I don't personally think the dislike button is the explanation. But something seems to have changed in the Youtube recommendations algo in the last few weeks.
In my experience, the algo has gotten very noticeably worse recently:
- Recommending lots of 6 - 12 year old videos on topics I'm interested in (who cares about a 12 year old product review?)
- Recommending tons of videos I've already seen or recommending really, really old videos from people I normally watch. It's always done this, but it seems worse recently.
- Trying to push "streamer bro" meme videos on me, which seem aimed at 12 year old kids
- The algo seems to be really clinging to recommending only videos about the last few topics I searched and totally forgetting my main interests. Look up a video on a new car you just bought? Congratulations, Youtube will now recommend you every video ever produced about that car forever to the exclusion of whatever it is you are actually interested in even if you have never shown an interest in cars.
Maybe someone who works at Youtube knows if a new recommendation system was pushed out recently or something? It's miserable.
> Recommending tons of videos I've already seen or recommending really, really old videos from people I normally watch. It's always done this, but it seems worse recently.
Also, subscribe to a channel, get recommended their entire repertoire of the last decade. I have stopped subscribing, and I'm actively unsubscribing from most channels except the very small ones that post twice a year and I don't want to miss.
What the hell is wrong with modern AI-driven recommendation engines? Youtube's isn't the only one that irritates me to no end. There is no automated recommendation system that is not complete dogshit for the end user. /rant
I genuinely don’t understand why Google got it right with Circles, realizing we have different orthogonal interests… but all my YouTube subscriptions go in a giant pile, as if advanced math, news, and rap videos are fungible content.
I want some ability to create sets of channels with a focus and only access that when I want to.
I think the problem is that YouTube has always been a manipulative and exploitative platform — targeting your psychology with algorithms. Now, it’s ratcheted that to the point it’s creepy and unlikeable.
On the mobile app, they show "pill buttons" for your detected interests across the top and you can click on them to filter those topics specifically. So they have put some nominal work into supporting orthogonal interests.
The problem for me is that it just doesn't work very well. First, it's hidden deeply in the UI. Second, the topics are self-detected (poorly) and you have no way to edit them. Third, they seem to act as simple filters of your feed, not a way to access different subsets of content.
I'm sure the root of the problem is that lots of smart people at YouTube probably understand this frustration and want to make this better, but building filtering tools doesn't improve overall user engagement metrics and doesn't get anyone promoted, so no one does. But what does improve overall engagement? Recommending streamer bro meme videos in the chance that a kid might get hooked and watch thousands more of them.
The 1% smartest people in the userbase, who often are also relative ad resistant, aren't an audience YouTube (or any other large publisher) is going to cater to with active effort. At best they'll tolerate it benignly or as a reputation booster.
Agreed, it seems most of these changes to the recommendation system are for the masses who don't really care or just let autoplay choose everything for them, and not the kind of people who browse HN
It's a problem with evidence based product design. It's in almost all big products nowadays. The way Google axes products, the way Netflix axes series, the way Facebook populates the timeline. They're throwing away the intrinsic value of the product, for positive graphics in their monthly user engagement presentations.
Facebook's user engagement is probably higher than it ever was. I have a friend who's one of those conspiracy nuts and he's on there all day everyday posting dozens of media links to questionable content. His behaviour is their dream. At the same time almost none of my "normal" friends or family are still there. But they never had much engagement anyway even at the peak they maybe checked Facebook once a day for a couple minutes and maybe post something once per month.
Probably these platforms are all approximating the optimal amount of crappiness they need to be maximally profitable.
I've never owned an iPhone, but Apple's approach is the long term one, where they come up with a product that they believe in and they think the customer should use, regardless of whether they actually want. It let's them always carefully control the quality and resists the temptation to make a quick extra buck. In the end it makes them basically unbeatable, where Facebook has to buy competitors to remain relevant.
> Facebook's user engagement is probably higher than it ever was. I have a friend who's one of those conspiracy nuts and he's on there all day everyday posting dozens of media links to questionable content. His behaviour is their dream. At the same time almost none of my "normal" friends or family are still there.
