[rym_]

I get so frustrated with the idiotic thumbnails on youtube video these days. I am sure it's all optimized for the maximum number of clicks/views but if I see a still that looks the way it does at the bottom of this page I generally just don't watch it on principle.

[geerlingguy]

Believe me, I had a nice discussion yesterday with my sister (who helped me take pictures for the thumbnail), and we both agreed it's one of the dumbest things about current YouTube...

The thing is, from all my own A/B testing, a face vs. no face will automatically get 20-30% more views (all else equal). And an exaggerated face, a bit more than that.

[colechristensen]

The question not being asked is how your audience changes A vs B in other ways than size.

You can easily A/B test yourself into mediocrity by constantly optimizing for a larger, dumber audience. They stop liking your old content (despite your dumb faces, etc) so you make new content they like more, keep that cycle up for a while.

And you end up making emotionally charged rage-porn political videos and have become the next Facebook/cable news/etc.

This is also why the second or third album for a band is usually the best; they get popular and start letting their audience design their music and become repetitive and mildly awful.

[WastingMyTime89]

> The question not being asked is how your audience changes A vs B in other ways than size.

That's not how it works.

The most important factor to get views on YouTube is the recommendation algorithm. It makes a huge difference. YouTube will not even push your videos to people who are subscribed to you if the recommendation algorithm doesn't favor them.

As the click-through rate is an important part of how the algorithm decides what to recommend, you need a catchy thumbnail and a somewhat clickbaity title or you will be reduced to oblivion by people who use one regardless of the actual quality of your content. The story is the same with the length of video.

Veritasium made a couple of very good videos on the issue if you are interested.

[dark-star]

Youtube algorithms are truly weird. I have a YT account with, I think, 3 or 4 subscribers and maybe a dozen or two views on the 10-20 videos I ever uploaded. I basically use YT to upload things that I want to share with some close friends.

Then, earlier this year, one of my videos suddenly skyrocketed[1]. It was an old video, 10 years or so, and it only consisted of one 10 second scene of a movie that I found funny at that time, and that I shared with a couple friends. It had about 50 views until march.

Then, it suddenly exploded, and now that video has just short of 1 million views, with a peak of ~60k or so per day.

I have absolutely no idea what crazy algorithm suddenly started recommending a 10-year-old video that is nothing more than a 10s snippet from a hollywood movie to millions and millions of people around the world.

The most interesting part (for me) was the psychological effect this had on me. First, my phone started sending notifications like crazy (I turned them off pretty quickly). That changed into a daily morning-routine of "let's see how many people watched the video this night"... Then, when the new followers came (I gained a couple hundred during that time) I had a feeling of guilt because I think they somehow "expect" similar clips from me from now on, and I would be letting them down (of course, totally irrational, I could care less of what some random people expect from me). Then I started researching how much revenue I could have gained from that if that were a "real" video with original content and ads thrown in.....

It was a wild ride :-D

[1] https://imgur.com/a/5sFD9of

[vmception]

the only culture I like about Youtube is how the other commenters and viewers know that they all found each other due to the algorithm, because they watched anyway!

[skrbjc]

*couldn't care less

[alexanderdmitri]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-...

[yessirwhatever]

What the parent comment said still applies. Algorithm or not, you can become a top pop singer either by having a really good voice and being talented or by being singling about how you enjoy something controversial just to create outrage. The only difference is your audience.

[BoorishBears]

The algorithm accounts for that.

If you sound like a dying cat, your click through rate will be high, but your average watch length will be low.

I agree there's a problem with how the algorithm drives creators to this stuff, but it's also not that unsophisticated that clickbait = success

[yessirwhatever]

Yet, all this does not justify clickbait.

[WastingMyTime89]

It's going to be really hard to be a top YouTuber if the YouTube algorithm just doesn't show your videos in the same way the best singer in the world would never get any audience if no one could hear them sing.

[geerlingguy]

This. And the Veritasium video is linked later in this thread.

[whimsicalism]

More than that, they are probably training models to predict the click-through-rate based on the image thumbnail, automatically discounting your content if it doesn't look like this, even if it does end up attracting clicks in reality!

[qwertox]

Also, I believe Jeff would have even more viewers if he held a bra instead of a Pi in his hand, with his facial expression being the same.

Jeff, could you do a test and report the results? ;) Maybe dealing with Raspberry Pis isn't as lucrative as you thought.

Other than that (I also get triggered by the thumbnail thing), your channel is one of the very best on YouTube.

