Do it or Don't

part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVd5__-cdYc
part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JogTDYhTG0k

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Censorship
• Youtube
• DMCA
• flag
• flagging

[geroldkid]

Free Speech FTW.

[kurtilein3]

you should use your real voice, its much better, i dont like those computer voices.

anyway, some of those ideas are really good.

[kurtilein3]

no, you still dont get it. idiot.

you should use an alternative to youtube, because undoubtedly you are one of those people that is too uninformed to be able to watch the high quality version.

[TheCeejPlus]

Ah... Now I get it. YouTube is trying to save money by decreasing the amount of videos that are watched. They're doing a great job because, according to the thread about it, everyone is using alternatives to YouTube now.

[kurtilein3]

how much such a link costs is determined by exactly one factor: the amount of additional traffic that the presence of the link generates by advertising the high-quality, high-traffic version.

this exactly how much this link costs. and this might be a significant two-digit percentage of youtubes total budget. the annotation editor is used only by the owners of videos, so it generates practically no traffic, compared to the traffic caused by all the video streaming.

[Erech01]

True, but like i say, its a rough sketch of an idea.

[TheCeejPlus]

And how much money do you suppose it cost to have a link on the page that directs you to to the high quality version? I mean, as I said, the high quality version is still there. There's just no link to it.

I bet it costs just as much, if not more, to have that annoying annotation editor on your own page. Maybe that should get rid of that if they can't afford to automatically post the link to the high quality version of the video that still exists on the server.

[kurtilein3]

so you can then remove bad ratings by unsubscribing or blocking people? (blocking also removes the subscription and makes it impossible to re-subscribe).

i would try a different approach: only allow users that have at least 1 video online where ratings are enabled and where the rating is 3 stars or more to rate videos. if those requirements are no longer fulfilled, the ratings done by that person get inactive. that might work, but it would exclude a lot of people.

[Erech01]

'their account has to be subscribed to that account in order for their vote to count'

That means if they unsubscribe their vote no longer counts, sorry should have really made that part clearer

[kurtilein3]

erech01:

its easy to modify the votebots so that all the sockaccounts of that votebot subscribe, vote, and then unsubscribe. the result of this would be even worse than it is right now.

[kurtilein3]

theceejplus:

youtube didnt have high quality for quite a long time.

i dont know the numbers, so just as an example, i think it would be plausible that maybe 60% of all money youtube spends is being used for traffic. now if they are deep in the red numbers, that is the obvious starting point if they want to spend money in other ways. maybe its even more than 60%. of course it hurts them, just like it might hurt an airline to cut their tokyo san francisco direct connection or sth like that.

[TheCeejPlus]

Not really. No-quality videos suck and HD videos don't work properly on 90% of computers. They don't even work properly on mine and mine's a pretty good one. High-quality videos are what made YouTube and they're losing dozens of clients a day by getting rid of it. What's worse? The high-quality videos still exist. They're just being hidden from us. Don't believe me? Just add "&fmt=18" to the end of a video that doesn't have a high-quality button. They're only hurting themselves.