This matches my experience, the family members still very active are all politically involved, posting rants from either side of the spectrum. The conspiracy stuff is unhinged and getting worse.
Apple's model leads to computer with keyboards whose keys fall off, because they design for surface-lecel appeal and disregard customer desires for the product.
> I genuinely don’t understand why Google got it right with Circles
Do you mean on google plus? (Or did that feature make it to other parts of the gooverse?)
The feature on Plus that I desperately wanted was "squares", or facets of your online presence that people could individually subscribe to. Just for instance, if Noam Chomsky had been an active poster on all kinds of topics on Plus, I would not subscribe to his updates because I only care about his work in linguistics, not any of his political activism.
But, the way all the current social properties are set up, the poster either has to have multiple accounts and log in / log out or keep separate browser profiles etc, or just posts everything under one account.
It could be better. It could be pretty seamless: allow the author to tag the post with a click or two just before posting, encourage them to tag posts that aren't tagged before posting, learn what tags they use most and analyze the content of each post to prominently feature in the UI the tags that look like they apply. Allow subscribers to subscribe to author+tag pairs instead of just authors. Done.
Twitter and Instagram allow you switch between multiple accounts without entering the password again. So it's not hard to post and browser about different interest using different accounts
Maybe it's finding some connection like math<->rap-focused music theory (lots of triplets)<->rap. I like an eclectic timeline, and YouTube could be optimizing for that, but I can see how it would be annoying if you don't dig that.
Those are all things I like, but I don’t want most of them most of the time — and YouTube gives me no way to signal what state I’m in. And because it shoves them all in a large pile, I get very few if any recommendations related to what Im looking for right now.
People are faceted, but YouTube fails to design UX to accommodate that reality — instead trying to be everything at once and so failing to be anything, ever.
I don't know about in the apps, but the web page has a row of tags above the videos that let you filter by topic. They're personalized, so you might have tags for those topics.
> Also, subscribe to a channel, get recommended their entire repertoire of the last decade. I have stopped subscribing, and I'm actively unsubscribing from most channels except the very small ones that post twice a year and I don't want to miss.
I fear that there is a very big group (that is usually not on HN) that actually likes this. People who get absolutely hyped on some new channel and just have to watch everything on that channel. Not because it’s interesting content, but because for those few hours/days/weeks they feel that they “belong” to the community of that channel (even if they don’t meaningfully interact or discuss with the other people in that community or even the creator). This also gives them social status with friends. Then after a few hours/days/weeks, repeat the cycle (multiple cycles can run in parallel but not too much as it would affect your social status of being part of the hip cult-of-the-day). Obviously those people also watch stuff outside that channel, but they don’t mind being presented with videos of the same channel all the time, because again bragging rights that come with “oh I’ve really seen everything, look at this: seen it, seen it, …”).
(Seems a bit similar to some other demographic that is extremely into watching sports…)
There's nothing wrong with old content per-se. A true crime channel, for example, can have a lot of old content that's still interesting to watch. And thing for science and comedy. No need for any strange community feelings or bragging rights.
Now, this doesn't make sense for all types of content, of course, but definitely for some.
YouTube actually makes it quite hard to "completely watch" a channel; there's some channels that I just "discovered" and published interesting content over the years and ideally I'd just like to start at the start and watch stuff from their backlog that looks interesting. But with the stupid non-pagination "infinite scroll" it's pretty hard.
This recently happened to me. I discovered someone's channel and it turned out to be a gold mine of content that I had somehow never heard of. I didn't even have to subscribe and it would recommend me banger videos from the guy.
> I have stopped subscribing, and I'm actively unsubscribing from most channels except the very small ones that post twice a year and I don't want to miss.
Don't know if you knew this, you can use RSS to get feeds of the channels you want without subscribing or even having a Google account.
