
Co-Founder of Youtube makes his first comment in 8 years - rl12345
http://www.youtube.com/user/jawed
======
mcphilip
The longer I use youtube while signed in, the more useless it becomes to me. I
have a wide range of interests. If I'm watching the Dead Skeletons - Dead
Mantra music video, it's not helpful to have 5 Starcraft 2 VODs in the
recommended video list (i.e. I enjoy watching professional Starcraft 2). I'd
much prefer recommendations similar to the Dead Skeletons. I've found no way
to turn off this recommendation bubble and have since decided youtube is best
used without an account if you want to actually explore its content.

~~~
InclinedPlane
It's really goddamned frustrating and just shows how hollow google is as a
company.

They have search and ads, and an utter inability to actually build anything
else or connect with a customer base. For a company this is like having
cancer. It's astounding that they can ignore the situation to such a degree.

Youtube is already an amazing force in the world, and that's with google half-
assing so much of it. With enough work it could be a multi-billion dollar
business and the next generation of media. Instead it'll probably take years
while individuals and 3rd parties figure out ways to do what google fails to
do (make content more explorable and discoverable, for one, make paid revenue
models possible, for another) for them to catch on and build the functionality
into youtube directly.

Meanwhile, instead of building improvements they're paying this stupid google
plus strategy tax.

Google is chasing facebook when they should be chasing HBO, and amazon, and
the discovery channel. It's like they live in a giant mansion with a huge lawn
where a bunch of super talented people have been camping out for a while,
trying to figure out how to make the next generation of video work. And
everyday google gets out of bed, looks out over that scene, grunts, scratches
its ass, thinks maybe they should just call the cops to get rid of the
hooligans, then goes off to watch Judge Judy.

~~~
larrys
"Google is chasing facebook when they should be chasing HBO, and amazon, and
the discovery channel. It's like they live in a giant mansion with a huge lawn
where a bunch of super talented people have been camping out for a while,
trying to figure out how to make the next generation of video work. And
everyday google gets out of bed, looks out over that scene, grunts, scratches
its ass, thinks maybe they should just call the cops to get rid of the
hooligans, then goes off to watch Judge Judy."

I really like the way you put that.

This is a result of perhaps super success at an early age (the founders), not
enough hunger (to much money), hiring what you think are the best and the
brightest (surprise - all those tests don't really work as our high achievers
who designed them thought they would) and not recognizing the role of luck in
your previous success. Used to be known in the past as becoming "fat and lazy"
\- I think that was the saying.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I had typed up something similar already but abandoned the post.

But that's pretty much exactly it. Google managed to build something early on
that is difficult to compete with, and now they are resting on it. The company
revenues are split up into 3 parts: search/ads, backbone internet, and
"other". Where "other" is a tiny fraction of the whole that is almost
inconsequential to their profit margin.

It's a "problem" that a lot of companies have where they are in a position
where revenue is actually _too_ easy. That may seem like a blessing but it has
many downsides and typically chokes growth potential. The consequences for
failure at a functional company are usually pretty significant. If SpaceX
builds a rocket that doesn't work or if Toyota builds a car that absolutely
nobody wants that hurts the bottom line. And it drives the company to do
better. But at google what are the consequences? If someone at google makes an
unprofitable product, well, that's the norm. It just gets tossed in the
"other" bin with everything else and everyone laughs and goes back to their
free lunches and complementary massages.

It's a romper room filled with nerf toys. And many folks at google are
seemingly content to luxuriate in that environment. Why would anyone at google
willingly push themselves out into the cold, unforgiving, and desolate world
of real-world business where actions have serious consequences when they can
just futz around in the "other" play room, slap ads on their "products" and
call it a day?

Google has no drive to make youtube the best it can be. And the same goes for
gdocs, gmail, app engine, or any other thing they make.

~~~
larrys
I've always had this theory that a company that operates as you say with the
examples of SpaceX or Toyota, one that life is never easy for (that can't rest
on their laurels) really operates in a way that is much more motivating.

Another example would be the entertainment industry. Or I guess advertising
industry or sports team...

Creative or highly competitive. Because you can't hit it so big that the
losses don't matter. You are only as good as your last hit film, tv show, or
game win.

Google has this tremendous cash cow.

Warren Buffett has plenty of cash. But for him the game is taking that cash
and trying to get more cash. (And of course keeping up the image of being
Warren Buffett drives him as well). And he has competition for his investment
dollars as well.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The interesting thing is that google started out as such a company. Search was
a very different business in the '90s. Google came in with their revolutionary
way of doing IT/datacenters, their hard-CS centered coding, and their
excellent search algorithms and they wiped the floor with everyone. They
pioneered a new business model with _usable_ search that was fast and low
cost, making it more easily directly monetizable (instead of having to draw in
more page views through "portals" and whatnot).

But then they succeeded so quickly that they haven't had that same level of
hunger to actually do something risky that needed to succeed. Today google is
just as likely to shut down an old project than to launch something new.

------
ancarda
A few weeks ago, YouTube started automatically signing me into my Google+
account (which I was forced into getting) rather than my YouTube account --
which has years of favorites and other content. I'm getting sick of it. I only
signed up to Google+ because my friend wanted to use Hangouts. Now it's
screwed up my YouTube channel and I can't revert it.

The only reason I post on YouTube is to share small clips with people (all my
videos are unlisted). Vimeo takes ~40 minutes to encode, whereas YouTube is a
lot faster meaning it's far more convenient.

Checking out my Google account, it seems I have Chrome on here. I'm outraged
as I never signed in with Google on Chrome. I always clicked "Not Now". What
does "Not Now" even mean? Where's the "Never" option?

This is why I hate Google. I probably made the mistake of signing into my
YouTube account on Chrome which has been infected with Google+ and that leaked
through to Chrome. Apparently that means my bookmarks can be stored without my
permission.

The best way is to deal with this issue is to delete my Google Account.
Unfortunately, that's very problematic and I've been spending the last few
months trying to move to other services. I'm slowly migrating my mail
(admittedly to Google Apps but I'll be switching to a different provider
soon), once I'm done I'll nuke the account.

That's along with Google Docs/Drive. BitTorrent Sync actually works very well
as an alternative.

I can't wait till I get to hit delete on this account. Good fucking riddance.

