The Birth Of The YouTube

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,711
In February of 2005 Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim registered the logo, domain and trademark for YouTube, a video sharing site that, by various reports, was intended either to be part of a new dating app, or was designed as a video accumulator because Karim couldn't find clips of Janet Jackson's 2004 Superbowl wardrobe malfunction.

In April of 2005 Jawed Karim loaded YouTube's first video (his visit to a zoo) onto the site and opened the site to the public. And now, 14 years later, we have this Google monster that has, IMHO, done more to change the world than other small fish like Facebook.

I can't tell you how much time I've spent on YouTube watching things that I had no idea I needed to watch. And to celebrate the anniversary of millions of amateur videography monkeys throwing their poop onto the internet, I'd like to invite each of you to present a favorite video that you feel embodies the YouTubeishness of YouTube.


 
Meh.

I find youtube to be more of an annoyance than anything else.

It has harmed good written format content because everyone wants to be a goddamned youtube celebrity.

I liked it fine as a clip sharing site, but as soon as Google enabled revenue sharing and these nobody's started having "shows" on it, it all turned to shit.

I think the internet would be a better place if tomorrow it just disappeared.
 
Meh.

I find youtube to be more of an annoyance than anything else.

It has harmed good written format content because everyone wants to be a goddamned youtube celebrity.

I liked it fine as a clip sharing site, but as soon as Google enabled revenue sharing and these nobody's started having "shows" on it, it all turned to shit.

I think the internet would be a better place if tomorrow it just disappeared.


You forgot to tell us to get off your lawn..
 
Meh.

I find youtube to be more of an annoyance than anything else.

It has harmed good written format content because everyone wants to be a goddamned youtube celebrity.

I liked it fine as a clip sharing site, but as soon as Google enabled revenue sharing and these nobody's started having "shows" on it, it all turned to shit.

I think the internet would be a better place if tomorrow it just disappeared.

Do you have to whine like a baby in EVERY thread dealing with Youtube? We fucking get it. We got it months ago.
 
The google bought The you-tube. The thread should be in The Genmay.
 
The fuck does this have to do with tech news?

*shrug* I still do media management for my university's engineering department, and I still belong to a couple of informal media groups. Every year there's a two day roundtable on changes in internet media and internet media consumption, and about a month after that is the 'Year in YouTube' event, held around the 'birthday' of YouTube, where we point out videos that we think were especially clever or well done or unique.

Why did I start this thread? I dunno, I thought it was something that might spark people to start posting. Some people have been quiet since the 1st.


P.S. YouTube's birthday is actually the 23rd, I think.
 
Do you have to whine like a baby in EVERY thread dealing with Youtube? We fucking get it. We got it months ago.

Whenever a subject comes up that I have a opinion on, I will express it.

If you don't like it you can skip to the next post.

IMHO, the internet was near perfect in 1999. Everything that has been added to it since has detracted, rather than added to it.
 
Whenever a subject comes up that I have a opinion on, I will express it.

If you don't like it you can skip to the next post.

IMHO, the internet was near perfect in 1999. Everything that has been added to it since has detracted, rather than added to it.

You are like an internet hipster. "I liked the internet before everyone else got involved and companies sold out". Things are miles better now than they ever have been. The human race has never had the kind of access to information that we do now and that is a good thing. Not everything is perfect, of course, but it has only improved.
 
Where is the news part? Did this topic escape from general mayhem?
 
Fixed.

As entertainment the internet is great. As a source of information it is only as good as the person using it.

Well, there has always been stupid people that would believe everything. The modern internet just makes it more apparent.
 
If anything it proves that the bell curve is real. The people who can consistently discern real from fake on the internet are the minority.

Happens when governments and companies expect people to act like drones with no independent thought and schools don't bother to teach kids anything expect to trust and do as they told and never question anything.
 
Well, can we get a mod to move this thread? I can lock it or change the title, but I can't move it. Or delete it.
 
You are like an internet hipster. "I liked the internet before everyone else got involved and companies sold out". Things are miles better now than they ever have been. The human race has never had the kind of access to information that we do now and that is a good thing. Not everything is perfect, of course, but it has only improved.


