alternative hippopotamus

Why YouTube is Crap

17 Responses to “Why YouTube is Crap”

1. Anonymous Says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 3:03 pm

   #1: People who look down on people with different tastes are generally tasteless. Regardless of whether they like french food or french fries.
   #2: Gotta agree with you there.
   #3: The only thing YouTube should support is the propogation of user-generated video content. The URL kinda sums it up: “You Tube.”
   #4: A pet rock doesn’t enable even the most HTM(il)L(iterate) to post active video content on their site. Now, blogging - - that’s a pet rock.

2. AltHippo Says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 4:31 pm

   “The only thing YouTube should support is the propogation of user-generated video content.”

   What I’m trying to point out is that the effect of posting a YouTube link is to help them market their company name, and thus increase the perceived value of the company. Instead, why not help to market archive.org which has real independent media?

3. Wonkette Says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

   Metro Section: It’s Friday the 13th so DC is More Repressed Than Usual

   “White man to eat you. I am very hungry right now, I will eat you as long as you want me to.” [Craigslist] “This is how the Republicans I like to spend the Weekend.” What a mouthful. [Craigslist] Andie MacDowell…

4. KathyF Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 5:02 am

   Thank you for being the first to say this. You are so cool. Let me know if you plan to jump off a cliff.

   I especially agree with number 2.

   You will never see a YouTube video on my blog, I am perfectly capable of uglying it up without their help.

5. KCinDC Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 8:24 am

   When I want to comment on something in a newspaper column, I put in a blockquote from the column. When I want to comment on something from NPR, I include a link to the archived radio show (I generally post a transcript of the relevant bit as well). When I want to comment on a political ad, or something that happened on one of the Sunday talk shows, I sometimes include a YouTube video. If archive.org, or anyone else, starts including videos like that (and makes them as easily accessible), then I’ll happily use it instead.

   Of course, by Sturgeon’s Law, the vast majority of what’s on YouTube is crap. That doesn’t mean everything on YouTube is crap. If you think the Daily Show is all crap, or you think political ads have no effect on races and should be ignored, or you think pointing out gaffes and lies by politicians is somehow a cheap shot, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

6. catastrophile Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm

   I’m not sure what this is even supposed to mean. Since some people like bistros and other people like grease, nobody should eat?

   To the extent that you’re saying that people shouldn’t start posting random $#!+ that has nothing to do with their blog, just because it’s trendy . . . sure. Fine. Whatever. That goes for Friday Cat Blogging, too.

   But unless and until something better and more reliable comes along, I don’t see what the use is of ragging on YouTube just because it’s YouTube. (Of course, sure, if you’re just looking to post random $#!+ on your blog because it’s trendy, there are better places out there to be linking to. But I thought we just established that wasn’t a good thing to be doing.)

7. AltHippo Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 6:55 pm

   KathyF: thanks, and thanks for Friday Cow blogging. When, I’m down, it makes life that much better.

   KCinDC: “If you think the Daily Show is all crap, or you think political ads have no effect on races and should be ignored, or you think pointing out gaffes and lies by politicians is somehow a cheap shot, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

   Huh? What does the Daily Show have to do with YouTube? I’m a big fan of the Daily Show, and watch it regularly. Does the Daily Show use videos from YouTube? I think not. Are you saying that blogs that post YouTube videos are doing it in the paradigm of the Daily Show? Please clarify. If you actually watched the Daily Show, you’d see that what they do is a very good use of video. They tell a story. They make a point. This is good independent media. They do the things I’m talking about.

   catastrophile: “I’m not sure what this is even supposed to mean. Since some people like bistros and other people like grease, nobody should eat?”

   Umh, no. That was me being a bit silly. Very silly, actually, since I’m one of the people who is very fond of Burger King onion rings. Though I do like me a good French bistro. Guilty as charged.

   Here’s what I was trying to say: there’s many of us, myself included, who delight in a well-constructed film, video, or audio program. There’s many good examples of this on the web, my favorites include Frontline’s webcasts, On the Media, Democracy Now. There’s many more that I watch and listen to regularly, and would be happy to provide a more complete list.