I use the RSS feeds with Elfeed for Emacs which allows me to search, filter, and modify feed entries as they are fetched. Additionally, you can use an https://invidious.io instance - which also provides RSS feeds - to avoid sharing any personally identifiable info to YouTube. I've setup elfeed to provide a keystroke to watch the videos ad-free using mpv. All together, this is a much more privacy and attention respecting way of consuming videos.
IMO mass unsubbing is the wrong response to take if you want a good YouTube experience. The best way is the opposite: subscribe to EVERYTHING you like even a little bit, and then use the Subscriptions page as your home page. Ignore the real home page, ignore the algorithm entirely. I've done this and the irritation is gone.
I stay logged out, and use a private session when I go to YT. I keep a home page of bookmarks to content creators I enjoy content from, linking to their main page, and either follow one of those links in to see what they've posted lately or go to the home page for YT, ignore everything, and search for something specific. If I run into a new content creator I like, I add them to my bookmarks.
I started this for privacy reasons, but I really like it now because they don't know enough about you in a private session to mess with you, and their search is usually good enough to find what I'm looking for. There is then a golden period where the recommendations are actually useful that lasts for maybe a dozen videos or so after which they try to psychoanalyze you too much and then it's time to kill the old private session and start a new one.
I've gone from being anti-privacy to being anti-privacy and anti-algorithm both.
> What the hell is wrong with modern AI-driven recommendation engines
No idea but it's been an issue ever since I've used Amazon. In a way it's kind of reassuring that their AI is not smart enough to know that after buying a vaccuum cleaner, I am probably not going to immediately buy another one.
You are more likely to buy a vacuum cleaner just after you bought one than any other random point in time. Reason is that a percentage return their first buy for whatever reason. If you are going to target someone with ads for whatever product, the ROI is actually just after you bought something …
I hate to admit it but the older videos proper work on me.
YouTube suggested Casey Neistat's first vlog for whatever reason[0]. A week or so later I've consumed the entire channel. Very decent recommend on YouTube's part if they're optimising for session duration that one.
[0]: I was in a bit of a "I might be a YouTuber as it turns out" moment at one point and I think I caught his How to vlog like Casey Neistat video or maybe Do What You Can't
They arent recommendation engines. In the sense that recommendation is not the formal problem of showing someone content with a non-zero probability of their watching it. Recommendation, as we understanding it, means understanding our interests first.
Recommendations systems use average expressed preferences (ie., on-average watch frequency) in others to "recommend" you something.
If we didnt opt for such metaphorical naming things would be clearer. Recommendation should, mostly, just be called "Popularity Ranking".
But it does recommend videos to you. It is absolutely not just "Popularity Ranking".
On my youtube front page the first row of videos are: a recent Scott Manley video about some SpaceX thing (which is in my interests), a DnD game (which I have already seen on twitch, youtube of course has no way knowing that), a song from a band I'm listening to since a few days, and a video documenting a glider airplane adventure. All in my areas of interest and I highly doubt that these are the 4 most popular videos on youtube right now.
> Recommendation, as we understanding it, means understanding our interests first.
Yes. And that's what they try to do. Sometimes they fail. For a hypothetical lets say that I recommend to my friend that they should see the new superhero movie in cinemas. They go and watch it and they don't like it. Clearly that means that my recommendation was a bad one, but does it stop being a recommendation? Only perfect recommenders are worth that name?
It is just selecting users based on the videos you have watched. It isnt global popularity ranking, rather its ranking amongst users who also watch your videos.
Your watching a video is only a weak correlate of your preference. If I were recomemnding you something, I wouldnt ask you -- literally -- what specific videos you watch. I'd ask for your (real) preferences: are you bored right now? Do you want somerthing exiting? What's your mood? etc. etc.
I am selecting "Don't recommend channel" for subscribed channels so i see them only in Subscriptions page, i am afraid that Youtube can see it as i am not interested these channels and topics but i didn't see any downside with this method.
I am also unsubscribing frequently posting channels and bookmark them if i want to visit them later so my Subscription page don't have spam videos.
Also removing one time watched uninterested-topic videos from history may help algorithm.
