
HBO Max taking on Netflix with human curation instead of relying on algorithms - Tomte
https://www.theverge.com/21268972/hbo-max-design-recommendation-human-curation-friends-kids-profiles
======
ageitgey
As Netflix has moved away from carrying lots of other people's movies to
largely producing their own in-house TV shows, it feels like they barely have
enough content to need an algorithm to curate it. They just show the same new
Netflix originals over and over in ever category.

I'm sure Netflix has piles of data that shows this is the best strategy. It
just seems like a differentiated curation strategy doesn't matter that much in
this battle. It will come down to who is producing the most popular original
content most consistently.

~~~
dclusin
It feels to me like the balkanization of streaming services was inevitable and
Netflix getting into the content game was just a logical response to remain
relevant. If the catalog is what garners subscribers then a streaming service
without its own catalog is basically fucked in the long term.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
This balkanization is a good thing. I'd far rather have the choice between
many competing providers each offering a service at £8/month, than have the
choice to take or leave a single expensive all-in-one subscription, like
cable.

It's also good that market forces are driving content-creation.

~~~
krzyk
No, it is not.

Not when they compete with exclusive content.

It would be good if they had the same content but compete with the UI (in such
case Netflix would win, and HBO would loose, as they have the worst possible
UI), streaming content etc.

~~~
jamesrcole
Most (all?) of that exclusive content only gets produced because of
exclusivity, I’d think. I.e. we get a greater number of shows because of
exclusivity.

~~~
mywittyname
The gaming industry has move (largely) away from exclusives and that has been
a net improvement for content.

I suspect the pendulum will swing away from exclusive content for television
shows. Producers might make more money up front from the deals, but the long
game favors those who establish brands with broad market appeal, and the way
to do that is to get your content in front of as many eyes as possible.

~~~
taurath
Huh? The most popular console (Nintendo) is almost entirely exclusive games.
Playstation and XBox are less exclusive than they've been, but not by much
(FF7 Remake was PS4 exclusive as well).

~~~
Fire-Dragon-DoL
Timed exclusive is not the same as permanent exclusive though.

Ff7 remake is coming to pc, they just haven't figured out when.

~~~
taurath
Sure, permanent exclusives are generally only first party. Bungie/halo was one
but thats because MS at the time didn't have enough first party studios.

~~~
Fire-Dragon-DoL
Well the big difference is Nintendo, they have a large amount of permanent
exclusives.

------
j-kent
Lately it feels like Netflix's algorithm is "just show Netflix produced
content". Maybe I'm being nostalgic but I really miss the old shooting star
recommendation system where you rated content and got similar likes from other
viewers.

~~~
slfnflctd
Nostalgic? No, you're displaying a reasonable response to a screwy situation.

Did everyone just forget about the Netflix Prize?
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize)]

There was a brief time when they had the _absolute best_ recommendation
algorithm on the planet. It was intentionally replaced by something utterly
different which is geared to simply steer everyone to IP that they own. It is
not remotely similar. I have absolutely hated every change they've made to
their UI since they ditched the old ratings system, too (forces you to use the
mouse and sets you up for fumbling what should be clear actions, so you spend
more time browsing - which costs them almost nothing - and less time
watching). My guess is, research indicated they'd make more money with these
changes than by licensing content audiences actually prefer and building a
sane interface.

As it turns out, the Netflix golden age was a short-lived anomaly if not
outright farce. If you want decent curation of content and also to be able to
watch it, you will have to pay through the nose or pirate. Same as it ever
was. It's consumer hostile, but the system is working as its overseers intend.
Whether it's really the best long term strategy is still an open question in
my book.

~~~
laurex
The problem with a recommendation engine is that it breaks down when content
options are limited. In Netflix's early days of streaming, they had a similar
approach to content as they did with DVDs, i.e. capitalizing on the long tail
and offering an enormous selection. That proved to be inefficient for
streaming because there's a minimum bar at which rightsholders will sell
licences, and it's far higher than just the price of a few DVDs. Thus, Netflix
switched to a more limited acquisition model, and then began a more aggressive
program of content creation to effectively gate its offer from competing
services. The upside of this for consumers has been a shift by many talented
creators into series-style content; the downside is that the market for
independently-produced films has bottomed out considerably.

