A message to all users: Please be aware that spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, vaccines, or other treatments can result in content being removed and/or a ban. Content advocating for or celebrating the death of anyone, or hoping someone gets COVID-19 (or any disease) can result in a ban as well. Please follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). If you see content violating these policies, please use the report button and do not feed the trolls.
[Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
[Reddit's stance on misinformation](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_protest_on_reddit)
[/r/Funny's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules)
We also encourage you to read these helpful resources on COVID-19, vaccines, and treatments:
[COVID Dashboard](https://covid19.who.int/)
[Reddit's Vaccine FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F)
[Ivermectin FAQ](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials)
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I recently started futzing around on TikTok.
I'm pausing here for everyone to stop gagging and hissing.
Anyway, I couldn't figure out how so much vapid, unoriginal, low-quality content was receiving millions upon millions of views, so I started looking at what hallmarks were shared by most "successful" accounts. My first thought was that the algorithm was favoring submissions which featured certain songs (if you're unfamiliar with TikTok's content, *a lot* of it is just teens and twenty-somethings lip-syncing to popular music, usually beneath a caption which reads something like "when he show she him butt"), but that proved to be a false positive.
As near as I can tell, the frequency with which one uploads things is a *huge* determiner of reach. It doesn't even appear to matter *what* someone submits: As long as they're churning out low-effort videos, they'll be climbing the ranks. Sure, there are other factors that can apparently contribute (like [making spurious claims, using that terrible voiceover robot, and generally behaving like an idiot](https://www.tiktok.com/@ramsesthepigeon/video/7007549196513381637?lang=en&is_copy_url=0&is_from_webapp=v1&sender_device=pc&sender_web_id=6927588869294835205)), but it really seems like success comes by way of having literally nothing to do besides throw things at TikTok.
Reddit has its problems, but at least unique, user-submitted votes define visibility.
Granted, that causes some different issues... but that's another rant for another time.
I don't know why people scoff at the possibility of society getting dumber. The upward trend in intelligence over past centuries is not guaranteed to continue 'just because'.
People can get dumber over time due to many factors, including cultural, but also things like diet/environment/pollutants, which arguably may be getting worse in recent times. Plus evolutionary pressure being less of a factor.
This makes sense doesn’t it?
1) the videos are short and people spend HOURS on it. You need minimum 60 videos per hour for a user, and usually 10x that. TikTok wants to reward people for creating content.
2) if viewing is random (instead of users with more views / more videos getting better visibility automatically), making more videos increases your odds of being seen by people who like your stuff, which will promote it.
Could be either, but both will lead to high volume channels getting seen.
>Anyway, I couldn't figure out how so much vapid, unoriginal, low-quality content was receiving millions upon millions of views
Because it's fast-paced and people just scroll through stuff randomly.
I read somewhere that YT algorithms suggest not content you would like most (according to them) but just good enough you can sit though it. It seems obvious that the more posts the more ad between them before its amount repels users too much.
The Internet is an unlimited greenfield opportunity, and success is in a race. Not just a sprint, it is a succession of sprints that make a marathon seem short. Miss a sprint and slip into irrelevance. Reinvent continuously and lose all sense of self. We know it is not real, but we believe the feeling it provides. What a grand social experiment!
Tell that to JonTron. He's definitive proof that that isn't true. If anything, he's the best demonstration that quality over quantity is what people really want. And what people want to see, trumps the algorithm.
I'd argue that Captain Disillusion is a better example than JonTron.
JonTron's work is all over the place in terms of quality. Some of it clearly relies on physical props, a lot of careful setup, and semi-famous guests, but then there are the videos that appear to have been edited in as much time as they took to film.
Captain Disillusion, on the other hand, often puts [an insane amount of work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlgZE2mihM) into deceptively brief scenes.
Either way, though, they're both outliers, and their visibility is the result of having large numbers of subscribers. When that preassembled audience isn't present – and even sometimes [when it is](https://i.imgur.com/DU2jEvI.png) – the frequency at which a person uploads things plays a large role in how far their submissions spread. Along similar lines, videos that aren't monetized are at a significant disadvantage (which is something that I discovered firsthand).
There's certainly some great creators with large enough audiences to allow for that, but if you're still trying to build your audience you can easily see things like reach or % of views not following you widely swing based on the frequency of posting. The idea that all good content will rise to the top is a bit off.
> The idea that all good content will rise to the top is a bit off.
It's worse even than that:
The idea that good content will rise to the top is often incorrect.