I'm the opposite, I subscribed to lots of channels so that I always have new content from creators I like -- and never have to look at the recommendations.
What bothers me most about the recommendations I get are the videos I have clearly watched. "You recently watched this clip, so we at YouTube think you should watch it again."
I do rewatch some of my history every now and then, mostly music and comedy clips. But it seems like YouTube doesn't understand that this works for some content, but not for all.
This is like Amazon recommending the exact same item you just bought, sometimes from a different brand or vendor. "We see you bought a toaster, surely you need a hundred more."
Maybe they just want you to be unhappy (as the paradox of choice says, if you only had a few options for a product, you'd pick what you think is the best one and be happy with it; if you had hundreds, you can't compare all, so you'd pick one and wonder if it was the best choice).
Maybe Amazon knows that unsatisfied customers continue spending money... Hah, great dark pattern if so!
I have the same thing. For some it actually makes sense, like listening to a good song twice. But for many others it really doesn't. I'd kinda expect Youtube to be able to tell the difference between a song and some temporarily relevant vlog.
For me, the stupidest thing it does is recommend you the same video again and again, when you never click on it. 'Hey, you've recommended that same video to me 20 times now, and I haven't clicked on it, maybe take a hint!'
It's staggering, with all the smart people they hire at Google, that the front page of one of their main products is so dumb.
Yep, about 3 weeks ago the recommendations algorithm fell apart and ever since it has been a strange experience. Half of my recommendations are normal, but extreme low quality is being pushed quite aggressively
No, it really isn't, that's just a crack conspiracy theory that took off because people no longer have the capacity to judge reality by any metrics besides cynicism and memeability.
There really are billions of actual people using the internet all the time.
All models are wrong, but some are useful. The value of a theory is how accurately it allows you to predict future observations.
If AI-driven recommendation systems and a trend towards centralizing all discourse on giant social media platforms produces a result indistinguishable from the Dead Internet Theory, then the theory is a useful way of thinking about and engaging with the internet.
I think it depends on the platform. Like Reddit for example, bot accounts are very easy to create (or you just buy used accounts). I wouldn't be surprised if on the most popular subreddits that half of the comments are bot generated.
Tbh YT should finally start making their platform more discoverable like Valve has been doing with the Steam store.
You can have explicitly tunable recommendation systems, tag-based classification, slicing and dicing search and subscription pages, filter lists, curators and such, but they seem obsessed with deciding everything for their users in the most obscure fashion possible. It's why they have lost me as a user years ago, which is a sad thing to me really given my long-held positive attitude to the service.
I pay for YouTube Premium, and it's less noticeable for me. But your complaints are spot on for me -- YouTube appears to have gotten even dumber. I believe that this is b/c YT as a platform is less profitable ... that's why they're pushing more ads. That part is pretty obvious.
But we're also seeing the other behaviours b/c overall Googs is allocating less CPU time to their naive AI recommendation engine. I feel that premium members get proportionally more AI time to tune their recommendations than freemium members.
This feels like Google turned down the AI spend across the board to increase the margin on YT as a revenue platform.
I would appreciate being able to filter by audience age. If 90% of the views are from minors, there's zero chance I'm going to engage whether or not they trick me into allowing the video to play.
I would even be in favor of moving any content created by or for an under-18 audience to YouTube Kids. There's no reason it should be allowed on a platform for adults.
I know Google doesn't respect their customers, but we shouldn't let them waste our time.
> - Recommending lots of 6 - 12 year old videos on topics I'm interested in (who cares about a 12 year old product review?)
Really depends on the topic. 12 year old product reviews don't make sense. 12 year old hour-long lecture about Roman empire is just as good as it was 12 years ago.
The search results also got worse. For some reason they now mix random video recommendations with the result list, including videos that have no connection whatsoever to the search and that I already have seen.
I have no proof, but it is probably with Youtube trying to compete with Tiktok. There are more originals content on Tiktok and on Tiktok any user can easily publish content.
So it would make sense that Youtube is trying to favor new creators and short videos. Actually a lot of Youtubers for a few months have been complaining, that the algo penalize channels that dont publish frequently.
