
Google Steers Users to YouTube over Rivals - kupatrupa
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-steers-users-to-youtube-over-rivals-11594745232
======
Robotbeat
To be honest, when I do searches on google video, I always hope I get a
youtube result. If it's not, it's often a webpage with an embedded youtube
result, but the native non-youtube videos are even worse from a usability
perspective. I sometimes use site:youtube.com to improve this. Youtube is just
really good and the vast majority of competitors are bad.

Except for Vimeo. Vimeo is great. And I hope we get more youtube competitors.

EDIT: Also, I don't like the search system within Youtube itself. Googling for
videos seems to work better.

~~~
rasz
afaik YT search works only on title/description text. Google video/image
search includes transcripts and OCR

------
xfour
These types of moves really remind me of what caused Microsoft to get the ire
of regulators in the 90s. Doesn't this seem pretty anti-competitive if it can
be proved that the results from other companies are better, but youtube
results are chosen instead. Of course the definition of "Better" is
subjective, so there's a huge amount of wiggle room.

It's interesting that the "brand new" search engine seems like a dead
industry. All of the newer competitors aren't starting from scratch and are
just aggregating together results in new ways or focusing on privacy. Is it
really that impossible to bring into existence a new search engine. For the
vast majority of queries Google seems to only return major brands anyway.

~~~
slowmovintarget
The engine isn't the problem. The indices are. Google has _massive_ amounts of
data to index over, and they've been collecting it in useful form for longer
than anyone else still in the game.

~~~
xfour
Good point, the data is the key. There's of course the common crawl data now,
doing some sort of that plus deltas of "current" likely could be a starting
point. But also turning that into usable indices that can be returned in
milliseconds is an art I'm sure.

My main point still stands though. How is there not anyone willing to take
another shot at competing here, the world's love affair with Google is no
doubt over. DuckDuckGo is relatively popular even though it doesn't seem to
offer anything truly original in the search space.

A truly new way to search that helps fight the monopolistic search behavior
would be very useful. It feels like something Mozilla foundation would be into
if they didn't receive so much funding from Google.

~~~
rydre
> _How is there not anyone willing to take another shot at competing here_

Cliqz did and they lost.

------
Crash0v3rid3
I've lost count at the amount of times I've seen FB videos essentially be
ripped off creators from YouTube and Vimeo.

It's so obvious as well, the quality of the video is far worse and sometimes
zoomed in to hide watermarks.

I'll never directly visit a video on FB again.

~~~
toper-centage
Exactly. As much as I despise Googles practices, who would ever organically
visit Facebook when in search of a video?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I've found Facebook video tends to be the source more often for live videos or
recently live videos. For instance, my state's coronavirus briefings are live
on their website and Facebook. When there were protests/riots in my town,
videos of it happening were coming from Facebook, not YouTube. I presume at
some point it ends up on YouTube, but for "current events" I find myself often
bounced over to Facebook.

Meanwhile, I never find like... quality channel content anywhere but YouTube.
The sort of thing where a scripted, well-recorded and annotated video is
produced regularly... YouTube leads there by far.

------
parliament32
Google will prioritize the video that gets more clicks from their results
page. If I search for something and see both YT and FB links, I'm definitely
going to YT, because I know it'll work (vs FB links which sometimes ask me to
sign in, sometimes give me a vague permissions error, sometimes give me some
other error).

------
bookofjoe
[https://archive.vn/01lSf](https://archive.vn/01lSf)

------
bsimpson
It's unfortunate that a major newspaper has a well-known bias (in this case,
against Google). Makes it hard to trust anything they say on the subject;
although a known bias is certainly better than a surreptitious one.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This is an _incredibly_ ironic statement from a Google employee who is not
disclosing such in this comment or their profile.

~~~
ariwilson
Engage with the comment; not the commenter. Some basic evidence:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=rupert+murdoch+google&rlz=1C...](https://www.google.com/search?q=rupert+murdoch+google&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS845US846&oq=rupert+murdoch+google&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5j46j0.3325j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I am engaging with the comment, about how bias is bad, and surreptitious bias
is worse... The fact that you're both working for the company in question is
kinda relevant to that.

