Haven't used it, but how representative/helpful are the replaced frames? I can imagine that would be something that would be very difficult to get right (even with the help of AI).
My thinking is that with curated thumbs I can at least get a good idea of the author's intent (particularly when one's a relatively experienced regular YT user).
I kinda thing targeting curated thumbnail selection is looking at the wrong cause: curated thumbnails don't cause clickbaity thumbnail choice, perverse commercial incentives do.
Far too often author's intent is to deceive. On better channels less so, but even then I can't stand those typical youtube thumbnails with exaggerated facial expressions and big titles. I now it works for them, but for me personally it makes the world a worse place. I also recognize, that if this extension would gain a major following authors would once again put those in video. With video previews it is also less of a concern.
My concern is mainly just missing stuff I may be interested in in favour of uninteresting videos because the luck of the draw picked a highly relevant/irrelevant frame. Yes this is a 1st-world problem but this is Youtube.
I'd like to think I could select videos on title alone but if that's your route then just remove rather than replace thumbs (and text can still mislead).
To put it another way: even if we agree the current thumbs are bad (annoying, misleading), are the replacements better (or just irrelevant). Most people like to judge things on intent, but intentionally bad is still better than unintentionally worse.
And in the end, I can much more easily develop intuition to spot intentionally deceptive common human patterns than spotting unintentionally irrelevant random automated patterns.
A browser plug-in can only do so much. It can attempt to fix the symptoms of perverse commercial incentives. But I t cannot fix those underlying incentives.
Because otherwise people would just put a 1-frame endcard in their video with whatever they want to have as a thumbnail?
And if the thumbnail is picked randomly, you are just rewarding videos that show dramatic content with text overlay at all times. And the best-researched Tom Scott video might get randomly punished because the thumbnail is a brown-grey blur in the middle of a transition.
The existence of the medium "thumbnail" is not more of a problem than the existence of book cover. Breeding a healthy culture of what should be on it is the problem we should focus on, both by audience behavior and suggestion algorithm.
I think largely because not allowing it doesn't make that much of a difference; I can just as easily place a click-baity frame within my actual video and use that as the thumb.
Because it's great for analytics. The formula of "face in thumbnail, big text, bold colours" works and YouTube WANT you to be clickbaited so that you watch the ads.
My thinking is that with curated thumbs I can at least get a good idea of the author's intent (particularly when one's a relatively experienced regular YT user).
I kinda thing targeting curated thumbnail selection is looking at the wrong cause: curated thumbnails don't cause clickbaity thumbnail choice, perverse commercial incentives do.