Problem with the stars system is that people with RTL languages use it backwards. So you’ll often get 1 start with a positive feedback.
Corporation does well: brags about all the statistics Corporation does poorly: hides all the statistics and asks customers to trust it that it’s doing well
Classic corporate transparency. When a filthy corpo says they’re dedicated to something, they’re usually dedicated to the opposite.
Next step: you must have a camera enabed to use YouTube so we can directly monitor your facial expressions with AI✨ and save you precious rating time to recommend you better videos!
But really so we can ensure you’re watching the ads.
I know I am not alone here, because Lemmy and all, but holy god damn does that little AI sparkle trigger me more than any other AI term or image.
There also used to be a response button of sorts like a review section on playstore. (Or am I remembering things wrong)
There’s a war on negative feedback.
It’s not good for business.
Now be happy.
The thing is, people themselves outside of business motives hate negativity.
People regularly get angry at others for bringing up criticisms of everything from foods to their favourite media products.
Even decades ago they’d give them names like negative Nancy, and within social settings the worst people often can win by weaponizing civility to quell legitimate backlash against immoral actions.
I mean, fuck, think about how many stories you’ve heard of people who have been the victims of sexual assault, who get told by normal people to shut up and whose experiences were diminished because it harshed other peoples mellow?
People suck, and one of the biggest reasons people suck, is they would prefer a harmful peaceful positivity than a tumultuous improvement causing negativity.
I think these companies are hooking into these human flaws in ways that hurt us, and benefit them with information asymmetry.
I don’t think we can properly fix these flaws without somehow getting normal people to acknowledge that negativity is not just good, but vitally important.
people themselves outside of business motives hate negativity.
I think these companies are hooking into these human flaws in ways that hurt us, and benefit them with information asymmetry.
Oh, companies know. Social media have definitive data that show most users engage on anger. That’s why it’s in their core interest to promote rage baits and disinformation. More engagements means more traffic. More traffic means more advertisers. More advertisers means more revenues.
Hell, even before social media, news tends to report more on negative news than positive ones. Because bad news is tantamount to hearing gossips, and we all love gossips. I know many of us will say bad news makes us sad, and yet we still tune in to any news.
People regularly get angry at others for bringing up criticisms of everything from foods to their favourite media products.
Kind of on a tangent, I notice this as well that some people seem more predisposed to negative thinking. I think it’s just hardwired into them. Although, I have to say, in my field of work, negative thinkers tend to have good attention to detail. Being suspicious and mindful all the time, they will check every nooks and crannies, and examining and scanning for almost everything. It is a good trait to a limited degree, but it could impair relationships both at work and outside, if one is too suspicious and distrustful of everyone.
Oh, companies know. Social media have definitive data that show most users engage on anger. That’s why it’s in their core interest to promote rage baits and disinformation. More engagements means more traffic. More traffic means more advertisers. More advertisers means more revenues.
I think you might be misunderstanding my point here. Rage bait, and hate are separate to the idea of toxic positivity, which is a separate concept companies also use and abuse, and which is the subject of my comment.
Hell, even before social media, news tends to report more on negative news than positive ones. Because bad news is tantamount to hearing gossips, and we all love gossips. I know many of us will say bad news makes us sad, and yet we still tune in to any news.
I actually disagree with this one fundamentally.
Good news just isn’t as important as bad news on average.
Good news is typically long term, progressive and rarely has singular big moments. “X number of people moved out of poverty through the effects of economic policies started XX years ago” isn’t something that it makes sense to give time over “flash flooding hits current location”.
More than that, the news cycle is ill equipped to go into detail for more nuanced stories, and it would be rife with organizations like the world economic forum cooking stats to present much more peachy societal outcomes under policies they favour vs more objective or neutral viewpoints.
Kind of on a tangent, I notice this as well that some people seem more predisposed to negative thinking. I think it’s just hardwired into them. Although, I have to say, in my field of work, negative thinkers tend to have good attention to detail.
Quite frankly, I hate absolutely everything about the sentiment of this snippet. The idea that negativity is bad inherently is, I well, looking at my previous comment, I think I’ve already expressed that point.
Negative points are goals to hit. Positive ones are literally just less important. They’re check offs on your todo list. Important perhaps for internal motivation, but not so when communicating news, events, research (mostly) etc.
It is a good trait to a limited degree, but it could impair relationships both at work and outside, if one is too suspicious and distrustful of everyone.
I would say this doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable.
The stars used to tell the company if you thought the video quality was good.
The stars now tell the company how to tailor a version of reality specifically to what you want to see and feel.
“Amy Schumer isn’t hated by Netflix users. It’s the star system that’s wrong. “
Not so much. It’s more like “Is there enough Nettlix users that likes Amy Schumer so that we can finance her next special”.
Corpos only care about what you like so that they can maximize their profit.
“Oh man, I remember those days when the stars actually meant something! Now they’re just trying to push their own agenda on us.”
Weird! It’s almost as if just not using youtube is somehow not an option.
Unfortunately, a lot of content is still exclusive to YouTube. Every now and then I try to look for the things I watch on Nebula or Odysee, but they’re just not there. Only a handful of channels that mirror their content + some specials on Nebula.
We can always politely ask our favourite content creators to upload their stuff on other platforms, but the success rate is disappointing.
My favorite is Amazon streaming that has a “rating for your taste out of 5 stars”, but they don’t want it to point out that most of their catalog is shit, so everything from Shawshank Redemption to Movie 43 are “4.5 stars for you”
Then you start watching mostly your subscription list and they get angry their fancy algorithm isn’t working.