Wrong. The production quality certainly has gone up, but that's just useless flash. The actual quality of the information has gone way way down, and it is further accelerating in that direction thanks in large parts due to Youtube drawing people away from the traditional written article and letting them make videos instead.

My greatest engineering professor once said: "The only thing you have demonstrated by using color in an engineering chart is that you know nothing about an engineering chart". This applies timers a million for doing reviews and charts inside a video instead of in a written review.

But yes. The internet in general was way better back when it was by geeks for geeks. Back when some bearded due in the IT department had a server under his desk with a forum on some geeky subject he enjoyed. As soon as money and commercial interests got involved and normies started getting online it started spiraling downwards to the shitshow we have today. If that makes me a hipster, so be it. I'll own it.
 
IMHO, the internet was near perfect in 1999. Everything that has been added to it since has detracted, rather than added to it.

My memories of the internet circa 1999... And playing drunk StarCraft I guess.
peanut-butter-jelly-time.gif
 
It has harmed good written format content because everyone wants to be a goddamned youtube celebrity.
While I don't agree with your complete assessment this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Nothing is more annoying than video reviews on things that can just as easily drive with pictures. It's so easy to skim through a written article to find the relevant pieces you want to read about, with a video you need to sit through basically the whole thing when toy only wasn't 10% off it and don't know where it is, plus I can read much faster than someone can say things
 
I liked it fine as a clip sharing site, but as soon as Google enabled revenue sharing and these nobody's started having "shows" on it, it all turned to shit.

You dislike primitive Primitive Technology and every blacksmithing/restoration show? Every concert?

Or you can just watch nature shows. But none of these would be written.
 
The pessimism and grumpiness here is astounding.

As for consumable entertainment, Youtube is probably 90% of it for me. If you have an interest in something, there are other passionate people who share your interest and make interesting content about it. Its as simple as that.

There is shit AND there is good stuff.

All this hate makes no sense and I would hate to go through life like that.
 
You are like an internet hipster. "I liked the internet before everyone else got involved and companies sold out". Things are miles better now than they ever have been. The human race has never had the kind of access to information that we do now and that is a good thing. Not everything is perfect, of course, but it has only improved.

Things are actually quite worse than ever -- *depending* on how you look at them.
I find articles like this very revealing about how shitty things actually are from an engineering perspective: https://tonsky.me/blog/disenchantment/

I didn't start using the internet until 2005/6 or so and even work as a HW/SW developer -- does that make me a hipster for caring about efficiency and cleanliness?
The modern web is a cesspool of shit: ads, scripts, disregard for resource usage, bloat bloat bloat, and for what exactly?
 
Last edited:
Wrong. The production quality certainly has gone up, but that's just useless flash. The actual quality of the information has gone way way down, and it is further accelerating in that direction thanks in large parts due to Youtube drawing people away from the traditional written article and letting them make videos instead.

My greatest engineering professor once said: "The only thing you have demonstrated by using color in an engineering chart is that you know nothing about an engineering chart". This applies timers a million for doing reviews and charts inside a video instead of in a written review.

But yes. The internet in general was way better back when it was by geeks for geeks. Back when some bearded due in the IT department had a server under his desk with a forum on some geeky subject he enjoyed. As soon as money and commercial interests got involved and normies started getting online it started spiraling downwards to the shitshow we have today. If that makes me a hipster, so be it. I'll own it.

You are suffering from nostalgia blindness. You are living under the assumption that everything was better when it was written down, except it wasn't. Videos are no less able to dispense quality information than a written article. It is a gross mischaracterization of the medium to claim otherwise. You are allowing yourself to be blinded by nostalgia into thinking that everything was more accurate or better presented, it wasn't. There was NEVER a time where the majority of information was well written or well presented and there was never a time where the VAST majority of reviews were more than than jiggering of idiots that assumed far more than they actually knew. Its no different now than it was back then, the only difference is the medium it is presented under.
 
You dislike primitive Primitive Technology and every blacksmithing/restoration show? Every concert?

Or you can just watch nature shows. But none of these would be written.
Yes there is some good content on youtube, that doesn't change the fact that 49% of it is pure garbage, and another 49% are ripoffs who take stolen content and reupload it for ad revenue. And the remaining 2% is good original content. Maybe.
 