   You’re quite right that I object to posting random $#!+. And, I object to blogs that help to market random $#!+ as opposed to independent film makers, documenatarians, radio show producers, etc, who have dedicated their lives to putting out good $#!+.

   Isn’t this what we’d like the new media to be?

8. KCinDC Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 10:21 pm

   I don’t understand what videos you’ve been looking at on YouTube, AH. I’ll assume you’re being serious asking what the Daily Show has to do with YouTube, and let you know that many people watch Daily Show segments (and Colbert Report segments) on YouTube, and many people link to those segments from their blogs. There are people, including some who come to Thursday DCDL, who don’t have cable TV and thus experience the Daily Show only through YouTube. Are those segments irrevocably contaminated because they’re being served from YouTube? Don’t they still tell a story and make a point?

9. AltHippo Says:
   October 15th, 2006 at 3:07 am

   KCinDC,

   I listed the things that I don’t like about YouTube. Maybe some of those reasons are valid? Perhaps you can write your own post about why you like YouTube.

   As far as connecting YouTube with the Daily Show, I believe that’s a canard. You can watch the Daily Show online, so YouTube isn’t providing a service to those who can’t afford basic cable, but can afford broadband internet.

   Here’s what I’m trying to say: when I go to a blog that posts a YouTube video, I tend not to watch it, and what’s more, I tend not to revisit that blog.

   On the other hand, I do watch videos on archive.org because the stuff they have up is really good.

   I get it that this rubs you the wrong way. Why?

10. KCinDC Says:
    October 15th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    My biggest objection is to your first point, which seems to boil down to “Most of what’s on YouTube is crap — therefore everything on YouTube is crap.” It’s illogical, and I don’t believe you apply similar standards to Blogger, or the web in general, or television, for example. It also makes me wonder what YouTube videos you’re seeing on blogs that are causing you to have such a strong reaction against them. I’m curious about whether you’re experiencing a completely different set of YouTube videos from what I see, or whether you have some objection to the ones that I’ve run into, which seem perfectly fine to me.

    I’ve seen very few that have been produced specifically to put on YouTube. Most of the ones I’ve seen have been Daily Show or Colbert Report, political ads, or clips from Sunday talk shows or other interviews. The only ones I’ve seen the might be described as shaky are amateur videos from campaign events, usually highlighting a gaffe or outrageous statement by a politician — for example, the “macaca” video of George Allen. Would you prefer that that had never been posted, or do you believe that it would have been more effective if posted on archive.org, or what?

    I understand that Comedy Central posts some clips from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report on their website, but I never watch them there because they don’t work for me. (Also, there’s a difference between being able to afford basic cable and choosing to spend the money on basic cable.) The big advantage YouTube has is that it just works. I’d be perfectly happy to link to videos posted anywhere else that worked as well (that is, no plugins that a lot of people don’t have, no choosing between RealAudio and Windows Media, and so on).

    I’m coming at this purely from the perspective of a video viewer, not a video creator, so maybe that’s part of the difference in viewpoint. But there are a lot more viewers than creators (though of course there’d be no videos without the creators).

    Archive.org is fine, but it’s filling a different niche. It’s all very well to criticize people for publicizing YouTube instead of “really cool outfits that support independent media”, but as long as those really cool outfits don’t offer what YouTube offers (in terms of selection and ease of use), then they’re not really alternatives.

11. Logos Says:
    October 15th, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    #1: The signal:noise ratio isn’t enough to damn the medium. Lots of crappy things get put on television, but that doesn’t mean all television is crap. Just because YouTube is host to many stupid, whiny, amateur videos doesn’t mean the whole site is worthless. There are many interesting videos out there. Not only does a complaint about styles not make sense, but YouTube has the virtue of conveniently providing a consolidated, easy-to-find video delivery of current affairs, such as political blunders.

    #2: This is really a minor asthetic complaint more than something against the institution.