------
kin
It makes sense to me because HBO doesn't really have the same type of catalog.
They also don't have the data. In my experience, people subscribe to HBO
because they have the content and people are already aware of their content.
It makes curation way easier. HBO Max is going to exclusively have the entire
Friends collection and Ghibli collection. I know and am aware of what HBO has
to offer.

On the flip side, Netflix is creating their own content. People have no idea
what content is on Netflix. They have to try really hard to push content and
generate engagement. I've never heard of Outer Banks, but they keep pushing it
to me and so I saw the pilot and now I'm watching the series. I watch one
comedy show and now they keep throwing comedy shows at me so I saw and enjoyed
another. Their need to create is different.

~~~
AnHonestComment
HBO Max has the entire WB + others back catalog, and represents some of the
most productive studios out there. Rumor has it, they’re also going to be
making exclusives.

Even knowing what they have across brands is nontrivial.

------
danans
I doubt they will completely remove algorithms from the curation process. In
my experience what is incredibly powerful is human curation ability multiplied
by the leverage of algorithms.

The most straightforward example of this is for curation candidates to be
proposed by algorithms, and then finalized by humans.

That approach works really well for things like creating digital maps from
signals, and is employed pretty extensively by mapping companies as
productivity multipliers.

Or even more familiar, it's what's behind things like smart select and magic
wands in image editing tools.

~~~
smartbit
I couldn't agree less. Netflix suggestion: horrible. Gave justwatch.com a try:
nothing for me.

OTOH take 5 people selecting 15 movies every month [https://cinetree.nl/over-
ons](https://cinetree.nl/over-ons): excellent selection, no algorithms. Or
every week 1 or 2 top movies at
[https://www.vrt.be/vrtnu/a-z/#filter=categories%3Afilms](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnu/a-z/#filter=categories%3Afilms).
Or idfa.nl, etc, etc. None _proposed by algorithms_ , only humans.

------
programminggeek
One area where curation will fail is in "fancy bias". As in, the same bias
that keeps crowd pleasing entertainment from winning awards.

People who are in the curation business (critics, reviewers, etc.) tend to
favor things that make themselves look good to other people in the curation
business. That is often opposite what the "unwashed masses" of people enjoy.

Prime example - Michael Bay movies. Michael Bay makes big, loud, entertaining
movies with lots of explosions, bright lights, shiny objects, violence, and
sex appeal. A "curator" is usually too snooty to recommend a movie like that.

An algorithm doesn't much care if a movie is artfully crafted, it only cares
if people watch what is recommended. In the long run, an algo is more likely
to give people what they want than a curator is.

If anything, curators over the long term seem to make a living telling people
what they aren't supposed to like (or have access to).

------
ape4
"Curators, ranging from WarnerMedia editors to celebrities, put together a
list of movies and TV shows they’re watching"

ok so how do I know which human's taste is the same as mine. If only there was
a recommendation engine for that.

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
You beat me to it. I certainly want to be able to watch things recommended by
$celebrity2.

~~~
licebmi__at__
Well, with a decent catalog, and if it's not really marketing bullshit, I
would certainly like to see a list of <my-favorite-director>'s favorites.

------
shanemhansen
There's a joke I saw somewhere. When you can Netflix someone picks up the
phone and says "your show is greenlit, who am I talking to?"

Their overall quality feels like it's gone down and their non-netflix content
feels incomplete (many movie series are only partially available). In that way
Netflix has replaced basic cable for me.

Whereas HBO and Amazon Prime still produce shows that have a certain wow
factor in terms of quality.

~~~
Taylor_OD
I believe that was a bit on South Park.

------
correct_horse
I wasn't old enough to remember it, but when search engines tried to do this
in the 90s, it became clear that people preferred machine recommendations. See
yahoo directory, look smart.

~~~
MBCook
I don’t think it became clear people prefer algorithms, I think the
fundamental problem was with the millions of websites Yahoo couldn’t scale.

HBO is operating on a much more tractable problem. Human curation may work
better here.

~~~
ethanbond
And it's not obvious that people want to discover art the same way they want
to discover information (obviously not implying that Google can't be used to
discover art).