[ASalazarMX]

Creators are optimizing for money, YouTube's algorithm is the one optimizing for audience size.

[goohle]

Half of general audience has IQ below average.

[marginalia_nu]

That's not how averages work.

[goohle]

This is how IQ is defined.

[jgalt212]

A/B testing attracts the bots in my experience. Peoples' tastes change quicker than the bots' decision models do. Given that's somewhat of a bold statement, then try this thought experiment: If A/B tests actually work, then wouldn't you expect there to be zero films and/or TV shows released that are flops?

[jjk166]

I honestly wonder which came first, the viewer preference or the algorithm.

Like are there people out there that see a whacky face in the thumbnail and think "Oh that's a video I want to watch!" and the algorithm just got trained on that?

Or did whacky faces just resemble something (from the algorithm's perspective) that was briefly popular and then a positive feedback loop of algorithm recommends it -> gets popular -> algorithm updated to recommend it more often.

[geerlingguy]

I've discussed this with my brother a bit (he's a neurologist, though not a specialist in vision), and he seems to think part of it goes back to our brain's instinct to react more to 'face' than other stimuli. Therefore thumbnails with a discernible face will do better.

And on top of that, an expression outside of "stock photo smile" will stand out more, and if you combine that, plus a catchy title that piques your interest, and have a video that can back it up, it will do a lot better than just having a video that has good content.

[jjk166]

This explanation never really made sense to me. It's not like videos are hidden in a background and the thumbnail needs to stand out in our field of vision. Videos are presented front and center, and you're only looking at a few at a time. I presume everyone looks at all the video thumbnails; I just go left to right, top to bottom. Maybe if you were presented with hundreds of options at once and had to click on something quickly, something that draws the eye might get that sort of response, but that's not how Youtube works.

Instead you are presented with a small number of options and given unlimited time to choose, and the consequence of choosing a bad video is several minutes of wasted time. I presume most people are asking themselves "do I want to watch this" and deciding "yes, this video looks interesting/entertaining/etc." Maybe if the effect were small, like 1-2% I could believe its just a slight nudge due to psychological hacking, but the reported differences in the tens of percent and the extreme importance that seems to be placed by the algorithm indicates this is a major factor in peoples' decision making process.

[nitrogen]

I just go left to right, top to bottom

I doubt this is how most people's eyes actually scan a visual field. I expect there's a lot more randomness going on subconsciously, and that face-like features cause a higher subconscious dwell time.

had to click on something quickly...but that's not how Youtube works.

I think for most people it is. Scroll scroll scroll tap, all within a few seconds.

[jjk166]

It's how we scan text. I'm also reading the titles of the videos. Maybe there's a very quick scan of the page beforehand, but if I click on any of the options presented, it's only after I've done that main scan.

When you're only presented with a tiny bit of information, it doesn't take long to evaluate a decision. A few seconds is a long time. No one, at least to my knowledge, is opening youtube and clicking on the first thing they see in milliseconds. Hell, just variation in page loading time probably has a bigger effect on what we see first. Critically though, there's no deadline - even if you see something you want to watch quickly, you don't have to click on something if you don't see something you want to watch. Without time pressure, there's no need to make an impulsive click.

[ModernMech]

> he seems to think part of it goes back to our brain's instinct to react more to 'face' than other stimuli.

I've noticed this same thing with advertisements and dancing. Why are people always dancing and singing in advertisements? Seems like people just are wired to pay attention to certain human behaviors.

[xdennis]

I think it's because people look at images more than text and the author's face immediately identifies the video.

It's happened multiple times before that a YouTube video keeps following me and I ignore it, but once I realize who it's by I see it.

Have you A/B tested mouth open and mouth closed?

[ohyeshedid]

I'm sure that's part of it.

I also think the graphics, title, face; these are signaling some level of effort and focus. It might not be the individual face, graphics, or title, it could be just their presence.

[dekerta]

I think people's eyes are just naturally drawn to faces, so more people end up seeing the thumbnail among the grid of other videos, and are more likely to watch the it as a result

[willis936]

That's the base narrative, but I find it difficult to believe without proper controlled testing. People are 25% more likely to click on a technical video when the creator is trying to look like a buffoon? It just doesn't sound correct.

[dekerta]

People don't click on the video because of the dumb face. They watch the video if they think they'll be interested in it. But the dumb face makes it more likely that you will initially notice the thumbnail

[willis936]

The dumb face makes the algorithm more likely to put the video on peoples' feeds*.