You are suffering from nostalgia blindness. You are living under the assumption that everything was better when it was written down, except it wasn't. Videos are no less able to dispense quality information than a written article.

Videos are entertainment. If you're looking for a specific piece of information it is much better to have an article in written form that you can search, and find what you were looking for in 5 seconds. As opposed to watching a random guy barf words for 10 minutes about stuff you are not interested in and have no patience for.

This goes for everything from instructional articles to reviews, including benchmarks. Videos are a terrible and inefficient way to convey information.

Have you ever tried to find a specific line in a video? And in a written article? Which one is easier?
 
Videos are entertainment. If you're looking for a specific piece of information it is much better to have an article in written form that you can search, and find what you were looking for in 5 seconds. As opposed to watching a random guy barf words for 10 minutes about stuff you are not interested in and have no patience for.

This goes for everything from instructional articles to reviews, including benchmarks. Videos are a terrible and inefficient way to convey information.

Have you ever tried to find a specific line in a video? And in a written article? Which one is easier?

Depends on the specific needs. Yes, its easier to find an exact statement from a written article, but videos are no less capable of delivering information. A well done video will use the medium to its advantage. Your lack of patience does not make the medium worse it simply means you lack patience, that's a personal fault.
 
Depends on the specific needs. Yes, its easier to find an exact statement from a written article, but videos are no less capable of delivering information. A well done video will use the medium to its advantage. Your lack of patience does not make the medium worse it simply means you lack patience, that's a personal fault.
It's interesting how you can twist the fact that written articles convey information faster and more efficiently than videos into a failing of mine.

I watch videos for entertainment, it's not that they can't convey information it is that when I actually need some information they are terrible.

For example you come across a company that you need information on for your report. Would you hit up the wikipedia page of the company or watch a 20 minute video of a random youtuber talking about that company?
 
You are suffering from nostalgia blindness. You are living under the assumption that everything was better when it was written down, except it wasn't. Videos are no less able to dispense quality information than a written article. It is a gross mischaracterization of the medium to claim otherwise. You are allowing yourself to be blinded by nostalgia into thinking that everything was more accurate or better presented, it wasn't. There was NEVER a time where the majority of information was well written or well presented and there was never a time where the VAST majority of reviews were more than than jiggering of idiots that assumed far more than they actually knew. Its no different now than it was back then, the only difference is the medium it is presented under.

You are so wrong it is almost funny.

A video is impossibly difficult to consume for something like a video card or CPU review, where they flash charts edited in while talking. There is no possible way to make a video review of something like this even close to as good as a well thought out and written article.

That's not to say that video doesn't have it's benefits. It's great for instructionals for how to do things and for reviews that require some sort of spacial sense of things. I could picture case reviews being a good application.

The problem is that good sites with written reviews like the H are disappearing all over the place, being replaced by tools on YouTube who don't know what they are talking about trying to squeeze reviews into a video format that doesn't make sense.

The problems with the video format compared to the written format are many, but let me try to summarize them.

- Writing something down forces a person to think about what they say. They can immediately edit it as they wrote and clarify. In videos you just get blathering. If something needs to be fixed, you need to do another take and edit it in, and often that just doesn't happen. The philosophy of "good enough" sets in.

- In a written article you the reader get to decide what is important to you. If you are particularly interested in a certain part you can focus on it, and skim through and skip parts that are not important to you. This is very difficult with videos. Text articles have an almost built in layout that is easily navigable. In a video you never know what is coming next, so if you find a section not relevant to you you could risk it and skip forward 30 seconds, but then you never know what you are missing and may have to go back it worse may miss some important detail. it is thus much easier to study the details of something in a written article. There is a reason the NTSB doesn't do a video report of crash investigation sites. Detailed data and information always belongs in written form, and the devil is always in the details.

- In a written article you decide how fast you want to move. Speech is a highly inefficient form of communication and is much slower than even a slow readers reading speed. I find myself getting very frustrated with most videos because things are moving slowly. You can speed them up, but then they become difficult to understand. 1.25x is fine. Even 1.5x is OK most of them time. 2x becomes very difficult to understand, but even so it feels frustratingly slow compared to reading.

