
|
| > _the actual number doesn't even reach 10% of what RYD
| displays. This isn't just a slight miscalculation; it
| potentially changes the impression of the video itself_
|
| > _there are also cases where the actual number of dislikes
| for a video on the channel are 5 times higher than what RYD
| estimates. Sometimes it's too high and sometimes it's too
| low_
| Gigablah wrote:
| Well, if you're comfortable with sending your youtube view
| history to another website.
|
| https://github.com/Anarios/return-youtube-dislike/blob/5c738...
| Dig1t wrote:
| ha wow, thanks for pointing that out. I just uninstalled.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| How did you think it was working exactly?
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| People often use technology without thinking about or
| knowing exactly how it works.
| zo1 wrote:
| That's not a very honest way of phrasing whats happening
| there. Sure it "leaks" that you are retrieving this VideoID
| from this IP, but you make it sound like it's sending your
| youtube viewing _history_ to some random website.
|
| Either way, I'm fine with this type of "leak" of data, as
| it's fundamental to an open web and can't be easily solved
| without cryptographic/hashing hoops. What's next, you want
| anonymity from the server that you're requesting content
| from, really?
| emodendroket wrote:
| How else could it work? I guess maybe a one-way hash would
| provide some level of anonymity but that's the best I can
| think of.
| pests wrote:
| How would a one-way hash even work? They already have a
| database of views for a video by its ID. If they hash those
| beforehand that solves nothing. They have the actual ID for
| that hash - they have to, cause they need to provide you
| data on it.
|
| It could work similar to how haveibeenpwned works - send a
| prefix of the video ID and respond with a list of all
| matching IDs with that prefix. The server only knows the
| list not the actual video. The client can pull the correct
| ID out of the list.
|
| (this was how HIBP worked before at least, IIRC)
| emodendroket wrote:
| They'd have to key the votes by the hash.
| pests wrote:
| A lot of trust they don't keep a map from hash->id behind
| the scenes though for data they already have.
|
| Hell, a YT ID is 11 characters in a base64 character set.
| While a lot of possibilities, I do think the entire
| domain can be precomputed for some amount of costs.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I didn't say it was a wonderful or even good scheme; I
| said it was the best I could think of.
| girishso wrote:
| Well, YouTube already has it.
| nativeit wrote:
| Honestly, it isn't hard to justify Youtube's choices on this very
| specific issue. The dislike button presumably has a function
| beyond public shaming. I expect it's primarily for tailoring
| recommendations and tuning their algorithms, but in any case it
| was clearly being abused by troll hordes.
|
| If Youtube devs could see that significant amounts of dislikes
| were coming from users who hadn't watched the video, or could
| identify other statistical aberrations, it stands to reason that
| such abuse would actively interfere with the legitimate
| functionality it was intended for and/or work against the
| interests of YouTube, advertisers, as well as authors and
| viewers.
|
| I personally think that removing the public counter was an
| elegant solution in this case, as it suppresses the worst
| excesses of trolling while maintaining the original intent of the
| dislike feature, which should improve the overall experience for
| most users, generally speaking.
| Bellend wrote:
| I was an old YouTube "Paid" subscriber. I can't remember what
| it was before "Red" or even if it was a thing? Anyway it's been
| quite a while. The dislike removal annoyed me but the straw was
| the whole "Shorts" thing.
|
| My subscription feed almost 10x'd overnight to the point that
| it had no value. I started unsubscribing from the "short"
| spammers which were genuinely good channels and this got my
| subscription feed as to be very little. Not enough to be worth
| paying for so I cancelled.
|
| I put the money to Audible now.
|
| I find it staggering that youtube didn't know I was a paid
| member as far as a product. I wasn't allowed to filter shorts.
| I was still (before) Sponsor Block being fed in-video ads. So
| the only thing they ended up offering me was a very limited
| paid UBlock/SponsorBlock experience which is already free. I
| don't think I have actually lost anything by not paying
| "premium".
| bobajeff wrote:
| That's nonsense. That *might* be a good reason to block users
| from using the dislike button but that's no reason to make it
| invisible.
|
| The reason to make it invisible is so more users waist their
| time on clickbait garbage.
