Gigabyte Aorus X16: https://www.aorus.com/en-au/laptops/AORUS-16X--2024/Key-FeaturesSupport us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hardwareunboxedJoin us on ...
YouTube doesn’t force anything, those happen to get more clicks and watches, so that’s what you need to do to get more clicks and watches. YouTube isn’t arbitrarily deciding to make the experience more corny, that’s just what attracts people to videos.
Each channel has a target audience, and it’s really easy to tell that I’m not the target audience for a lot of the content there. I have a curated set of channels with high quality content that aligns with my interests (i.e. less click-baity thumbnails and titles). If their content sucked, I wouldn’t sub, that is their incentive to do a good job. The market on YouTube is big enough that there’s plenty of content for a variety of tastes, so channels specialize in their particular demographic niche.
So yeah, I think competition absolutely is helping video content be better, but perhaps YouTube could do better to segment their offerings to specific tastes, so even if most people click on click-baity thumbnails and whatnot, those that don’t appreciate it can still get boosted enough to reach their target niche.
If you don’t have a ridiculously high click through every time your content is displayed, your video will be displayed massively less, including to your own subscribers on the places that are supposed to be based on their subscriptions.
The only way for your actual subscribers to even be exposed to your content, on the YouTube platform, if you do not do clickbait bullshit, is literally browsing the subscription view, which people don’t do.
People have done loads of A/B testing. YouTube deliberately and systematically makes it impossible to survive on the platform without clickbait.
It’s something like 95+% who use Youtube don’t do.
It’s not possible to get enough viewers to support a channel that costs actual money to make without making your content clickbait. Channels do the testing all the time. YouTube might as well make using titles that aren’t clickbait bannable for how strongly they require you to do so to have a chance to succeed.
YouTube does indeed force things. It’s called the search algorithm and it effectively selects the people who get the money. Comply or get payed accordingly less. If you think otherwise why do you think YouTube has any say over how to “segment their offerings”?
Competition here is done for money, which is abstracted into viewer count metrics as provided by YouTube. The clickbait, call for subscription and the ads are what has been created as the result of competition.
Competition made the sales pitch for every video better, also lifted the standard on production quality in video and audio. But it drowns out most unique ideas.
“The algorithm” is merely tuned for what people tend to click on and watch. There are no backroom bosses deciding what arbitrary hoops people should jump through when making content, it’s just how humans tend to pick content from a sea of options.
It only “drowns out” ideas that are less popular among viewers in a similar way as political polling tends to ignore smaller parties. If you want niche content, you’re going to have to dig for it, and that’s true regardless of what “the algorithm” does.
It is not tuned for what people want to watch, but to what youtube thinks you want to watch. Also what they think they can get away with suggesting you. My experience is that I do not like what the autoplay function plays next, for example.
There are indeed “backroom bosses” deciding what arbitrary hoops someone has to jump through, youtube is no lawless place. There are enforced rules as to language and video material. This has little to do with the suggestions, but not nothing.
It does a selection that give youtube the most money. That indeed filters out unpopular things (making it also way harder to gain popularity if relying solely on youtube; a widely accepted alternative would be a deal with a popular youtuber), but also controversial stuff like criticism. Also child porn so its not entirely bad (also it is very necessary), just way too powerful and obtuse to be trusted in the hands of someone wanting to make money.
And how does YouTube know what people might want to watch? By tracking what they watch and adjusting their algorithms appropriately.
My experience is that I do not like what the autoplay function plays next, for example.
Perhaps you’re not part of the quiet majority.
but also controversial stuff like criticism
Sure, that one is self-serving, but it’s probably in line with what the majority want. Most people don’t care about YouTube drama, they just want to watch entertaining videos. Look at the most popular YouTube videos, TV shows, etc, that’s what the quiet majority are watching, and it’s probably a similar demographic as those who actually click ads.
By using Lemmy, you’re self-selecting as not the quiet majority. I’m guessing you’re quite into tech and probably either work in tech or are going to school in tech. You also probably care more about the openness of tech than the number of other people using the platform. You’re absolutely in a minority, probably several different minorities.
YouTube’s number one goal is to show ads, and their service does that by getting people to watch more videos. And how do they do that? By recommending videos the majority want to watch, and by nudging users toward more “addictive” videos (those high energy, high engagement videos where you just have to keep watching). People like watching crap like Mr. Beast (dream about being the benefactor of one of his stunts), which is why he’s so successful.
And how does YouTube know what people might want to watch? By tracking what they watch and adjusting their algorithms appropriately.
My point is that that is not the reason, but one step on the way. And it is a way to influence people even to the point of enforcing things.
Perhaps you’re not part of the quiet majority.
Correct.
YouTube’s number one goal is to show ads, and their service does that by getting people to watch more videos.
Which is a singular goal with a reachable epitome of video making that is essentially enforcing a rally between content creators to find this epitome.
How does this create unique content? This is merely tolerating the existence of such content, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of profits or rock any boats with “youtube drama”. How does this competition create unique stuff?
People aren’t going to watch variations of the same content back to back, but they do want content presented in a fairly consistent way that draws their attention.
YouTube also penalizes creators from straying too far from their typical content, encouraging separate channels if they want to make diverse content. So that encourages creators to carve out a niche for themselves and fill it. Users will gravitate toward the “best” in a given niche (for various definitions of “best”), so there’s pressure on creators to get better at whatever their unique niche is.