------
gtirloni
If they could show the IMDB rating, it would be enough for me.

~~~
marpstar
Why do streaming services tend to show the Rotten Tomatoes score instead of
IMDb? I trust the IMDb score a lot more...

~~~
basch
Prime uses IMDB, because Amazon owns IMDB.

------
ikeboy
Is there any halfway decent third party recommendation system? I've got a list
of everything I've watched in the last year or so since I've started tracking
it, plus older TV shows I've seen in full. I'd be interested in manually
inputting that with ratings into some system where it can recommend what else
I'd like given everyone else's data.

~~~
MuncleUscles
I've had some success with JustWatch
[https://www.justwatch.com/](https://www.justwatch.com/) As far as ratings go,
you can 'like' or 'dislike'

~~~
smartbit
I gave it a try, not much success for my taste.

------
nojito
Netflix doesn't care about what you like. Their algorithms are centered around
the concept of what are you most likely to binge through.

Similar to Youtube recommendations and how they are simply videos are most
likely to watch through.

------
minouye
This is a hard problem. And it makes a great interview question too!

 _Recent PM interview question I 've been using: You're the PM at Netflix
handling the home screen. How do you determine how shows get promoted
editorially vs algorithmically recommended? Walk through
metrics/principles/trade-offs and how it impacts various parts of the biz._

[https://twitter.com/sriramk/status/1222547047846297600](https://twitter.com/sriramk/status/1222547047846297600)

~~~
extr
This is a great question and I might steal this for future interviews. It's
surprising how many of the people responding, despite being told optimizing
for engagement is a cop-out, still jump to some kind of metric-based
prescription. Or just jump right into throwing percentages for each content
type (I mean, it's twitter, so sure, have a go).

My personal stab at this: this is really a strategic question. What are
Netflix's long term goals? To be seen as HBO is, as a content-creator, or
merely a content-provider? Both? What are the typical engagement rates for
Netflix content vs purchased? What is the real, intangible (unmeasurable)
objective we are maximizing for? Total hours watched? Or perceived value by
consumer? Someone spending 25 hours a week with Netflix on still might
perceive it as lower value than HBO that they spend 2 hours a week watching
(and thus be more likely to cancel). Some forms of entertainment are easily
substituted, as someone who uses TV for background noise wouldn't particularly
mind to use Hulu for that purpose instead of Netflix. But a "must watch" show
on HBO is just that, a must watch. Which customer do we want more of? More
"background noise" customers implies a marginally higher infrastructure cost,
while a more content focused strategy implies a higher cost for content
production (and possibly a much more variable revenue stream, as people
subscribe/cancel as their favorite show starts/stops airing). Maybe we want
both, and we want to identify what kind of watcher a customer is, and then
tailor their home screen to suit. Maybe one person has 90% Netflix Originals
and the other has 10%.

If there is an answer here, it's to carefully weigh these strategic objectives
and only then make changes to show promotion. Even then, it would be important
to have some system of monitoring in place that allows you to confirm your
changes are actually making measurable impact the objective in question (this
may be very difficult, given an intangible goal of something like "increase
Netflix mind-share". Probably a lot of marketing surveys and focus groups.)
Straight-up engagement rate is just one of the many things to track here, and
increasing it at any cost might not even be in Netflix's long term best
interest.

~~~
minouye
You're hired! Great strategic answer that gets to the heart of the question--
it's less about the solution and more about how you frame the problem and the
underlying goals and assumptions.

Do you work in this space? It seems like you have a lot of context around
OTT/streaming.

Your answer also brought to mind this podcast episode I came across this
morning: [http://investorfieldguide.com/shishir-mehrotra-the-art-
and-s...](http://investorfieldguide.com/shishir-mehrotra-the-art-and-science-
of-the-bundle-invest-like-the-best-ep-175/)