| clnq wrote:
| I think just having to watch a significant portion of the video
| before you can leave a like or a dislike would have largely
| mitigated the brigading issue. Besides, it would have made the
| reviews more thoughtful overall.
|
| Maybe removing the dislike count is a simple and effective
| solution, but I would not call it good or elegant because of
| its downsides.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > it was clearly being abused by troll hordes.
|
| same goes for the like button.
|
| but, apparently hacking likes it's ok...
| fl7305 wrote:
| I watch a lot of Youtube videos for DIY stuff like car repair
| and home improvement.
|
| The like/dislike ratio used to be a very good way to quickly
| see if the person who made it knew what they were talking
| about.
|
| Now I instead have to spend a bunch of time reading through the
| comments to make that determination.
|
| Not that bad DIY videos are useless. They can be a good way of
| reading a lot of comments on not how to do things. So they have
| their place. But I want to know that going in.
| Nas808 wrote:
| I completely agree with that, in the past if I saw a DIY
| video with a 50% upvote rate, I'd know that it should
| probably be ignored and to look for a better source. Now, I'm
| not sure. I have to comb through the comments to find out if
| that particular uploader missed something, left a bolt loose
| that should be tightened, etc.
| paulpauper wrote:
| and also negative comments can be removed
| khazhoux wrote:
| Maybe YT already incorporates ratio in its ranking algo and
| has been helping you all along
| mike741 wrote:
| If it is incorporated, its definitely not effective.
| Clickbait dominates Youtube's recommendations and search
| despite consistently low thumb ratings. An easy example
| would be a procedurally generated channel such as this one:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@futureunity5129/videos
|
| Sort by "Popular" and you'll see that their most watched
| videos have consistently low like/dislike ratios yet are
| still being actively recommended. If you use Youtube's
| search feature, these same channels and videos will come up
| long before the actually informative channels do.
|
| You could argue it's been helping Youtube by wasting
| viewer's time and making them watch extra ads but its
| certainly not helping the viewers find what they're looking
| for. Even mass reporting the channels doesn't seem to stop
| them.
| paulpauper wrote:
| a 15 minute DIY video in which 12 minutes is ads and
| sponsorship and rambling intro a
| oars wrote:
| Doubtful that they can do this in a way that accurately and
| effectively helps the user compared to showing the dislike
| count.
|
| YouTube is plagued by low quality content with clickbait
| titles, descriptions, and images. Often they outright lie
| about the content. The recommendation algorithm prioritizes
| these videos first.
|
| Users can't determine in advance that these videos are poor
| quality, so they'll be forced to watch those poor quality
| videos until they find a good one. YouTube wants it to be
| like this because it increases time on the platform and
| their advertising revenue.
|
| Along the way, users can dislike these videos but that
| video still gains views which helps push itself upwards in
| the recommendation algorithm. Particularly videos with
| clickbait titles, descriptions, and images tend to amass
| large numbers of views in short periods of time, which
| YouTube may recognize as "going viral" and give it an
| additional push in its recommendations when searching for
| important keywords.
|
| Furthermore, many users are also watching these videos
| whilst not logged in or don't care to click dislike, which
| is another lacking signal to help tune YouTube's ranking
| algorithm correctly.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Public shaming is essential. Anyway it still happens, even more
| brutally, in the comments.
|
| What they should have done is add more detail on the nature of
| the downvotes, like the Steam store does for negative reviews.
| That is, have graphs of positive and negative ratings over time
| to make any downvote brigading obvious. Maybe have a way to
| exclude "less-verified" votes, or allow the viewer to look at
| only e.g. YouTube Premium votes (which are more likely to be
| real people given the cost). And so on...
| ricardo81 wrote:
| did they state as much? I don't know, beyond ignoring automated
| means, I don't think there should be much more debate on who
| and why.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It actually makes perfect sense considering YouTube's business
| model of advertising and "engagement".
|
| While advertising-based business models are ultimately always
| at odds with the user, they _can_ (and have successfully)
| coexisted in the past - a product can have a _certain amount_
| of advertising /user-hostility and still remain usable. That's
| what YouTube used to be until now - they had to keep the
| advertising/user-hostility somewhat tame in order to keep
| growing their marketshare.