- Intros, music, and voice. Sound is a huge problem with videos. A written article I can read anywhere at any time. With a video I need to make sure I can hear it, and that I am somewhere where the noise won't bother anyone else. And even then, you are then subjected to other peoples terrible tastes in music or having to put up with awful voices, like that incomprehensible Scottish guy on AdoredTV, the snively wimpy sound of Linus, or the hopelessly geeky sound of JayzTwoCents. And for crying out loud, please dispense with your intro clips and just show me what I came here for. I hate it when people waste my time.

With the few exceptions mentioned above (instructionals and reviews where 3d spacial factors are important) video as a medium is just not a good way to convey detailed information.

The videos take something that is highly detail and evidence based and turn it in to a very high level overview and lose a lot in the process. There are many reasons the kids in the PCMR groups today are much less informed than we used to be at their age, and a good part of that is that they get their information from Youtube.
 
It's interesting how you can twist the fact that written articles convey information faster and more efficiently than videos into a failing of mine.

I watch videos for entertainment, it's not that they can't convey information it is that when I actually need some information they are terrible.

For example you come across a company that you need information on for your report. Would you hit up the wikipedia page of the company or watch a 20 minute video of a random youtuber talking about that company?

Like I said in my first sentence, everything depends on the specific needs. If I want a single bit of info, then a reliable written source is probably faster. If its a review or something not remotely important then a video is just fine. It is also a hell of a lot easier for me to find time for a video over an in-depth written article as I can throw on a video and watch or listen to it while doing other things. The typical schlock that passes for written reviews these days doesn't talk long to read, but they're not worth my time either so I don't bother with them.
 
The videos take something that is highly detail and evidence based and turn it in to a very high level overview and lose a lot in the process. There are many reasons the kids in the PCMR groups today are much less informed than we used to be at their age, and a good part of that is that they get their information from Youtube.

Eh. I think this has a lot more to do with a problem that has been around longer than even the internet: People find one source they trust and treat that person's word as law no matter how far off base they are on basically everything. It was a problem back when we would get most of our info from magazines, it was a problem when written reviews were king, and its a problem now with Youtube. There are a lot more people involved with PC gaming now then there has been, possibly ever, it makes the problem worse as people will repeat bad information all over tricking everyone else into thinking its correct.
 
Like I said in my first sentence, everything depends on the specific needs. If I want a single bit of info, then a reliable written source is probably faster. If its a review or something not remotely important then a video is just fine. It is also a hell of a lot easier for me to find time for a video over an in-depth written article as I can throw on a video and watch or listen to it while doing other things. The typical schlock that passes for written reviews these days doesn't talk long to read, but they're not worth my time either so I don't bother with them.
So you listen to videos while doing other things, sorry but that is called entertainment then. I sometimes also listen to youtube while working, I do that as entertainment, It's something to listen to while doing a monotonous job that doesn't need my full attention. But if I specifically want to be informed on something, the only acceptable format is written.

If written essays / articles and videos were the same we could hand in reports at our company as a video :-D
 
So you listen to videos while doing other things, sorry but that is called entertainment then. I sometimes also listen to youtube while working, I do that as entertainment, It's something to listen to while doing a monotonous job that doesn't need my full attention. But if I specifically want to be informed on something, the only acceptable format is written.

If written essays / articles and videos were the same we could hand in reports at our company as a video :-D

Entertainment and information, depending on the video itself. I still retain information when the video is on in the background.
 
So you listen to videos while doing other things, sorry but that is called entertainment then. I sometimes also listen to youtube while working, I do that as entertainment, It's something to listen to while doing a monotonous job that doesn't need my full attention. But if I specifically want to be informed on something, the only acceptable format is written.

If written essays / articles and videos were the same we could hand in reports at our company as a video :-D

Ah. My work is intellectually demanding. I struggle to get it right even if I'm listening to music. Maybe that explains my overwhelming YouTube viewer statistics:

Screenshot_20190415-161953~2.png


3 whole minutes last week!
 
