I think describing it as a bias towards maximizing aggregate watch time is more accurate than a bias towards "long form" content.
It's definitely a balance. If a creator only pumps out high amounts of low quality content, they'll never gain a subscriber base. On the other hand, if the content is so short that subscribers only interact with their channel a minute per month, this isn't particularly useful to advertisers either.
I'm not convinced this bias is a bad thing though. My perspective has always been that a closer aligning of YouTube's financial incentives with the financial incentives of creators will definitely be a positive for the platform in the long run.
As more work is done on alternative methods of monetization (YTR, super chat, etc) that have different incentives than just watch time, the biases that come from ad based monetization might become less of a driving force for creators in the future.
What you might not be aware of is how the following claim by GP is implemented:
> What DOES create a problem for artists is the tuning of the algorithms to be highly preferential to long form frequently posted content
Disclaimer: I'm typing this on mobile so can't look up the sources as the same time, so this is from memory, might get some details wrong
A relatively recent change in YT policy is that you don't see every video you're subscribed to. They select among your subscriptions. How? Well, apparently one very important part of the algorithm is that you have to upload at least one long form video every week. If you break the streak, you're at the bottom of the priority queue.
Which is crazy, because if anything, one reason to subscribe is to not miss out the content of people who only very rarely upload!
Or what if you're a regular content uploader but just so happen to feel like you deserve a holiday for one or two weeks a year?
Now this might have changed since they first started doing it and youtubers rightfully complained about it, but the fact that this was implemented in the first place, and the big effect it has on content creators is pretty disturbing.
(aside: this is why I don't rely on YT subscriptions; NewsBlur has the ability to turn a channel into an RSS feed. Of course, that in turn means I don't show up in the YT subscription statistics, hurting the content creators I follow, so I symbolically subscribe but ignore the YT subscription service. How bonkers is that?)
> If a creator only pumps out high amounts of low quality content, they'll never gain a subscriber base.
How do you explain the youtuber phenomenon, then? Unfortunately there seems to be very little in terms of content rather than commentary, as the latter is so much cheaper to throw together with no money.
I have witnessed a group of people that watch youtube together, in the living room, via Chromecast. They employ auto-play (I mean the recommendation feature), lists, channels, etc.
The result is HOURS of "user attention". Which is specifically not the correct term... :) Sometimes they ignore a video and just chat.
But the point is, they use it as some people use a television. It's just "on".
Because of this, I've seen a lot of "top ten list of..." and "Did you know that...?" videos. Not to mention compilations of traffic mishaps and skateboarding fails.
Quality absolutely doesn't matter. Just ask Budweiser!
Exactly this. Quality is rarely a selling point when the product is cheap. People are happy to accept very poor stuff if the price is seeing an advert or entering an email address. Thinking you need to make a good video in order to get subscribers is very wrong; you need to make an entertaining video, and that's not the same thing at all.
People like different things. There are definitely some things on YouTube that are objectively low quality, but I think the genres/channels you're describing are just things that people other than yourself enjoy. The demographics of YouTube are no doubt different than the demographics of Hacker News.
Maybe food analogy is good? If you put on the table: potato chips and a green salad with grilled chicken which one would most people choose? Could people agree on the definition of "quality" in this case?
> I think describing it as a bias towards maximizing aggregate watch time is more accurate than a bias towards "long form" content.
> It's definitely a balance. If a creator only pumps out high amounts of low quality content, they'll never gain a subscriber base. On the other hand, if the content is so short that subscribers only interact with their channel a minute per month, this isn't particularly useful to advertisers.
I agree that the objective is definitely to maximize aggregate watch time, but, the practical implication that I've been hearing about is that longer more frequent uploads are key to getting a video to rise in search and recommendation rankings, and thus become discoverable. It's been a while since I've had any inside information, but this guide mentions as much http://techtipswithtea.com/youtube-tips/youtube-changes-algo...
The thing is, what they're doing is clearly working as far as optimizing the key metrics that they're looking for. It's also not necessarily to call high volume game commentary low quality - it's a lot of fun, it just ignores the many dimensions of great videos that may account for the long tail of viewed minutes, but are still a big part of the soul of independent art. Those videos may never reach the critical mass to become viral and make money for their creators, where before, the algorithm gave them a better shot of being seen and shared until they take off under their own momentum.
To make an unnecessary food analogy, it's like a marketplace that rewards a creator that can pump out $1 cheeseburgers at a huge rate - they're tasty and they're good enough to keep people coming back. Bigtime profits. Win!
But it's sad, then ,if the marketplace is no longer viable for the artisan who can only make one fancy, excellent, but unconventionally flavored, cake per day. Hosting the cake maker may be a loss for a long time, but, if they never had a chance they'll never be around to have their innovative, challenging, masterwork (viral video) take the world by storm some day.
Mr.Weebl, the animator who made the ubiquitous early-internet viral flash movie about badgers, mushrooms, and snakes was recently talking about the issues he's seeing. It doesn't seem like any of the early viral animations could have gotten featured and taken off in the current environment.
Who knows, maybe everyone will go back to newgrounds?
It's definitely a balance. If a creator only pumps out high amounts of low quality content, they'll never gain a subscriber base. On the other hand, if the content is so short that subscribers only interact with their channel a minute per month, this isn't particularly useful to advertisers either.
I'm not convinced this bias is a bad thing though. My perspective has always been that a closer aligning of YouTube's financial incentives with the financial incentives of creators will definitely be a positive for the platform in the long run.
As more work is done on alternative methods of monetization (YTR, super chat, etc) that have different incentives than just watch time, the biases that come from ad based monetization might become less of a driving force for creators in the future.