[vagrantJin]

Weirdly enough, the algorithm works wonders for me when I'm not logged in. It does what it is supposed to do. Give me more of what I might want while throwing in a heathly dash interesting things I might be interested in. YT to me, bon apetit.

But when I'm logged in, it shows me the exact videos I've been avoiding watching these past few weeks and when I do watch a video, instead of showing me similar vids or vids from the same creator - it just shows me videos I've watched or the video updates I've been avoiding. And the odd Taylor Swift MV, an artist whose works (is it even music) I've never even...not even in a mix.

The team at YT has jokes it seems. Comedians.

[NikolaeVarius]

Its so strange, since the presence of a face immediately makes me not want to watch a video.

[goohle]

Try these videos: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bikini+try+on . They will help to overcome the fear.

[riekus]

I can't stand that Linus PC guy with his exaggerated faces on the thumbs.

[MivLives]

He's explained it's pretty much for the same reason the OP did it. It's possible to prove it works, especially when you're releasing a video each day. Youtube at this point is about optimizing clicks. People like Mr.Beast generally know their video title and thumbnail before they even start production on the content.

[jrockway]

Unconvinced. LTT has 1 or 2 good videos for every 30 videos they release. Maybe the face helps people click the bad videos, but the good videos stand for themselves and it's likely that he would be successful without playing the game. (His all time most popular video doesn't have a thumbnail of him making a weird face. It's his most popular video of all time because his guest was exceedingly entertaining.)

(Also, I don't mean for this to be an anti-Linus post. How he built LMG is a great story and he deserves the success he's achieved.)

[0des]

Very offtopic but, at first I thought you said L1T and we almost had to take this outside. Level1Techs is awesome. Can't say much for LinusTechTips as it's targeting a different audience, though the young man does seem charismatic.

[elcomet]

Unfortunately they do A/B testing on the same video to confirm this.

[TomVDB]

I can’t stand the dumb faces either. And yet… I catch myself being more likely to click on them when it has a face on it. It’s the weirdest thing.

[slig]

He's a video explaining how well that kind of clickbaity thumbs works.

[geerlingguy]

Said video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzRGBAUz5mA

[foodstances]

But why is view count the only metric you care about? How about getting fewer views but more engagement, with viewers that want to see the content but are turned off by the stupid thumbnails?

[geerlingguy]

Getting fewer views (and likely much reduced watch time) means YouTube's algorithm quickly buries your video.

You and I might use subscriptions on YouTube (just like I prefer RSS), but 99% of viewers for some reason just go to the home page and click on things YouTube recommends (regardless of whether they subscribe to a channel).

If you don't get recommended, you don't get views, and it's even less likely that regular viewers (outside the few who actually check their subscriptions page) will engage with your videos.

[KronisLV]

It's curious and pleasant to see some people taking a stance on this issue, by exploring other venues apart from YouTube.

For example, Luke Smith hosts many of his videos over on Odysee nowadays: https://odysee.com/$/invite/@Luke:7

Also, Bryan Lunduke also moved over to Locals and has generally expressed that it's a more pleasant community: https://lunduke.locals.com/

Of course, i don't doubt that it's akin to financial suicide for anyone who relies on YouTube as their main source of income, but if nothing else, it's nice to see people standing up for their principles, instead of selling out and trying to build their platform on another site that can end their presence at will.

I guess only time will show whether there ever will be any financially feasible alternatives to YouTube, though.

[ryandrake]

> Getting fewer views (and likely much reduced watch time) means YouTube's algorithm quickly buries your video.

Question remains: so what? Unless you are monetizing your videos and intend to make significant money from “engagement”, why would someone single-minded let optimize for views or algorithm-friendliness?

For this guy, I guess he’s trying to make a living from YouTube, so I guess… by all means growth hack your video thumbnail. But for the rest of the video uploaders, absent a desire to monetize, a video with 100 views is no worse for the uploader than a video with 100,000 views.

[sorenjan]

You're responding to the guy that made the video.

My guess is that everyone that uploads videos with catchy titles and thumbnails wants to monetize their videos eventually. Even if money isn't a motivation, getting more views probably has a value in itself for most content creators.

[afavour]

Because the video includes paid promotion and YouTube does not reward fewer views with more engagement.

(and if we're honest if you really do want to see the content then depriving yourself because of the contents of the thumbnail feels very self-defeating)

[blitzar]

Face only, mouth open 4-6cm, "shocked" expression. Amount of $$$$'s in the title.

Like, subscribe and turn on notifications.

We want to hear what you think, comment below.

