open letter to those starting a thread with just a YouTube link

[dsayers]

If you find a YouTube video that motivates you to share it with others, could you please include more information than just a link to the video itself? Information such as why you think others might be interested in it, what value you derived from it, etc. Not every video is for everybody and it would help everybody you're sharing it with be able to decide for themselves whether or not they'd be interested in--or even currently have the time for--it. This is my preference anyways and I'd be interested in what others think of this. Thanks.

[A4E]

My mantra has been that I should not implant a bias into the viewer before he watches the video. But rather let the viewer decide for himself. I generally do not like speaking on others behalf, which would be the case if I gave a (biased) introduction to a video.

 

Also I can feel like I would not give the video justice, and so afraid that people might get bored even before deciding to click on play.

 

Also I suffer from perfectionism. So I might try to avoid writing anything at all, because I would feel like I had to perfect it. Which takes time I would rather spend on other things.

 

Not sure if any of my reasons have any merit.

[Carl Green]

The goal of sharing a vid is to get people to watch it and you'll get far more people actually clicking the video and watching it if what dsayers asks for is included in the post.

 

Also, F click-bait bullshit titles. Rely on content, not tactics.

[A4E]

The goal of sharing a vid is to get people to watch it and you'll get far more people actually clicking the video and watching it if what dsayers asks for is included in the post.

 

Do you have any evidence for this claim (in bold)?

[dsayers]

Do you have any evidence for this claim (in bold)?

It logically follows. People respond to incentives (fact) and providing more information means providing additional incentive.

[labmath2]

It logically follows. People respond to incentives (fact) and providing more information means providing additional incentive.

Thats a nice idea, but it is not evidence for any conclusion.

[Libertus]

It's common sense, but so basic, that you sometimes wonder if it really is that common.

[A4E]

It logically follows. People respond to incentives (fact) and providing more information means providing additional incentive.

You are standing outside a cinema and see a picture of a movie showing at the moment. It looks damn exciting and you are ready to go inside and buy a ticket. Then your companion says he looked up a review on internet on his phone and tells you its boring. (more information). That's a distorted example though.

 

I don't know about other people, but if someone writes something before linking to a video, I know that I have decided to not watch it sometimes based on what they write.

 

What do you guys think about curiosity? I would think it is a powerful force that should not be ignored, and a lot of websites know this. ie "This guy was just going down to his basement, and then this happened!" is going to get a lot of hits, but more information revealed on the clickbait would obviously remove a lot of incentive to click it.

 

How would you feel if stefs videos were presented with a 10 second introduction trying to summarize everything in it?

[youzer]

 

How would you feel if stefs videos were presented with a 10 second introduction trying to summarize everything in it?

The podcasts typically are introduced with a brief overview of what's discussed on the show.  Pretty helpful.

[Carl Green]

Do you have any evidence for this claim (in bold)?

 

I do not have objective evidence of this claim.

[dsayers]

You are standing outside a cinema and see a picture of a movie showing at the moment. It looks damn exciting and you are ready to go inside and buy a ticket. Then your companion says he looked up a review on internet on his phone and tells you its boring. (more information). That's a distorted example though.

Yeah. Not very comparable. But I get what you're saying. If a person wants to avoid X for Y reason though, that's not a problem. If somebody chooses NOT to watch a video you share because of the blurb you gave it, how much would they have gotten out of the video anyways?

 

I know that I have passed on any number of shared links just because I had no reason to click on it because no reason was given. People share stuff ALL THE TIME, so the act of sharing is insufficient for me. The way I see it, if it's not worth somebody's time to write, "I enjoyed this and thought y'all might too for X reason," then it might not be worth my time to check it out. Unless of course the title/thumbnail intrigues me on its own. Which is exactly what happened when I created this thread: Two links with no blurb. One got watched because it looked interesting enough on its own merits, one got passed because I had no reason to believe it would be worth my time. A sufficient blurb would've changed that.

 

So the bottom line is that a lack of blurb can be just as much of a disincentive. The difference is that if a blurb disincentivizes somebody, they're spared what they feel would be a waste of their time. Whereas if a lack of blurb is a disincentive, then it is antithetical to the very act of sharing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

[A4E]

Yeah. Not very comparable. But I get what you're saying. If a person wants to avoid X for Y reason though, that's not a problem. If somebody chooses NOT to watch a video you share because of the blurb you gave it, how much would they have gotten out of the video anyways?

 

 

So the bottom line is that a lack of blurb can be just as much of a disincentive. The difference is that if a blurb disincentivizes somebody, they're spared what they feel would be a waste of their time. Whereas if a lack of blurb is a disincentive, then it is antithetical to the very act of sharing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

These paragraphs, but bold in particular, remind me of the not giving the video justice. I am afraid of not giving the video justice, thus perhaps repelling potential viewers. I have chronic fears of turning people away from enlightenment that still have power over me.

 

Worst case example would be something like writing "Here is a video about making cattle productive" and then linking to The story of your enslavement. It might be a humorous wording that go well with your own thinking and others in certain communities, but it is very inaccurate and implants a bias into any outside viewer straight away which can turn them away from the same general path we have traversed.

 

My main point is that people who share can have many reasons why they don't want to write anything. We are all very different. I don't think lazyness is that prevalent. I've had moments where I write an introduction to a video, and then just erase it because of my fears.

 

I understand your point, but what turns one person away might just as well make another click. Due to curiosity if there is a lack of blurb for instance.

[wdiaz03]

...

 

I understand your point, but what turns one person away might just as well make another click. Due to curiosity if there is a lack of blurb for instance.

 

I would be pleased with an objective description of the video, e.g.

"This video provides arguments of why Trump will win against Hillary"

 

At least that's what I look for, I tend to ignore the subjective wording unless is someone I respect and trust.

 

I do agree that just a link is at least for me an invitation to ignore it. The same happens in the chat and I find myself not clicking (I've been Rick Rolled one too many times ) .