[indoordin0saur]

Having recently gotten into watching documentaries or youtube videos of accounts of mountaineering expeditions it's amazing how lazy content creators, film makers and journalists can be when choosing what images or videos to show. You'll get something about climbing a mountain in the Andes and keep getting shown completely misleading pictures of Himalayan mountains, etc.

[dylan604]

The content you create is only as good as the stock footage you have available to you. It's not like these people are trekking to the locations to acquire their own content. If you search in stock libraries for mountaineering in the Andes, and it only brings you footage from the Himalayas you're just going to use it.

[indoordin0saur]

I'd say this is more a symptom of the content creator knowing nothing about the subject matter they are presenting on. Which would be fine, except that as someone presenting the content they usually represent themselves as knowledgeable about the subject matter material. Showing stock footage of an Andean mountain when the foliage in the foreground is clearly shows that it is somewhere in the sub-arctic (spruce trees and lupine native to Alaska for example) is total idiocy.

[QuadmasterXLII]

plenty of them are traveling, and the extent to which you see videos of people putting together stock footage indicates failure of the algorithm. although at this point, the algorithm has failed hard enough that I am down to subscriptions and chronological feed.

Although, this larger structure did create one of my favorite internet algorithm outcomes: There is obviously intense hunger for authentic mountain videos narrated in a generic minecraft youtuber voice, and the resulting incentive gradient physically yeeted a minecraft youtuber to the top of mount everest (https://www.youtube.com/@RyanMitchellYT)

[gedy]

I think it's largely because they are "content creators" instead of trying to tell a story or share information.

[indoordin0saur]

I'll notice this with TV documentaries and segments on news channels quite frequently as well. I have the "GeoGuessr gene" as well as being decently well travelled so I spot this stuff all the time. One particular pet peeve of mine is movies or shows mean to be shot in medieval Europe but the "forest" they use is actually a tree plantation of North American native trees such as Sitka Spruce.

[PyWoody]

Simple, lazy stuff like that always drives me up the wall.

The HGTV show House Hunters used to be wildly inaccurate with their map location pins. On more than one occasion they'd say a couple is from the Bay Area but when they show the map the location pin would be in LA County. Like, come on. That's not even close.

[toast0]

There's a lot of duplicated geographic names in Northern and Southern California. If the production house isn't in the area, it's hard, close enough.

I lived in Burbank, but I was in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County, not the incorporated city in LA County. Incidentally, I was living in the South Bay, but not the South Bay in LA County, or the South Bay in San Diego County.

Anyway, perhaps the couple is from the Bay Area, but their house is in LA County right now. :P

[PyWoody]

A specific one that I'll never forget was actually a House Hunters International episode. It was years ago but the pin being off by about 400 miles burned it into my memory lol

I think they were moving from Market Street to Amsterdam.

[IncreasePosts]

Clearly they're referring to the Santa Monica Bay Area

[dylan604]

Maybe the pin was closer and they were lying about it being in the Bay Area???

Also, no need for exact location for these pins. The new home owners probably are fine with it not being exact