[letitbeirie]

Remember to ring that effing bell

[ASalazarMX]

> an exaggerated face, a bit more than that

Have you tested a difference between a regular expression (intrigued, skeptic, smiling...) and a goofy face? For science?

[geerlingguy]

Yes. Goofy face always wins :(

Though it gets an insane amount of backlash on HN (case in point: this thread).

[pwnna]

Maybe both your observation and HN is right: the distribution is multi-modal in the sense that (presumably) there is a large majority of people where the thumbnail works for and views the content, and then there is a small (and possibly vocal) minority of people who absolutely hate it and treat it as an anti-signal. I know I belong in the latter group and will lose all interest in the video once I see the weird face and the edited icon. I've seen a few of your videos and they're indeed very good. That said, I've noticed that I semi-consciously would avoid your video due to the icon which triggers an immediate reaction from me to stay away. It's a shame, because I know that the videos can be good, but the thumbnail is actively driving me away. In a way, I'm no different than the people who clicks on these videos, as I am also judging a book by its covers.

This kind of multi-modal behaviour can be very hard to capture with A/B test. You get a large influx of people that more than offsets the loss in the other audience pool. It's also anyone's guess on which group is better. From a pure business perspective, it's probably okay to lose me, as I use adblock and/or youtube-dl to watch the videos, which means I don't really drive revenue. That said, I've noticed some second order effects: as I'm more technical, I would recommend these type of content to others who will listen to my advice. I've noticed similar effects with others. If the more technical people are in the second group and are driven away, I wonder if this kind of stuff makes a difference with the long term health of a channel/content generator, which could be very difficult to quantify.

In any case thanks for your videos and insights.

[Ruthalas]

This seems thoughtful and accurate, and reflects my own response to the video.

[RoddaWallPro]

Like the sibling commenter here, reactions to this (as I've observed) are indeed very bimodal. If I see any video on YouTube with a face with a strong expression, I will not click it, no matter how interesting the title, because I hate how contrived the thumbnail is.

I think it might be more honest of you to phrase it not as: I have to do this because otherwise I don't get 20% more views. That feels a little bit disingenuous to me. You don't have to do anything. You could probably get a lot more views by colluding with another YouTuber to create drama or apparent "fights", like so many seem to. Aka, go full Kardashian. But you don't. You choose very explicitly what you do. Which does include goofy face thumbnails, but does not include staging YouTube drama.

A more honest phrasing to me might be something like: "Goofy faces get more views, and without them, my YouTube channel has much less income. I'm trying to support myself with YouTube, and so I am doing goofy faces even though I hate it and think it's completely asinine." You get really close to something like this phrasing, & the underlying message can be gathered by your other comments, but you don't outright own it. If you are going to do something asinine for exposure, you might as well own it imo.

So, with that out of the way: This project is really cool and thanks for doing a write-up & video on it :)

[rym_]

I just wanted to thank you for replying so candidly and I did not mean to turn this post in a discussion about youtube thumbnails, your post otherwise was quite interesting!

[ASalazarMX]

That's really interesting. Thank you for your candidness.

[dylan604]

s/[intrigued|skeptic|smiling]/goofy/

guessing not the regex you were implying though

[nzach]

If you ever have the time I would like to read a blog post with this data and some comments about your perception towards this issue.

I have no trouble understanding why this happens on "entertainment" videos, but this issue on technical videos seems a bit strange to me.

[musingsole]

> this issue on technical videos

This is still entertainment. Technical info dressed up as entertainment, but still entertainment. Clicks reign supreme.

[blitzar]

Clicks == Money

[dragonwriter]

> I have no trouble understanding why this happens on "entertainment" videos, but this issue on technical videos seems a bit strange to me.

All videos are entertainment videos; it is a medium optimized for and driven by emotional response.

[stocknoob]

What do you think the A/B test for showing cleavage in your thumbnails?

https://blog.codinghorror.com/how-not-to-advertise-on-the-in...

Where does it end?

[II2II]

The perspective of one viewer:

Having a face in the thumbnail helps me to identify channels that already of interest me. That is the positive.

While there is an element of entertainment to the channel, I usually view your channel for information (e.g. interesting project ideas). I expect the thumbnail to show me what the video is about. If an exaggerated facial expression draws my attention away from that, or leads me to believe there is more entertainment than substance to the video (e.g. it is for shock value), then I will simply skip over it.

