[pjc50]

> show people what they like to see?

The thing is, "what people enjoy while watching", "what they derive lasting benefit, memory or happiness from", and "what they click on in a thumbnail" are three different things, and youtube optimizes for the latter. Which is why youtube face is a thing.

[freetime2]

Click-through rates are indeed very important, but that's not all they optimize for. They are also looking at watch time, what you do after watching the video (do you watch more videos from the same creator, or on the same subject, something totally different, or do you leave the site), whether you interact with the video by liking or commenting, channels you have subscribed to, things you have searched for, etc.

And I think that when you spend a significant amount of time watching videos on a certain subject or from a certain channel - or when you repeatedly decline to watch videos of a certain type when they are suggested - you are signaling a very clear preference.

Are the videos the algorithm serves up something that people will "derive lasting benefit, memory or happiness from"? Probably not - but I also don't think that's what most people are looking for from YouTube. Sometimes, maybe, but more often they are just looking for mindless entertainment. Engaging with media on a deeper level requires effort. YouTube is where people go when even finding something to watch on Netflix is too much effort, let alone doing something healthy.

To keep this all in context - the parent comment was complaining that the algorithm doesn't promote videos of a guy building bike jumps in his back yard enough. I like Berm Peak - but is that something that most people would "derive lasting benefit, memory or happiness from"? No, it's not.

Anyone who hasn't seen those videos hasn't lost out on very much. And for anyone who has spent any amount of time watching videos about bicycles on YouTube - they probably have been recommended Berm Peak videos on numerous occasions. I know I have. The guy has 2.77 million subscribers and 787 million total views on his videos. Whether or not people actually watched the videos when suggested is more likely a matter of personal choice than the algorithm doing him dirty.

[Scoundreller]

On the creator side, YouTube won’t monetize you until you have 1000 subs.

Which means the person that put up 1 video with a massive amount of views will get squat (but Google will gladly put in ads and take a 100% cut).

Protip: subscribe to creators that post useful but not very subscribeable videos. Sucks for creators that put up videos that don’t really relate to eachother.

Dunno why everything has to be a “channel”. That’s what search is supposed to be for.

[rconti]

> but that's not all they optimize for.

They must do this as a global level, not an individual level.

I've never noticed a single one of those awful algo-driven apps notice that I never watch short videos and in fact I often force quit the app the second they feed me trash I don't want to see.

And they keep doing it.

[Scoundreller]

There’s a bunch of websites where I’ve declined to install their app about 74747627282 times in a row and… tomorrow they’re still going to think they can nudge me into it.

[ben_w]

Yes, modulo only that "what people like enough to keep going through the adverts" isn't exactly the same as "what they click on in a thumbnail", and the latter combines with "did these ads convince someone to get the paid ad free experience" is what YT optimises for.