Funny enough the dislike button is there but hidden. You can get extensions that show the thumbs down button and how many clicked it.
I’ve wondered about those. I always assumed they’d just show the down votes by others with the same extension.
Yes but extrapolated
In my experience, the extension is INCREDIBLY good. Whenever I get a shady video, it has dislikes, and normal videos almost never have any significant amount of dislikes. They’re as accurate as they can be but it’s more than enough to be useful.
The dislike button would be a godsend with all this ai slop.
It is. Tho thankfully AI never makes it’s way into my feed.
I can confirm. Really useful, I almost forgot it’s suppose to be hiden.
Apparently the extensions aren’t reliable at all. I saw a video at one point where a guy went over why you cannot trust the extensions and how the numbers are pure fiction, but I forget the exact reasons. I think one example was that the same video would have vastly differnet numbers of down votes depending on the person with the extension. Something something confirmation bias.
For me, it doesn’t really matter. I still down vote when I dislike a video. They may not count my vote at all, but I still do it out of stubbornness.
They actually do count it but it’s only visible to the uploader
Also, from what I understand about specifically ReturnYoutubeDislikes it counts dislikes FROM people using the extension and uses that to extrapolate from the visible like count. I haven’t seen the video though so it’s definitely possible that’s all bunk
It’s so dumb. Just let people rate it with the five stars. They’re so gun-ho with the algorithm let it do its job.
They don’t want you knowing what other people think of the video. It’s just about what you think of the video. Much easier to have an algorithmically perfect echo chamber if everyone is privately rating things and has no idea what others think about them.
Wouldn’t the simplest solution be to only expose the other ratings after you rate?
Well it isn’t beneficial for the company because people might realize they hold unpopular opinions and the company wants to be able to control the people’s opinions regardless of popularity, that way they can keep users on the site engaging with that content for longer.
But then how do you stop people clicking to see first, locking them in? But then how do you deal with missclicks?
Advertisers forgetting that every person is an accumulation of other pelople influencing their behavior
It’s all bots anyway
The thumbs up/thumbs down thing was fine too.
I’m pretty sure that 99% of the time 1 and 5 stars options were used, so like/dislike is enough. There isn’t much point in including a “I have no strong feelings one way or another” button.
Sure there is: A known quantity is always better than an unknown quantity. Though would be far more informative if rating was mandatory, or otherwise defaulted to 3 stars or some such.
Then just assume that video that hasn’t been interacted with is 3 stars, same result. I could see there being an additional like above regular one, like love our something. But YT now kinda has the hype feature which I suppose does a similar job.
The final stage is not caring at all what you think user. Only consume.
Great movie btw. But this just gave me the perfect idea for an ad blocker, that would replace all the ads with these type of signs.
Someone smarter than, get on it!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Adblock/comments/70xaqa/a_they_live_adblocker_details_in_comments/
This uses Catblock with a custom image set, but Catblock hasn’t been updated in 6 years, so I don’t know how well it still works. Anyway, if Catblock won’t work, we have to find a blocker that allows for some customization and then fit those “They Live” images in.
(I’m trying to get Catblock to work, but somehow I can’t find any pages that even load ads? I think the pihole is blocking the scripts that would load the ads.)
what movie?
They Live (1988)
I’m almost sure I’ve actually seen that implemented somewhere
Like reverse google glasses ?
The like/dislike system is better than stars IMO.
I disagree. There are a lot of videos that I find just “meh”. I might not regret watching them, but wouldn’t recommend them nor watch again.
Then there is content which I find pretty good/bad but not extremely good or bad. For such cases a more nuanced scale is better.For other users this might be less informative, since they will be seeing just the average anyway and can therefore only determine general perception; except if the distribution is also made available.
But for a personalized recommendation system I think a nuanced scale can work better.
From a content creators perspective one can also evaluate better whether there is room for improvement and by “how much”, in case one is interested in such.
What about a trinary system? Like, dislike, and meh?
Quaternary Like, dislike, meh, “what in tarnation?”
I like the quinternary system like a strong dislike, a dislike, a meh, a like, a love.
5 star rating are actually 4 star ratings with a free 20% boost.
Hate it. Gave my employer a bad review, 1-2 stars in most categories, and the average was still a 3.7?? I have to adjust my intuition when reading star reviews. Apparently 3.5 is bottom of the barrel.
The good news is: that reviews wasn’t really accurate.
The bad news is: that review wasn’t really anonymous.
My last day is Friday. :)
I’ve tried my best during the last seven years to make a change, both by lobbying upper management and introducing change in my team. Nothing stuck, nobody besides my team mates cared. So I hope it’s not really anonymous. I’m clinging to the illusion they’ll somehow take it to heart now that it’s public, for the betterment of the team mates I leave behind.
I don’t understand, are you inferring the reviews do not accurately represent the results?
I don’t think 3.7 stars accurately describes my experience in that company, yes. But that means that the meaning I gave to what 3.7 stars feels like is not what the company feels like, mostly because my ‘lowest’ would be 0 stars. In my world, 2.5 stars is 50% - but crucially it’s not, 3 stars is 50%. That’s why I have to recalibrate my feelings of the star system.
I’m on the fence with the thumbs vs stars. On one hand, a boolean is probably better than an integer for a number of reasons. Another thing to consider is that the five star system can be gamed by only giving 0 or 5 depending on if you believe the content deserves a higher or lower average, meaning people who figure that out have more voting power… which is… better?
Doesn’t this apply only if you are looking at mean average exclusively? There are loads of other metrics you can look at based on scalar ratings.