Throwing in a face for a 20-30% increase in views is almost certainly worth it. The question is: are the exaggerated attention grabbing thumbnails worth a bit more than that? Each time I skip a video, the channel's relevance goes down in my mind. Each time the relevance goes down, I am less likely to assess future thumbnails positively.[1] My thoughts are that the "bit more" may be of short term value for gaining viewers, but counterproductive in retaining long term viewers.

[1] Yes, it is an unfair assessment since it is based upon unwatched videos. On the other hand, viewers are confronted with a deluge of videos each time they visit YouTube.

[goohle]

> Throwing in a face for a 20-30% increase in views is almost certainly worth it.

Tits are better than just a face.

[wink]

Could you please A/B test if it needs to be your exaggerated face or if stock photos would suffice? ;)

Also kudos to building your brand, I only saw the headline and already figured it might be you.. (or Linus, but it didn't say anything about /dropping/ 5k)

[geerlingguy]

That's a good question, actually. I don't know what the inflection point would be, but at some point too, you get some face recognition with existing audience that might increase the CTR versus stock photos.

I think it would have a lot to do with whether the presenter is part of the video (I do 'talking head' a lot) versus off-camera (like, for example, ETA Prime, LPL, or AvE).

[908B64B197]

Exaggerated face with a PCB is basically your trademark. If you see it while scrolling you know it's you (and that it's going to be high quality content).

[runnerup]

I wonder how it affects which populations are viewing the videos. But revenue is revenue!

[thioordc]

That’s a crazy amount more!

[athorax]

The youtube channel veritasium did a pretty interesting video on the phenomenon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

[jrockway]

I'm not convinced that it's optimized in any way. Linus claims to have A/B tested it, but changing the thumbnails disturbs the experiment too much (different time of day, Youtube knows that you changed the thumbnail and probably uses that information for something, CDN lag, who knows what else), and the sample size is too small to be statistically meaningful.

I watch a ton of YouTube and exaggerated facial expressions in thumbnails are rare in the channels I watch. The channels don't seem to be suffering for it, many have subscriber counts in the millions. I even have a concrete head-to-head example. Every Saturday morning, two channels I watch (clough42 and blondihacks) both post videos. YouTube puts them at the top of recommended every Saturday without fail. clough42 uses his face in the thumbnails, blondihacks uses a picture of her project. Both get recommended. Both channels have grown dramatically over the last year. As far as I can tell, YouTube considers them equally good.

On the other hand, I might not be the target demographic for "I cobbled together a bunch of computer shit" videos (which is kind of LTT's and Jeff Geerling's shtick). So maybe it's the right optimization for that kind of channel. (But if you want revenue, then your sponsors probably want me watching the video and not 13 year old kids with no money. Just saying.)

I will conclude that I pretty much won't click videos like this. Seeing the inside of someone's mouth in a computing video basically says to me "look, the content isn't very good, but I know how to play the game". This is unfair (Jeff, your content is fine), but it's how I feel. It's like seeing the first Google result for "foo bar" being "Cheap Foo Bars Foo Bar Food Bar Foo Bar Compatible With Quuxgorch". I'm not going to click it. You may have won the algorithm, but you didn't win me.

[whywhywhywhy]

I'd believe it works in an A/B test, but the end of the day the reason it's higher is young children click on anything with that stupid looking face on it.

So I bet it does result in higher views, just children viewing it.

Doesn't mean you should do it though, maybe try having some dignity.

[colechristensen]

Lowest common denominator psychological manipulation.

It works, optimizing for it makes you a part of the march towards idocracy, but hey, profits!

[yessirwhatever]

I came into the comments just to say exactly that. What’s worse is that OP is aware and admits it’s stupid, yet continues to engage in this shady, annoying, and extremely stupid tactic.

I don’t click on crap videos and content like that on principle. Interesting or not.

[loudmax]

I don't know what Jeff Geerling's income is, but I'm pretty sure he's a full time Youtuber at this point. He doesn't like the stupid thumbnails either, but generating Youtube views is pretty much his job. Maybe there's some kind of long term strategy where refraining from stupid thumbnails curates a more intelligent audience, but if your livelihood depends on audience size, that's a big risk to take. In fact I hope it works out that way, but until that's a proven strategy I can't fault geerlingguy for the stupid thumbnails.

[intpx]

That's an awfully short hill to die on.

Youtube is gamified. Jeff doesn't play the game, he doesn't get the views. If he doesn't get the views, he doesn't get the sponsorships. If he doesn't get the sponsorships, he goes back to being a just another devops engineer who doesn't make the thing no one else will ever make.