It introduces a nice concept of "marginal churn contribution" framed with
bundling, but I think is also relevant to this discussion. Maybe more on the
content sourcing/production side, but bleeds over into long-term goals
(reducing churn/maximizing ltv/etc).

~~~
extr
Thanks! I actually don't work in streaming/OTT, I manage a data science team
for an auto insurance company. We end up thinking a lot about these kinds of
questions from different business units that aren't quite sure what they want
to be optimizing for, so I'm somewhat used to making the connection between
high level strategy and measurable objectives. And as you might imagine
churn/bundling/LTV are also very important concepts in the insurance space,
which probably gave me a leg up in my response. The revenue model is at least
superficially similar.

Thanks for the podcast link, it looks very relevant and will give it a listen.
I see insurance is even explicitly addressed @ the 23 minute mark.

------
wayneftw
I wish they would take on Netflix with some better UI functionality. I can't
even fast forward at hbogo.com without picking up the mouse. The only keyboard
commands that work are Spacebar to pause and play and F to get full screen.

Another problem is that if I watch 2 episodes in a row and I bookmark the page
of the 2nd episode to finish it later, the URL in the address bar is actually
still the URL of the 1st episode.

------
heavymark
This is like when Apple said their Music platform would be more human curated
rather than algorithms like competitors such as Spotify. But the reason why I
love Spotify's recommendations and not Apple's is because Spotify focuses on
algorithms and does them so well.

Same with Netflix, in my experience they truly know what I will like to watch,
they seem to know what shows I'll love and what shows I won't love but will
help pass the time, and seem to show it to me just when I want it.

I imagine it takes a lot of time and lots of past history and data on users to
create those algorithms so when starting out the human curation method is
required. And for companies like Apple, may be the long term strategy because
the alogrithm method that YouTube and Spotify comes at the cost of potential
tracking and privacy concerns.

~~~
terramex
In contrast to other commenters, I loved manually curated Apple Music
playlists, I found so much great music through them in first 6 months of using
their service. You could really feel that they were created by people with
real passion for underground and experimental music, on par with best user-
curated Spotify playlists. When they switched to algorithm based
recommendations its quality tanked and I moved back to Spotify because it has
better overall user experience on desktop and social features. Spotify's
algorithms has never, ever introduced me to interesting new artist, it only
suggest to me things that I either already know and like, already know and
dislike or new things that pretend to be good but there is no original though
behind them. Fortunately, a lot of independent music critics and enthusiasts
have their own playlists with good, deep cuts - but you need to find them
outside of Spotify, because their discovery features are so bad. I miss early
Apple Music so, so much. It reminded me of prime years of Last.fm.

------
lifeisstillgood
just weaponise YouTube content creators.

My kids used to laugh at Villager News, a dumb but occasionally funny skit
show using 3D animation to copy Minecraft. Amazon Video now runs the show on
its streaming service.

Basically YouTube became a method to make pilots for tv series.

Imagine all the weird but low cost documentaries i try and find on YouTube -
Tods Workshop, Primitive Technology. There will be a thousand such people in
thousands of niches.

Google could just flip on a content arm and hand each channel a producer and a
decent camera and just own half the content. The other half is documentary /
reportage rather than essays.

Honestly thinking of content as action shows or sci-fi 100 episodes is missing
the point entirely. Content here on in is still high quality but aimed at a
100,000 people not 20 million.

~~~
ed25519FUUU
> _Amazon Video now runs the show on its streaming service._

In that scenario you're competing against YouTube, a place with abundant
content with very different expectations for quality. People already go to
YouTube for this content.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
But the curation of lifting it out of youtube and into "mainstream" has a
major discoverability effect - if youtube is just pure anarchy, selecting and
promoting off youtube is ... feudalism?

------
gldev3
I don't know if netflix has enough content for curator aglorithms, at first it
was recommending me some good older movies which was great but if netflix ever
moves on to only originals and then only starts recommending those i will
definitely cancel my subscription.

------
goofiw
They should work on their search. I was trying to find the movie "Paul" and
typing "Paul" in the search had the exact match as the fourth or fifth result
in the upper right corner of the screen. It took me a while to find it.

------
ModernMech
I stopped really paying attention to Netflix's curation algorithms when I saw
"The Santa Clause" categorized under "SciFi". I mean, I guess technically, but
that's not really what I was looking for...

------
LiquidSky
It's pretty funny that even this headline shows the bizarre marketing problem
WB created in choosing "HBO Max" as their streaming service name: HBO isn't
taking on Netflix, the service is for all WB content.

~~~
koiz
Yep, and keeping the other services running at the same time is just stupid.