While I don't agree with your complete assessment this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Nothing is more annoying than video reviews on things that can just as easily drive with pictures. It's so easy to skim through a written article to find the relevant pieces you want to read about, with a video you need to sit through basically the whole thing when toy only wasn't 10% off it and don't know where it is, plus I can read much faster than someone can say things

Yeah, that is my only real issue with YouTube "tutorials" - for a 2 minute instruction the video might be 20 minutes long because DAT AD MONEY.

Otherwise, a HUGELY valuable resource with a wealth of knowledge.
 
be sure to go Full Screen and turn off the room lights for best effect

 
Yeah, that is my only real issue with YouTube "tutorials" - for a 2 minute instruction the video might be 20 minutes long because DAT AD MONEY.

Otherwise, a HUGELY valuable resource with a wealth of knowledge.

Video length has nothing to do with ad revenue. There was a time several years ago when a video needed to be a certain length in order to enable ads but that hasn’t been a thing for some time. As revenue is based on the number of people viewing ads on a video.
 
Entertainment and information, depending on the video itself. I still retain information when the video is on in the background.
Of course you retain information, but you're not watching youtube because you need that information for something ASAP, you watch it because it entertains you or because it is about your hobby.

Yeah, that is my only real issue with YouTube "tutorials" - for a 2 minute instruction the video might be 20 minutes long because DAT AD MONEY.

Otherwise, a HUGELY valuable resource with a wealth of knowledge.
Usually when I need instructions on something I only need help for a very specific part that I can't figure out on my own. I don't want to watch a video on the entire process I only want the part I'm missing. Which can be instantly gathered from a proper written step by step article. Videos only and ever should be companion material to instructional articles not standalone products. Besides when I'm doing something based on instructions, I have the relevant page open while I'm doing a part. With a video you have to constantly re-wind pause, ooops I rewinded too much, ooops now it starts playing from the start, oops now I ff-ed too far it plays from the middle of what I want. If you tried to complete any task based on video instructions you instantly realize that it's inconvenient as hell.


Video length has nothing to do with ad revenue. There was a time several years ago when a video needed to be a certain length in order to enable ads but that hasn’t been a thing for some time. As revenue is based on the number of people viewing ads on a video.
Of course it does, sub 10 minute videos only get one ad break. That's why all youtubers tend to pad their videos to exceed the 10 minute mark almost all the time. Of course 20 is even better, but it'd be hard to pad a video about something that you can read in 2 minutes into a 20 minute video.
 
Of course you retain information, but you're not watching youtube because you need that information for something ASAP, you watch it because it entertains you or because it is about your hobby.


Usually when I need instructions on something I only need help for a very specific part that I can't figure out on my own. I don't want to watch a video on the entire process I only want the part I'm missing. Which can be instantly gathered from a proper written step by step article. Videos only and ever should be companion material to instructional articles not standalone products. Besides when I'm doing something based on instructions, I have the relevant page open while I'm doing a part. With a video you have to constantly re-wind pause, ooops I rewinded too much, ooops now it starts playing from the start, oops now I ff-ed too far it plays from the middle of what I want. If you tried to complete any task based on video instructions you instantly realize that it's inconvenient as hell.



Of course it does, sub 10 minute videos only get one ad break. That's why all youtubers tend to pad their videos to exceed the 10 minute mark almost all the time. Of course 20 is even better, but it'd be hard to pad a video about something that you can read in 2 minutes into a 20 minute video.

Well, yeah. I did say, multiple times already, that everything depends on the specific needs. If you want a singular piece of information in an instant then a reliable written source will be faster. If you're looking for entertainment or general research, a video is fine. I'm more of a visual learner myself so videos are immensely helpful when trying to figure something out. I learned how to do custom water cooling loops from videos, I've learned how to install various blocks from videos. I'm thinking about making some custom cables for my system, I've been using videos to research that. I am also thinking of trying my hand at hardline water cooling later this year, again videos are an invaluable source for me. I like being able to pull up a visual of what is going on, seeing other people go through the steps gives me a bit more confidence in doing it myself.

Youtube's scrub function is really good, as long as you don't accidentally hit one of the many keys on your keyboard that makes the video jump around. It always annoys me when people do long instructional videos and don't include timestamps so people can easily find a specific section they're after. That really should be a standard for all videos over 15-20 minutes.
 
Back
Top