I get it, the face is the worst. But until youtube fixes its algorithm (i dunno, to de-prioritize videos with 'the face') the Jeff's have to do the face to get the views to get the algorithmic advantage to get the views to get the sponsors to make the making worth the making.

[yessirwhatever]

I understand where you're coming from, but you're talking as if this "Jeff" is a machine and not a person. He's a real human who can think and make decisions regardless of what this "algorithm" could potentially dictate. This prioritization of the "face" is all speculation at the end of the day, and until the "Jeff"s of Youtube stop acting like machines and start acting like thinking-individuals who don't think that the end justify the means, the stupid face will take over, and this is what I and others are criticizing.

[Abishek_Muthian]

Isn't it how YouTube works now? It's not 2005 anymore; Cringe thumbnail, Click-bait headline and more cringe in the Video is the standard operating procedure for someone who wants to make a YouTube career, eventually making enough revenue to do all that in a larger scale with Michael Bay movie budget.

There are very few left on YT who continue to make unedited video in the maker space[1][2] and obviously get punished by YT algorithms for that.

Cringe is part and parcel of YT, If we don't like it we should be watching videos on PeerTube, LBRY etc.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/MrTeslonian/videos

[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1xxFkEiAdCVy6foEEUIvw/vid...

[haraball]

Youtube is painful to use without certain add-ons for me. For this specific issue I'm happy using "Clickbait remover for youtube": https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem...

Another good one is "DF YouTube (Distraction Free)": https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/df-youtube/

[post_break]

My favorite is sponsorblock. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/

[jypepin]

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this feeling. I get that it's producing more views and you need to play the youtube game, but I miss a lot of content just because I decide NOT to click out of principle.

[jonathankoren]

It’s not just the thumbnail faces. Streamers constantly overreact to even the most mundane things.

My son and a friend of his were watching some pair of Minecraft streamers, and I couldn’t get follow what was happening. Both men were constantly yelling “WHAT? WHAT? OH MY GOD! AHHHHHHHHH!” As far as I could tell, they were both yelling independent things, and just walking around sheep.

[amelius]

As someone who constantly underreacts to everything, even when I receive a nice gift, I must confess that I am somewhat jealous of the streamer generation.

[idontwantthis]

I recommend an extension called ClickBaitRemover. Changes thumbnails to be a frame from the video and regularized capitalization.

[dekerta]

Someone should make a browser extension that uses face recognition to replace them with pictures of kittens or something

[MichaelBurge]

I think it's because kids watch a lot of Youtube, and kids are drawn to people making exaggerated faces.

[wmanley]

I think it's because the thumbnails are small, so if the faces aren't exaggerated you won't perceive any particular emotion at all. It's a bit like the difference between theatre and film acting.

[meepmorp]

This is probably why. Similarly, stage makeup on actors is typically very heavy to accentuate the facial features at a distance, making them easier to read.

[Mordisquitos]

But that starts from the premise that you even care about the "emotion" expressed in the video. While I'm sure that there are many genres of videos where the emotions expressed by the authors are relevant to the topic at hand, there are many topics in which an expression of emotion, let alone an exaggerated one, is completely out of place.

[meepmorp]

I don't think that's true. I'm sure a lot of youtubers want people to enjoy their videos and get something from them, but they're also monetizing eyeballs. That means clicks on videos, which means grabbing attention in the video thumbnails. All other things being equal, people will click on a thumbnail with someone with an exaggerated facial expression more often than a neutral one.

As to why that works, my theory is that we're wired to respond to more extreme emotional displays because we're socially oriented great apes and that kind of information is important for navigating the world.

[drumttocs8]

We see a face with an (albeit fake) emotional reaction, our monkey brains say "that must be interesting!"

It's very stupid, but not surprising that those videos get more engagement.

[drcongo]

My emotional reaction to those is "this must be shit, they've had to put together this awful Clickhole picture just to try to make people watch it".

I've literally never watched a single one.

[nefitty]

This is one of the best thumbnails I've seen. It's evocative of Garbage Pail Kids and seems satirical, in the spirit of your complaint.

[rasz]

Just look at the like/dislike ratio to judge if the video is a clicb... oh wait

[vladsanchez]

It's your discretion whether you bite something you perceive or suspect may be "idiotic", which are the exact reasons why:

1- I've not watched it

2- Unsubscribed his channel

3- Irrelevant

4- I don't bite any "Geerling" content

[qstyk]

I'm right there, with you. Even worse, are the ones where they outline the silhouette with a solid color.

[mbrodersen]

YouTubers do what works. Blame the audience not the producers.