|
| The problem is that in a monopolized vertical, there is nothing
| preventing the product from going "all-in" on advertising and
| we're now seeing the late/terminal stages of this cancer in
| action.
|
| Removing dislikes and having people watch videos that are known
| to be bad still counts as "engagement", especially if people
| have to waste time watching the video fully before realizing it
| is bad. Even better, if they end up doing so and then have to
| try a _different_ video then it 's even more engagement.
|
| The nasty side-effects of this change (up to life-threatening
| consequences in case of DIY videos for example) aren't their
| concern nor liability.
| NigelThornberry wrote:
| [dead]
| dale_glass wrote:
| Not only I want it back, but I want it right in the search
| results.
|
| It would be great at filtering prank videos which pretend to be
| something else, then switch to a Rickroll or something.
| overgard wrote:
| I can't think of anything that's been ratio'ed hard where it
| would make me think that the dislike count needs to be hidden
| everywhere. For instance , Rings of Power trailers got hit
| pretty hard, and some of the more woke hollywood adaptations,
| but those things also bombed (at least given expectations) so
| it's hard to say the ratio didn't represent public sentiment.
| matteoraso wrote:
| >If Youtube devs could see that significant amounts of dislikes
| were coming from users who hadn't watched the video, or could
| identify other statistical aberrations, it stands to reason
| that such abuse would actively interfere with the legitimate
| functionality it was intended for and/or work against the
| interests of YouTube, advertisers, as well as authors and
| viewers.
|
| But if you can see that these dislikes were from trolls, then
| you can account for that and not have the algorithm register
| them.
| hnarn wrote:
| > then you can account for that and not have the algorithm
| register them
|
| It's an unsolvable problem which is why they disabled it
| entirely. If you "account" for "bad" input the only
| consequence is that those responsible for that bad input
| figure out how to get it classified as good input.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > It's an unsolvable problem
|
| If it's an unsolvable problem for downvotes, it's an
| unsolvable problem for upvotes, too. The reason they took
| away downvotes is because they started to partner with the
| networks, to artificially boost their posts, and to
| deemphasize and demonetize their traditional amateur
| comment (inspiring a shooting.)
|
| The mainstream content gets ruthlessly downvoted because
| polish doesn't equal quality, and the networks (wisely)
| don't want their stuff distributed by a platform that
| allows users to mark it as bad. So Youtube took away the
| ability to mark content as bad. It's no more complicated
| than it looks.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I am sure the removal had more to do with certain
| ideological views/content being more likely to be
| downvoted. The decision came soon after the critically
| panned Susan Wojcicki YouTube CEO 2021 Free Expression
| Awards. This probably has the record for the worst ratio
| of any video in the site's history.
| s3p wrote:
| What? Suddenly we are in a ficitious world where there are
| droves of trolls disliking videos, and somehow they are
| sentient as to YouTube's recommendation algorithm, and they
| _desperately_ want the video to disappear from everyone 's
| recommendations, so these trolls come up with new and
| inventive ways of DISLIKING videos?
|
| I don't think I've ever read more made-up scenarios than on
| this website.
| Kiro wrote:
| You don't even need to be famous in order to get trolls
| who are hating you so much that they make it their job to
| ruin your life. When you get above a certain size you
| will have organized troll armies coordinating attacks on
| private Discord servers.
| rale00 wrote:
| Groups of trolls banding together to down-vote people
| they dislike is as old as down-vote buttons. Surely
| you've heard of brigading?
| sojournerc wrote:
| right, I don't think the comment was disregarding
| bregading. That a multi-billion dollar company's
| algorithm is too dumb to deal with it is what astounds.
| johnfn wrote:
| You really don't think there's a single person out there
| who wouldn't pay 20 bucks to a farm to downvote a
| competitor's video? Not a single one?
| Ntrails wrote:
| Obviously, now they pay to upvote their own.
|
| What have we gained?