Its obvious HBO Now could be merged completely into Max since you get access
to both if you have Now but the fact they still keep Go around still is a
joke.

------
axaxs
As someone with both, both have their place, but HBO is a strong offering. HBO
in-house content is way better, and they have a lot more good movies available
to watch on demand. I'd say Netflix wins strictly at UI, and variety overall.

That said, I'm curious how the future will play out. I already have Hulu, HBO,
Disney Plus, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. The cost and variety is getting out of
hand, and I don't even have time to watch them all(I use Hulu the most, and
Amazon the least, fwiw). Are we going to soon see reconsolidation of services,
back to the cable model?

------
cjdrake
This reminds me of some comments Quentin Tarantino once made about Netflix:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NbxVZC9CJQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NbxVZC9CJQ).

It wouldn't surprise me if we see more of a trend towards content curation
that isn't based on AI recommendation engines, but rather humans who are
either friends or celebrities/experts.

Some ideas: * My friends are watching this * Martin Scorsese's film influences
* Cinemassacre Monster Madness watch list

------
dzonga
Netflix, has low quality shows not because of their recommendation algos. but
their business model. serve everyone some acceptable shit with a good
chocolate here and there. And mass production. Netflix shows usually suffer
from poor writing, poor cinematography. HBO knows how to hire the right crew
for a show, besides the clusterfuck called GOT. Year after year, HBO continues
to produce bangers, The Wire, Chernobyl, The Plot Against America etc are some
of the finest shows ever made. with the wire #1.

------
adjkant
As an HBO Now subscriber, I just logged into Max for the first time and was
very impressed. Everything I love about HBO and then a ton of large
collections covering many genres and as mentioned, many full collections of
things. It was already worth it, but this just made it 100% a contender with
Netflix for my top streaming platform by adding volume of other content
outside of originals, of which I enjoy from both.

------
acd
I think that it can be better with Human curation. Although all
recommendations methods can us less tolerant to different views.

Filter bubble is the term for when algorithms select the content you watch
instead of you.

Filter bubble
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble)

------
joshiefishbein
Can someone ELI5 the difference between HBO Now, HBO Go, and now HBO MAX?

Am I the only one that is completely confused by their apps branding?

~~~
ayberk
They have a FAQ at the bottom:
[https://www.hbomax.com/](https://www.hbomax.com/)

> The biggest difference is what you can stream. HBO Max is a stand-alone
> streaming platform where you can stream all of HBO together with even more
> of your favorite series and blockbuster movies, plus new and exclusive Max
> Originals for everyone in the family.

> HBO NOW and HBO GO are your options for streaming all of your HBO favorite
> series, plus hit movies, specials, and more. HBO GO is a streaming service
> included with your paid HBO subscription through a TV or mobile provider.
> And HBO NOW is a stand-alone streaming service that lets you stream all of
> HBO without a TV or mobile package.

------
romanovtexas
HBO is betting on their content to be superior right now, but there are some
obvious areas where the streaming experience isn't on par with Netflix. No
4K/HDR, one plan costing a premium that limits simultaneous streaming to only
3 screens, etc.

Hope that they catch up eventually else it's gonna be hard to compete solely
based on content.

~~~
jtreminio
Netflix, Disney+, and Apple TV+ have also realized that adding more language
tracks to their content is a _must_.

My family's viewership of Amazon Prime Video is severely limited because they
refuse to add Spanish audio to their content. They have a few Spanish-language
shows and movies but it's slim pickings.

HBO has no excuse on this, imho. I _know_ they have Spanish audio for every
single one of their shows and movies - when we had cable TV we could switch
language track in seconds, and this is not counting their Spanish-language
channel that played in Spanish by default.

~~~
smabie
Why not just use subtitles? I can't stand dubbed live action content (anime is
a little better though), so I stick with subs exclusively.

~~~
jtreminio
I enjoy subtitles, my wife doesn't. I don't think I would enjoy subtitles when
we're late-night binging until 2 or 3am.

Regardless, do Netflix, Apple and Disney have better engineers than HBO (and
Amazon)? Do the latter two not care about offering Spanish (or non-English)?
Do they have some contractual obligations to not offer the options online?

Turns out I don't care what the reason is. They don't offer extra language
options, so I don't subscribe.

