• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I watched the video as well and the takeaways for me are that algorithms on YouTube and other social media are increasingly promoting content that it thinks people would click on @JeffersonGrahamPhoto. Turns out that people click more on content that has eye catching thumbnail and a clickbaity / sensational headline.

      The type of content such as education and science can’t compete in this algorithmic world without already having an established base of subscribers. The algorithm wouldn’t recommended those videos and instead suggest more extreme and overhyped ones.

      Without human curation and judgement and left to its own devices, the algorithm would serve more and more extreme videos, because that is what people click on.

    • One thing that fascinates me is the role of length. My intuition was the Internet has flooded us with new content and creators and no one has time for a fraction of it. Of course it will all get shorter; books will fade; people aren't going to listen to 1 & 2-hour podcasts; longer form pubs like WIRED are going to face trouble; services like Twitter and Snap, pubs like Buzzfeed are going to take over; more established pubs like USA Today that already focused on shorter stories are the best positioned for the new world order.

      But John Oliver has a massive hit with his 20-minute segments, even though he chooses heavy topics. Books are back. Podcasts have exploded in popularity, even if they are an hour long. Twitter has doubled the length of Tweets and now people are doing Twitter threads and many go viral. The top YouTubers are going longer. WIRED seems to be crushing it. Snap seems to have faded.

      Of course I'm aware I'm making these loose observations to a respected journalist who probably knows 10x more about the nuances than me...

    • Sounds like a good experiment.

      Two other things that captivate me:

      1. The rise of AI-curated discovery. It's not so much about followers as it once was, it's becoming about whether the AI thinks you'll like something. For example, when realizing Veritasium had more videos than I knew, I went to his channel and thought "hmmm, yeah, YouTube seemed to have known which of these would interest me because I can't watch them all." But it also suggested videos from channels that I didn't know about that were interesting to me.

      2. Frequency. I've heard YouTubers say so many times "you have to keep producing quickly or they forget about you and that makes it a burn-out job." Is that true or is it more important to publish fewer but better stuff?

      I think production quality on YouTube continues to rise, at least among the videos that are getting big views, and guys like John Oliver aren't producing them all that often and they are taking long breaks and coming back to the same popularity they had before their absences.

    • Had a good conversation with the founder of one of the big SEO tool vendors on this - it’s not just time spent, but whether the search was apparently “satisfied” by the visit. If the searcher goes back to Goog and selects a different result from the SERP, you’re going to get dinged even if they spend some time. If they change up the search to something different, that search was satisfied, and your score improves. A bounce is ok if the question was answered.

      I work for an online creative education company, and organic has really started to fall off for us in the last year or so despite tons of effort into fixing it. Our theory is because our content is long-form, doesn’t immediately answer the search, and a large number of people are turned off by our prices (despite tons of free content) we’re really getting hammered by the proliferation of free “quick tip” alternatives. Plus, most of our content is video, and not formatted for quality keywords, (Linking transcripts actually totally backfired on us).

      At this point, I feel like I get PTSD whenever I just see the letters SEO.. ugh.

    • Wow, what an awesome, super-informed post, argh. Thank you very much. Welcome to Cake. 🎂

      I wonder how paywall models are affecting SEO. For example, I made the switch from Apple's Final Cut for video editing to Adobe Premiere, and short-tip YouTubes weren't satisfying. So I signed up for and took a class from Ashley Kennedy that I LOVED! Oh my God it was so good I swore I was hooked for life on Lynda.

      But then... That recurring subscription fee showing up on my credit card each month... I have so many of them. And once I was running on Premier I felt like all I needed was the occasional quick tip when I got stuck. So I fell back on quick YouTubes and somehow Lynda fell off my radar.

      My family owns Flickr and have changed it to limited free, then subscription, and I'm watching with fascination to see what happens. I own a motorcycling forum and we chose everything is free but if you don't want to see ads, there's a subscription option. That seems to be working. YouTube does that model too and I subscribe to YouTube Red just for the no ads model.

      My concern about paywalls is what happens to your SEO when you land on a site with a paywall and bounce because of it?

      Btw, Google puts this front and center when you search for Adobe Premiere tutorials. It seems to have all the click-magnet things?