If you really look at YouTube, you’ll find a huge variety of content with high production value that follow a similar marketing style (thumbnails, titles, and presentation format). The marketing style being similar doesn’t mean the content is similar.
YouTube doesn’t force anything, those happen to get more clicks and watches, so that’s what you need to do to get more clicks and watches. YouTube isn’t arbitrarily deciding to make the experience more corny, that’s just what attracts people to videos.
Each channel has a target audience, and it’s really easy to tell that I’m not the target audience for a lot of the content there. I have a curated set of channels with high quality content that aligns with my interests (i.e. less click-baity thumbnails and titles). If their content sucked, I wouldn’t sub, that is their incentive to do a good job. The market on YouTube is big enough that there’s plenty of content for a variety of tastes, so channels specialize in their particular demographic niche.
So yeah, I think competition absolutely is helping video content be better, but perhaps YouTube could do better to segment their offerings to specific tastes, so even if most people click on click-baity thumbnails and whatnot, those that don’t appreciate it can still get boosted enough to reach their target niche.
If you don’t have a ridiculously high click through every time your content is displayed, your video will be displayed massively less, including to your own subscribers on the places that are supposed to be based on their subscriptions.
The only way for your actual subscribers to even be exposed to your content, on the YouTube platform, if you do not do clickbait bullshit, is literally browsing the subscription view, which people don’t do.
People have done loads of A/B testing. YouTube deliberately and systematically makes it impossible to survive on the platform without clickbait.
Well, that’s all I do…
It’s something like 95+% who use Youtube don’t do.
It’s not possible to get enough viewers to support a channel that costs actual money to make without making your content clickbait. Channels do the testing all the time. YouTube might as well make using titles that aren’t clickbait bannable for how strongly they require you to do so to have a chance to succeed.
YouTube does indeed force things. It’s called the search algorithm and it effectively selects the people who get the money. Comply or get payed accordingly less. If you think otherwise why do you think YouTube has any say over how to “segment their offerings”?
Competition here is done for money, which is abstracted into viewer count metrics as provided by YouTube. The clickbait, call for subscription and the ads are what has been created as the result of competition.
Competition made the sales pitch for every video better, also lifted the standard on production quality in video and audio. But it drowns out most unique ideas.
“The algorithm” is merely tuned for what people tend to click on and watch. There are no backroom bosses deciding what arbitrary hoops people should jump through when making content, it’s just how humans tend to pick content from a sea of options.
It only “drowns out” ideas that are less popular among viewers in a similar way as political polling tends to ignore smaller parties. If you want niche content, you’re going to have to dig for it, and that’s true regardless of what “the algorithm” does.
It is not tuned for what people want to watch, but to what youtube thinks you want to watch. Also what they think they can get away with suggesting you. My experience is that I do not like what the autoplay function plays next, for example.
There are indeed “backroom bosses” deciding what arbitrary hoops someone has to jump through, youtube is no lawless place. There are enforced rules as to language and video material. This has little to do with the suggestions, but not nothing.
It does a selection that give youtube the most money. That indeed filters out unpopular things (making it also way harder to gain popularity if relying solely on youtube; a widely accepted alternative would be a deal with a popular youtuber), but also controversial stuff like criticism. Also child porn so its not entirely bad (also it is very necessary), just way too powerful and obtuse to be trusted in the hands of someone wanting to make money.
And how does YouTube know what people might want to watch? By tracking what they watch and adjusting their algorithms appropriately.
Perhaps you’re not part of the quiet majority.
Sure, that one is self-serving, but it’s probably in line with what the majority want. Most people don’t care about YouTube drama, they just want to watch entertaining videos. Look at the most popular YouTube videos, TV shows, etc, that’s what the quiet majority are watching, and it’s probably a similar demographic as those who actually click ads.
By using Lemmy, you’re self-selecting as not the quiet majority. I’m guessing you’re quite into tech and probably either work in tech or are going to school in tech. You also probably care more about the openness of tech than the number of other people using the platform. You’re absolutely in a minority, probably several different minorities.
YouTube’s number one goal is to show ads, and their service does that by getting people to watch more videos. And how do they do that? By recommending videos the majority want to watch, and by nudging users toward more “addictive” videos (those high energy, high engagement videos where you just have to keep watching). People like watching crap like Mr. Beast (dream about being the benefactor of one of his stunts), which is why he’s so successful.
My point is that that is not the reason, but one step on the way. And it is a way to influence people even to the point of enforcing things.
Correct.
Which is a singular goal with a reachable epitome of video making that is essentially enforcing a rally between content creators to find this epitome.
How does this create unique content? This is merely tolerating the existence of such content, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of profits or rock any boats with “youtube drama”. How does this competition create unique stuff?
People aren’t going to watch variations of the same content back to back, but they do want content presented in a fairly consistent way that draws their attention.
YouTube also penalizes creators from straying too far from their typical content, encouraging separate channels if they want to make diverse content. So that encourages creators to carve out a niche for themselves and fill it. Users will gravitate toward the “best” in a given niche (for various definitions of “best”), so there’s pressure on creators to get better at whatever their unique niche is.
If you really look at YouTube, you’ll find a huge variety of content with high production value that follow a similar marketing style (thumbnails, titles, and presentation format). The marketing style being similar doesn’t mean the content is similar.