| [deleted]
| nerbert wrote:
| Google didn't think it'd be worth it to pursue a solution
| that would solve this, and probably nobody internally
| wanted ownership of it. The second best solution is the
| one that doesn't cost much and solve the problem. Youtube
| being the only game in town, where are people gonna go
| anyways? Daily Motion? Post implementation KPI probably
| showed that traffic hasn't budged, and the problem has
| been solved. As far as Google is concerned, it was a
| rational decision.
| Spivak wrote:
| Ding ding ding!
|
| You basically can't allow people to give negative feedback
| for a thing and have that feedback mean anything (ie affect
| recommendations for anyone but you or show it to other
| users) without insincere feedback being used to hurt the
| reviewee.
|
| There are ways to counter this, the easiest is to not show
| negative reviews but count them positively, a dislike
| actually boosts them just like a positive review would. Not
| really recommended due to promoting rage bait but brigading
| would stop working.
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| Counting them positively results in the problems which
| tiktok is currently facing with "rage bait" content.
| Spivak wrote:
| That would be the other consequences, yes. So can't say I
| recommend it.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > There are ways to counter this, the easiest is to not
| show negative reviews but count them positively, a
| dislike actually boosts them just like a positive review
| would,
|
| I think it would be better to just merely count the
| number of upvotes and complete, or almost complete views,
| for boosting purposes.
|
| The downvotes should be for tailoring feeds, whether
| personal, or the aggregate feeds of people with similar
| interests and like/dislike votes.
|
| Any specific criticism can be saved for the comments.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Why waste the bandwidth, click through rate hit, and drama
| over users getting shadow banned for their trolly opinions?
| scraptor wrote:
| Because users clearly care about the information it
| provides them, to the point of implementing third party
| solutions to restore it as best they can.
| valianteffort wrote:
| How would you even distinguish people who immediately
| realized the video was shit and so downvoted and didn't watch
| from trolls?
| zakki wrote:
| I think we can infer that troll doesn't need time to watch
| video. So if a dislike came from a user with watching time
| is less than 10% (just as an example) it can be categorized
| as troll.
| mattl wrote:
| I've definitely watched less than 10% of a lot of videos
| and would downvote them if it was easier on TV.
|
| Lot of videos either start with a nonsense intro/bad
| audio.
| frou_dh wrote:
| Something else strange is that they removed the dropdown option
| to sort videos in a channel in chronological order ("oldest
| first").
| quaintdev wrote:
| Probably assuming oldest one like archived data and storing
| them accordingly.
| Tokkemon wrote:
| Are you sure this isn't just an option for some channels to
| decide if they want it? Some channels definitely still have
| this sort option available.
| doodlesdev wrote:
| No, they removed it. While I believe they haven't shared the
| reason they do it, I think it's probably due to backend
| changes to reduce costs of hosting older less popular videos
| (maybe moving them to nearline storage?). Some previous
| discussion here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33559888
| Lockal wrote:
| Yes/no, "Some channels definitely still have this sort
| option available". Many smaller (?) channels still have
| this button. Also sorting by date still works for all
| channels after editing URL.
|
| I don't know exactly, what is the criteria for hiding that
| button, but consider size/geography/political views/ability
| to inject ads/etc. YouTube shadowbanned comments, likes,
| videos for a long time; consider this as another technique
| of shadowbanning without explaining anything.
| gniv wrote:
| It's been a while since they removed it. It's probably because
| playing rarely-played videos costs more in bandwidth. You can
| still find them, of course, but it's more work.
| matteoraso wrote:
| >It's probably because playing rarely-played videos costs
| more in bandwidth.
|
| Huh? Why would that be the case?
| s3p wrote:
| Azure, AWS, Google cloud all pay less for data that gets
| accessed regularly.
|
| Google Cloud charges $0.02 / month for each gigabyte of
| storage, but if you store it in an infrequently accessed
| volume you can qualify for special pricing of $0.0012 / GB
| / month. That's a 177% difference in storage costs for cold
| storage vs hot storage.
|
| So yeah, it's MUCH cheaper to store it in infrequently
| accessed volumes. And stopping people from finding the
| oldest videos allows them to do that.
| matteoraso wrote:
| According to Google Cloud, archival storage is only meant
| to be accessed once a year at most. Even infrequently
| watched videos should be considered hot (i.e. likely to
| be accessed more than once a month).