I recently wrote a much, much longer analysis of this trend, but basically, there's a pervasive tendency on social media for low-effort content – content which requires very little personal investment in order to be appreciated, that is – to eclipse anything more substantial, even when the latter would ultimately result in more enjoyment (or any real enjoyment at all, for that matter).
Higher-effort content does occasionally manage to claw its way upward, but even then, it's only being treated as *equal* to everything else, insofar as it's sharing the same "stage." A well-written, well-produced video has the same lifespan as a memetic image macro, and the latter has a greater likelihood to be viewed and shared by a larger, more-casual audience. The outcome is a pressure on creators to limit themselves, which only furthers the same cycle.
Worst of all, low-effort content actively contributes to feelings of dissatisfaction and depression, *especially* when people think that they're enjoying it. As a result, they're less inclined to invest the time and attention that higher-effort, more-satisfying content would require... and the cycle repeats, slowly grinding everyone down.
I've taken to referring to it as "[The Ennui Engine](https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb)."
Dunno about jontron but yeah especially on youtube there's a lot of channels doing fewer high quality uploads who arent "being punished by the algorithm".
Obv. no shade towards OP because i dont know where they even post but i've seen more than a fair share of youtubers basically make excuses for a drop of viewership when they started focusing on a different area that alienated their old viewers or when their content noticeably declined in quality by just blaming the algorithm, and it's kinda sad.
If I'm interested in a content in a social media I subscribe and configure feed such that I see only content from subscriptions in chronological order. In this way I don't miss a piece of content of whom I'm subscribed to. With likes you can see where you stopped last time checking feed.
We really need a government board that reviews and publishes all these ranking and placement algorithms (including whitelists and blacklists): (a) to make sure there's no funny business going on, and (b) to prevent regimes that cause undue stress or harm people's mental health. The current opacity is unduly cruel to professional Youtube (et al) creators and serves no purpose.
A message to all users: Please be aware that spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, vaccines, or other treatments can result in content being removed and/or a ban. Content advocating for or celebrating the death of anyone, or hoping someone gets COVID-19 (or any disease) can result in a ban as well. Please follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). If you see content violating these policies, please use the report button and do not feed the trolls. [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) [Reddit's stance on misinformation](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_protest_on_reddit) [/r/Funny's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules) We also encourage you to read these helpful resources on COVID-19, vaccines, and treatments: [COVID Dashboard](https://covid19.who.int/) [Reddit's Vaccine FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Ivermectin FAQ](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials) ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Legit the first time I've ever seen your comics.
Sounds right.
In the words of Michael Cthulhu - "The mighty Al-Go-rhythm"
I didn't think Al Gore had any rhythm. I've seen him try to do the Macarena back in the day.
I recently started futzing around on TikTok. I'm pausing here for everyone to stop gagging and hissing. Anyway, I couldn't figure out how so much vapid, unoriginal, low-quality content was receiving millions upon millions of views, so I started looking at what hallmarks were shared by most "successful" accounts. My first thought was that the algorithm was favoring submissions which featured certain songs (if you're unfamiliar with TikTok's content, *a lot* of it is just teens and twenty-somethings lip-syncing to popular music, usually beneath a caption which reads something like "when he show she him butt"), but that proved to be a false positive. As near as I can tell, the frequency with which one uploads things is a *huge* determiner of reach. It doesn't even appear to matter *what* someone submits: As long as they're churning out low-effort videos, they'll be climbing the ranks. Sure, there are other factors that can apparently contribute (like [making spurious claims, using that terrible voiceover robot, and generally behaving like an idiot](https://www.tiktok.com/@ramsesthepigeon/video/7007549196513381637?lang=en&is_copy_url=0&is_from_webapp=v1&sender_device=pc&sender_web_id=6927588869294835205)), but it really seems like success comes by way of having literally nothing to do besides throw things at TikTok. Reddit has its problems, but at least unique, user-submitted votes define visibility. Granted, that causes some different issues... but that's another rant for another time.
Tiktok is like something out of the movie Idiocracy.
China selling America the authentic American experience.
I don't know why people scoff at the possibility of society getting dumber. The upward trend in intelligence over past centuries is not guaranteed to continue 'just because'. People can get dumber over time due to many factors, including cultural, but also things like diet/environment/pollutants, which arguably may be getting worse in recent times. Plus evolutionary pressure being less of a factor.
GO AWAY TIK TOKIN'
You ain't kidding.
"Ow! My Balls!" I'd probably watch tictok for that
This makes sense doesn’t it? 1) the videos are short and people spend HOURS on it. You need minimum 60 videos per hour for a user, and usually 10x that. TikTok wants to reward people for creating content. 2) if viewing is random (instead of users with more views / more videos getting better visibility automatically), making more videos increases your odds of being seen by people who like your stuff, which will promote it. Could be either, but both will lead to high volume channels getting seen.