    #3: You make a false dilemma assuming you can’t support both. Linking to a video on YouTube doesn’t mean you can’t support anything else, as well. Who cares if you give a free service free advertising if it has the thing you want people to see? Do you tell people not to talk about “googling” for things because Google accepts tyrannical restraints on free speech in its China venture?

    #4: This one doesn’t even make sense. YouTube is host to hundreds of thousands of videos. Some of them are interesting. Linking to a video you find interesting doesn’t mean you’re participating in some sheep convention.

12. AltHippo Says:
    October 15th, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    KCinDC: “My biggest objection is to your first point, which seems to boil down to “Most of what’s on YouTube is crap — therefore everything on YouTube is crap.” It’s illogical, and I don’t believe you apply similar standards to Blogger, or the web in general, or television, for example.”

    Really? It’s the lack of logic that’s bothering you? It has nothing to do with your buttons getting pushed?

    Since we’re speaking about logic, do you really believe you accurately summarize what I said? You know, Straw Men and all that. Here’s what I said: “For the most part, the stuff that gets posted on YouTube lacks any sense of taste or esthetics.” I’d be fascinated to hear your explanation for why that’s the same thing as: “Most of what’s on YouTube is crap — therefore everything on YouTube is crap.” By your logic, I would condemn The Wizard of Oz, if someone put up an excerpt from the Wizard of Oz on YouTube. Is that your understanding of what I said?

    I think you’re getting somewhere when you say: “I’m coming at this purely from the perspective of a video viewer, not a video creator, so maybe that’s part of the difference in viewpoint.”

    I do believe if you went through that process, you’d have a different perspective. Or, maybe you wouldn’t. Why don’t you give it a shot? Isn’t that better than talking about these things in the abstract?

    Logos:
    “#1: The signal:noise ratio isn’t enough to damn the medium.”
    I’m not daming the media for its original intent: to create a space for people to share their own experiences. As a community site, I totally get it. What has happened over time, however, is that blogs are using YouTube as their go to site for alternative media. There are sites that do this better.

    “#2: This is really a minor asthetic complaint more than something against the institution.” I disagree. YouTube chose a particular look and that’s part of their marketing. By the way, I’m also a big fan of Flash and Macromedia (now part of Adobe). There’s lots of room in Flash to customize the skin you use to watch video. You may notice, for instance, huffingtonpost.com uses a different skin for video, one that’s a lot easier on the eyes.

    “#3: You make a false dilemma assuming you can’t support both.”
    Okay, you tell me. How many blogs that post YouTube links also post links to link.tv or archive.org?

    “#4: This one doesn’t even make sense. YouTube is host to hundreds of thousands of videos. Some of them are interesting. Linking to a video you find interesting doesn’t mean you’re participating in some sheep convention.”
    I’d like to suggest an alternative hypothesis (this is what I try to do on this blog, after all.) If you see someone posting a link to YouTube, you think to yourself, hey I should a post a link to YouTube. After all, everyone else is doing it.

    I used Pet Rocks as an example. In retrospect, pet rocks were pretty silly, weren’t they? At the time, though, people actually plunked down $10 to buy a pet rock. Why did they do this? I would suggest it was because other people also bought pet rocks.

    I think most of us would agree that pet rocks were a good example of marketing creating a “sheep convention”, as you put it. Might YouTube be another example of the same?

13. KCinDC Says:
    October 16th, 2006 at 10:38 am

    When someone posts “Why YouTube Is Crap” and says he tends to dismiss entire blogs because they link to a YouTube video, I’d suggest there might be some buttons being pushed, but not necessarily on the reader’s side. I have no great love for YouTube, but until there’s some real alternative to YouTube — something that might actually have what I want to link to and allow me to include it easily in a way that most readers can access it — then I’ll continue to link to it occasionally. You haven’t responded to that part of my argument, so presumably no such ideal video site exists yet.