I'm myself a big Youtube watcher, and I have not been seeing significant changes in the videos I see, there is more short videos, and videos from Tiktok reposted here but in my opinion it is just because more content of that kind is being published.
There is also a discovery problem on Youtube. They usually recommend you content that is close to the content you have seen recently (but it has always been like that). Once per week there is a truly original video that pops up.
> I don't personally think the dislike button is the explanation.
Eh, it could be. Hiding the dislikes certainly affects the like/dislike clicking behavior of the user. This creates feedback loops that are very hard to predict by simple A/B testing.
I agree it's gotten a lot worse recently. Especially wrt the already seen videos. When playing a video it's disturbingly common to not have a single fresh, unseen video in the related/recommended sidebar.
Sure, but I'm talking about specifically non-evergreen videos like 10 year old product previews. That's what has cropped up recently. Youtube used to be pretty good about recommending old evergreen content but not time-sensitive content.
Something could have happened like… (just making this up) the 20 year anniversary of the G4 cube comes around and .0000001% of their users (add a few zeroes if needed) go and watch every single cube product review, so the algorithm thinks “oh everyone is into old product reviews now!” Because one of those people DID click on a bunch of other product reviews for whatever reason… more nostalgia or he thought the reviewer was cute or he walked away and they kept auto playing… or whatever.
I explicitly downvote videos that aren't directly relevant to what I want to keep seeing. This does mean that I often downvote videos that I've enjoyed, such as useful product reviews for something that I'm buying. This keeps my recommendations relatively clean.
Not interested button is a placeabo type button, completely useless, isn’t it? Do you know how many hundreds of times I’ve not interested late night talk show hosts with no stop to their constant recommendation in my feed.
My words are not based on theory but actual practice: I had videos I didn't like on my YouTube homepage, and I didn't click them, and after a little while they went away. It's as simple as that. My Google News feed is the same way.
Don't click the dislike button, rather don't watch the video at all. (Dislike means this video is bad not this topic is bad.)
The videos on my homepage exactly match the videos I watch. Exactly. They are often boring since I want something new - but I can't complain that YouTube is messing with me in some way. (Same with Google News - sometimes I want something new, and it's not there - it's always the same type of stuff.)
People who have videos that displease them on the homepage are watching those videos, and then complaining. "Guilty pleasures" basically.
That’s not my experience though. They just keep showing up. Maybe they are embedded in articles I’ve viewed or something but I’ve never clicked on them intentionally.
I am sure you are wrong about it not being the dislike button but it could be something else. Obviously though, this means there is no longer any open source fraud control anymore, of course this would happen!
Ok, let's try: youtube.com...
Out of first 11 visible videos:
I may watch, if I had time: 4 music, 2 technical, 2 political, 1 gaming.
9/11 total.
Mistakes - 1 technical (like "my interest is not that serious")
Obvious garbage - 1 ("The whole world is afraid of Japan now" plus a crazy plane picture).
Not so bad.
Can't compare with previous times though, cause I never paid attention to the first youtube page.
And now let me watch my first recommendation: The Devil’s Daughters w/ Danny B Harvey - Rock Boppin’ Baby (Sexy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUpDslHSLbU - just can't resist these girls...
In my experience, the algo has gotten very noticeably worse recently:
- Recommending lots of 6 - 12 year old videos on topics I'm interested in (who cares about a 12 year old product review?)
- Recommending tons of videos I've already seen or recommending really, really old videos from people I normally watch. It's always done this, but it seems worse recently.
- Trying to push "streamer bro" meme videos on me, which seem aimed at 12 year old kids
- The algo seems to be really clinging to recommending only videos about the last few topics I searched and totally forgetting my main interests. Look up a video on a new car you just bought? Congratulations, Youtube will now recommend you every video ever produced about that car forever to the exclusion of whatever it is you are actually interested in even if you have never shown an interest in cars.
Maybe someone who works at Youtube knows if a new recommendation system was pushed out recently or something? It's miserable.