------
anoraca
As long as AT&T's HBO continues to pursue quantity over quality I don't see
any reason to go back.

------
rogerkirkness
Are there any examples to counter argue the vast superiority of computational
curation?

Walmart (active merchandising) > Amazon (passive SEO)

Mutual funds (active picking) > ETFs (passive baskets)

It seems like a one directional shift. Every time I see human curation, it
just ends up being long term worse.

~~~
anyyw
Might not be an apples to apples comparison, but Costco vs Amazon is the
example I tend to use for curation vs SEO. The reason it might not be the best
comparison is that Costco tends to be for bulk items while Amazon tends to be
for one off purchases, but anecdotally I know of many who consider Costco’s
experience to be the better of the two.

~~~
rogerkirkness
I guess my argument is more does Costco have humans merchandise? I feel like
the fact that they just put skids of overstock out into the isles randomly is
more passive than the fancy facing work that most retailers do. Likewise, does
Costco carry SKUs because they feel right, or because of some kind of clinical
calculation they did about most popular CPG?

------
abtinf
Reminds me of how Yahoo! tried to differentiate itself from Google. There are
companies that think they are in media, but really they are in search. I think
the explosion of good quality content is turning the streaming services into
search companies.

------
tvaughan
This is what sold me on an Apple Music subscription. Apple Music's human
curated playlists introduced me to a lot of new music that I liked, and hadn't
come across by any machine generated recommendation, e.g. Genius.

------
gigatexal
The Netflix algorithms are so good though, more often than not it recommends
me something that I am glad it did. It almost, almost, makes up for not being
able to easily look up content by genre and such.

------
zitterbewegung
Does anyone actually think that Netflix solely uses algorithms to suggest and
or design content?

It seems like to me that they use analytics to inform what kind of content to
make but there are humans making decisions.

------
warpspin
All that curation stuff is hugely overrated. I simply want content.

If I need curation, I'll check the movies on IMDB first.

------
paul7986
I subscribed to HBO Max for $11 and just see they don't have a Roku app (the
most popular streaming platform)??

~~~
scarface74
Blame Roku’s “walled garden”. They won’t let an app be on their service
without making a deal that gives them a cut.

[https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/why-hbo-max-not-
availa...](https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/why-hbo-max-not-available-
roku-amazon-fire-tv-1234615984/)

As much as people complain about Apple’s 30% cut, Apple doesn’t get a cut of
third party content apps if a user subscribes on the providers website.

No, Apple doesn’t force content app makers to offer payment through Apple -
see Netflix, Spotify, Hulu Live TV, Sling, ATT Now, etc.

~~~
paul7986
I just canceled HBO Max ... there's not much there and I cant watch it on my
Roku TVs.

Compare Disney Plus's launch with any streaming product ATT launches is day
and night. One is all about the consumer experience while the other is all
about penny pinching and tons of red tape/too many cooks in the kitchen. They
already destroyed Direct TV with their stupidity next is HBO.

------
arkj
HOOQ (now liquidated) followed the same approach and it ended up as an
operational nightmare.

------
koiz
"human-first platform"

Yeah because netflix loves those robots it serves. At least netflix doesn't
have a name problem... Three different HBO products... yeah that's gonna work.
/s

~~~
delecti
HBO Max is just their newly renamed HBO Go and Now unification. If you had
either Go or Now before, you now have Max. It's not really that complicated.

~~~
koiz
Actually you are incorrect, HBO Go and Now still exist as separate products.
It is complicated for people that already have trouble tracking where their
shows are on several different services. Even if they intend to merge Now into
Max completely which likely is the case they still are making it confusing as
hell for the common user.

~~~
delecti
I'm not sure that confusion will really exist, or that it would be warranted
if it did. At least for HBO Now, the existing Android app updated and is now
named HBO Max. I just logged into Max using my Now credentials, and it seems
to have all the content from Now, plus some extra stuff. I think Max is just a
renamed superset of Go/Now (which were basically just two names for the same
thing anyway). There seems to be no reason to use Now anymore, and Go seems to
only exist as a separate site to appease cable companies that HBO isn't
offering a competing streaming service vs what they're giving "for free" to
HBO cable subscribers.

------
mriise
so basically upvoting?