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| They exist on fewer servers, so they have to be pulled from
| deeper levels of cache, or maybe even no cache. Popular
| videos will be cached on edge servers all over the place,
| and will be quick and easy to deliver.
| matteoraso wrote:
| That's a good point that I didn't consider. Still, I
| don't think this was the right direction to go. If the
| videos were already rarely watched, going out of your way
| to make them less watched isn't going to save much
| bandwidth.
| secret-noun wrote:
| I feel that this change served creators (too): Long-running
| channels transform over time, in production value, niche,
| style, messaging, etc. Creators want you to look at this new
| image instead of their old one.
|
| (Imagine looking through your old vs new social media
| posts... which would the current-you agree with more?)
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| True. The most recent videos of popular channels would be
| cached in multiple locations to improve latency, but rarely
| accessed videos would exist at only one (or two for
| redundancy) data center.
| terinjokes wrote:
| It's one reason why I love channels that take the time to
| make meaningful playlists: they're in whatever order the
| channel decides, which is often oldest-first in the context
| of a regular series.
| MikusR wrote:
| In my experience that kind of playlists are always newest
| first.
| terinjokes wrote:
| I watch a channel that has hundreds of videos playing a
| city builder, with playlists for each city they've
| streamed. I just looked and they're all oldest to newest,
| but yeah, I guess its up to the creator.
|
| The frustrating bit if they get it wrong is YouTube
| autoplays the next video, which would be going backwards
| for you.
| sircastor wrote:
| I think they also realized they didn't want to be a video
| archive service but a "come back for the new thing" service.
| Otherwise they're just holding everyone's home movies
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's not too strange if you think that YouTube is trying to
| abandon its past to become another also-ran on-demand broadcast
| service.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| There are browser extensions that get you the dislike counts, and
| they are accurate.
| mr-pink wrote:
| somebody should take youtube private and get rid of all the shit
| videos
| bitwize wrote:
| Is it going to put its thumb on the scales to counteract "review
| bombing/troll campaigns" for widely disliked but powerfully
| backed YouTube videos the way RT does?
| minimaxir wrote:
| It's impossible to feasibly counteract review bombing.
|
| It's even worse when you have to release a non-native
| extension, as that introduces a selection bias among people who
| _want_ to review bomb on the main site but can 't.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "people who want to review bomb on the main site but can't."
|
| We all have different hobbies it seems.
|
| What happened to the good old punching ball, to blow off
| steam?
| minimaxir wrote:
| You can do that offline where it doesn't affect other
| people.
| watwut wrote:
| Yeah, cause they are not that much widely disliked, it is just
| an attempt at political pressure and attempt to make them see
| widely disliked.
| mike741 wrote:
| if its "not that much" and creates deception then why make
| site-wide changes that make it even _less_ transparent? If a
| video had 4k dislikes and 46k likes then you knew that 4k
| accounts disliked it. There 's little room for speculation
| there. Now you have to go to the comment section to get an
| idea of public opinion, where the theorized vocal minority
| have far more potential influence (because they can leave
| multiple comments, but only one thumbs down)
| friend_and_foe wrote:
| How long before youtube removes everything but "what's next" and
| turns into a TV channel?
| usernew wrote:
| honestly I hope not long. I could not care less about what
| random people like or dislike, what they comment on videos, or
| anything else. what's next is a great feature since I put on a
| song and it plays something similar next. a TV channel is the
| perfect use case for youtube, where instead of selecting a
| channel like on TV, you select a channel by type of video you
| first play.
|
| sidenote: I had no idea youtube had likes or dislikes until I
| read this post. I have however, used youtube to, you know, play
| a video and look at that video. I have zero idea about other
| components of the site, outside of the video playing, and a
| list of what's next. I've used youtube since before it was
| owned by google.
|
| now I don't know if I'm the target demographic, but it seems to
| me like youtube is doing the right thing and focusing on it's
| core feature while removing screen spam. and w/ ublock, I
| haven't seen an ad on there in a decade.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-28 23:00 UTC)