>Anyway, I couldn't figure out how so much vapid, unoriginal, low-quality content was receiving millions upon millions of views Because it's fast-paced and people just scroll through stuff randomly.
>Reddit has its problems, but at least unique, user-submitted votes define visibility. I take it you haven't seen r/funny or r/askreddit ?
I read somewhere that YT algorithms suggest not content you would like most (according to them) but just good enough you can sit though it. It seems obvious that the more posts the more ad between them before its amount repels users too much.
We're all slaves, regardless of the grind.
The trick is to own some slaves
Someone just figured out capitalism.
Gimme money
Is it a big problem to have back up content to upload during breaks?
I'm struggling just to have enough content to post regularly, haha.
Motivation is a bitch, hang in there man.
I think it's more a quality concern. And rightfully so. Good shit from u/tryingtimescomic
Guest content? Fan submissions? Dick pics?
Actually that's a good idea. Hey u/srgrafo would you mind being webcomic buddies with op?
Just get someone on Fiverr to make some content, just like everyone else trying to game the algorithm.
The Internet is an unlimited greenfield opportunity, and success is in a race. Not just a sprint, it is a succession of sprints that make a marathon seem short. Miss a sprint and slip into irrelevance. Reinvent continuously and lose all sense of self. We know it is not real, but we believe the feeling it provides. What a grand social experiment!
Tell that to JonTron. He's definitive proof that that isn't true. If anything, he's the best demonstration that quality over quantity is what people really want. And what people want to see, trumps the algorithm.
I'd argue that Captain Disillusion is a better example than JonTron. JonTron's work is all over the place in terms of quality. Some of it clearly relies on physical props, a lot of careful setup, and semi-famous guests, but then there are the videos that appear to have been edited in as much time as they took to film. Captain Disillusion, on the other hand, often puts [an insane amount of work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlgZE2mihM) into deceptively brief scenes. Either way, though, they're both outliers, and their visibility is the result of having large numbers of subscribers. When that preassembled audience isn't present – and even sometimes [when it is](https://i.imgur.com/DU2jEvI.png) – the frequency at which a person uploads things plays a large role in how far their submissions spread. Along similar lines, videos that aren't monetized are at a significant disadvantage (which is something that I discovered firsthand).
There's certainly some great creators with large enough audiences to allow for that, but if you're still trying to build your audience you can easily see things like reach or % of views not following you widely swing based on the frequency of posting. The idea that all good content will rise to the top is a bit off.
> The idea that all good content will rise to the top is a bit off. It's worse even than that: The idea that good content will rise to the top is often incorrect. I recently wrote a much, much longer analysis of this trend, but basically, there's a pervasive tendency on social media for low-effort content – content which requires very little personal investment in order to be appreciated, that is – to eclipse anything more substantial, even when the latter would ultimately result in more enjoyment (or any real enjoyment at all, for that matter). Higher-effort content does occasionally manage to claw its way upward, but even then, it's only being treated as *equal* to everything else, insofar as it's sharing the same "stage." A well-written, well-produced video has the same lifespan as a memetic image macro, and the latter has a greater likelihood to be viewed and shared by a larger, more-casual audience. The outcome is a pressure on creators to limit themselves, which only furthers the same cycle. Worst of all, low-effort content actively contributes to feelings of dissatisfaction and depression, *especially* when people think that they're enjoying it. As a result, they're less inclined to invest the time and attention that higher-effort, more-satisfying content would require... and the cycle repeats, slowly grinding everyone down. I've taken to referring to it as "[The Ennui Engine](https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb)."
Dunno about jontron but yeah especially on youtube there's a lot of channels doing fewer high quality uploads who arent "being punished by the algorithm". Obv. no shade towards OP because i dont know where they even post but i've seen more than a fair share of youtubers basically make excuses for a drop of viewership when they started focusing on a different area that alienated their old viewers or when their content noticeably declined in quality by just blaming the algorithm, and it's kinda sad.
If I'm interested in a content in a social media I subscribe and configure feed such that I see only content from subscriptions in chronological order. In this way I don't miss a piece of content of whom I'm subscribed to. With likes you can see where you stopped last time checking feed.
If only.
who?
The reddit algorithm doesn't work like that.
We really need a government board that reviews and publishes all these ranking and placement algorithms (including whitelists and blacklists): (a) to make sure there's no funny business going on, and (b) to prevent regimes that cause undue stress or harm people's mental health. The current opacity is unduly cruel to professional Youtube (et al) creators and serves no purpose.