    I’m not a video creator, and I’m sure that anything I created would fall into the “crap” category, so I’m not going to be using any of the available services as a creator. The vast majority of people linking to YouTube did not create the videos they’re linking to, so blaming them for linking to videos where they are rather than where you wish they were seems inappropriate. I’d still like to see your response to the second paragraph in my last comment.

    I apologize for misrepresenting your position, but can you see how people might think that when you say “YouTube is crap” you mean that it’s all crap? It’s good that you wouldn’t condemn “The Wizard of Oz” if someone posted it on YouTube, but apparently you would condemn not only the person who posted it there but anyone who linked to it. The illogic, as Logos also says, is in condemning YouTube because most of it is crap, when you don’t apply that standard to other things.

14. AltHippo Says:
    October 16th, 2006 at 11:41 am

    “When someone posts “Why YouTube Is Crap” and says he tends to dismiss entire blogs because they link to a YouTube video, I’d suggest there might be some buttons being pushed, but not necessarily on the reader’s side.”

    Dude, your buttons got pushed.

    I doubt, for instance, if I had said that “the Redskins passing game was crap,” it would have bothered you.

    I think you’ll find that use of the absolute is quite common in everyday speech, particularly when used with subjective language. For instance, someone might say “August was hot,” even if there were several days below mean temperature. Or, they might say “Republicans are a bunch of liars,” even if there are several honest Republicans. I’m reasonably sure that saying “YouTube is crap” falls well within the vernacular.

    If you don’t feel that a criticism I made applies to your use of YouTube, then why don’t you ignore it?

    I suppose I could go around saying “In my humble opinion I may have had a negative experience with the YouTube website, but it was probably all my fault, and most likely everyone else will find it most remarkable, and spend many delightful hours there, and all the owners should get very rich. But what do I know?” That would be a big hit. I’ll call it justignoremeimsuchanidiot.blogspot.com.

15. KCinDC Says:
    October 16th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    If you had said “the Redskins passing game is crap, and I tend to dismiss blogs that mention anything good about the Redskins passing game”, and I had a blog that had said something good about the Redskins passing game (however unlikely that might be) or liked many blogs that occasionally said good things about the Redskins passing game, then yes, I probably would have said something. If you were some wingnut whose opinion I didn’t care about, then I probably wouldn’t.

    I’m still mystified about what sort of videos you’ve been subjected to that set off your rant, how any site that allowed people to easily upload videos so they could link to them could avoid becoming mostly crap, how the existence of crappy videos that I never see harms me, or why I should care about the upload process for a site if I never use that function, among other things. I wasn’t trying to be obnoxious — I was genuinely curious about the difference between my experience of YouTube and yours (for example, the YouTube website is mostly irrelevant to me, since I experience YouTube mostly through videos embedded in other people’s blogs). But at this point I’m content to remain mystified.

16. Catherine Says:
    April 7th, 2008 at 1:29 am

    Wow! You definetly have some strong opinons in regards to YouTube– but you do realize that everytime YouTube is typed out into a blog or blog comment that makes it more apt to come up in a search, right?? Sounds like you’re kind of helping them not really hurting them… but here’s one idea– why don’t you spend 5 minutes taking a look at a marketing company that could possibly help YOU!!! not YouTube…

    Spread The Word Out! A New Way To Advertise Online! WideCircles aka Wide Circles is one of a kind social advertising platform that avoids issues related to PPC Fraud! http://www.widecircles.com

    Check it out, or not, but really it will take less time than to read all these comments from all these people who pretty much only talk about your pet rock squib!
    -Catherine

17. terence Harding Says:
    November 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    I have recently closed my Youtube account when they started blocking my comments. Despite prior protests from me, there were no reasons given (I can’t think of one either) but it coincided with me disagreeing with some individuals’ points of view and putting up critically thought out counter views without any recourse to rudeness, vulgarity or personal insults. It is definitely time to resign membership of an organisation when one is denied the basic human and civil right to freedom of speech by that organisation who can so blatantly abuse it’s power with apparent impunity. For these reasons alone, I agree that Youtube is ‘crap’

Leave a Reply