~~~
RobAtticus
At least for me, clicking on my icon at the top right and choosing 'Switch
account' allows me to choose my Youtube identity. Just in case others are
having this issue.

Not sure I really believe your Chrome story, but I'm not really going to argue
about it either.

~~~
ancarda
I only use Chrome for testing and when asked if I'd like to sign in, I always
hit no. Somehow 14 bookmarks made their way to my account. I've disabled sync
now.

------
sker
I've pretty much given up. Google has deleted my playlists and favorites
countless times. Every time they try to integrate YouTube with one of their
services/account management, I end up losing everything.

My only consolation is that Google+ is accumulating a lot of vitriol and hate
across the web. It's shaping up to be the most hated "social" product in the
entire Internet.

~~~
ToastyMallows
I've never had this happen and I've had a YouTube account for a while. This
honestly sounds like a bug of some sort. Have you found other people
experiencing this?

~~~
sker
Yes, there has always been people complaining in forums. I've seen steps to
recover some of the lost stuff, but I no longer bother. My original account
predates the Google acquisition and I lost everything when they made the
username -> Google Account transition years ago.

Probably my fault because I always decline these things until Google forces
the integration upon us anyway.

~~~
crucialfelix
you can keep saying no. they keep pleading for me to use my "real" name and I
keep switching it back to my artist name.

its amazing that they host video by artists and yet do not allow the artists
to use their artist names. all in the name of stamping out comment wars.

~~~
lostlogin
I had a good discussion somewhere here about names in relation to medical
records. What it boiled down to was that one can never assume that someone has
a name that stays the same, is of any set length, has any set format, and
restriction on length, number of words, capitalisation etc. These facts cause
havoc in unprepared systems (read as every system I have ever used). The fact
that Google tries to pin this problem down is laughable - but I guess they
have as good or better chance than anyone else at getting it right. <glares at
GE, Philips, Kodak, Intellirad>

------
VikingCoder
Because YouTube comments were completely useless, and now the company is
trying to make them useful / interesting.

If I go to a viral video, and I see comments on it from people I actually
KNOW, I personally think that would be really cool. That was completely
impossible, the old way.

~~~
andor
_If I go to a viral video, and I see comments on it from people I actually
KNOW, I personally think that would be really cool._

Or really creepy.

a- Imagine you're going to a real world bookstore. You look at the back cover
of a few books and all the reviews are by your Google+ "friends". Customized
for you to increase the chances you're buying it. (If ads are going everywhere
and you try to ignore them, what will be left?)

b- In your holidays you're traveling to another continent. After arriving,
you're surprised that you see the faces of your Facebook stalkers everywhere.
Would you like that?

c- Your government rolls out new mandatory ID smartcards for both the offline
and online worlds. Soon after they require everybody to sign their TCP packets
with those cards. A friendly smiling illustration of a computer asks you to
swipe your card to login to your OS. Have a safe journey online!

~~~
jannotti
a - That would be awesome.

b - That would be awesome (since I assume you mean the beter direct analogy,
which would be that any of my Facebook friend's statements about being there
are visible. Now I know who to chat with about restaurants, sights, etc.)

c - Can you say strawman? Making up a dystopian future and placing it
alongside something you don't like doesn't make the thing you don't like any
more like it.

Youtube comments are universally derided as trash. This might make it better.
It might also simply stop a lot of comments. And in fact, probably both.

~~~
dublinben
C - This is more or less already the case in South Korea. You can't really use
the Internet without a national ID card.

~~~
jannotti
Do you suspect this was in preparation for the inevitable day when Google
would require real names on youtube comments?

------
ringdabell
What happened to "don't be evil"?

The criticism is a bit thick, but the prompts to join G+ are increasingly
manipulative and gimmicky, designed almost entirely to _trick_ the user to
into signing up + spamming their gmail contacts.

A requirement to have G+ account to make youtube comments is just one part of
a greater trend that includes:

1\. Requiring a G+ account to review Android apps in the Play store 2\.
Cunningly worded join prompts for first-time Android users when they start up
their new Android device(s)

You know G+ is an abysmal failure when the Page & Co has to force it on users
of google's other services. C'mon bro, what gives?

The moral superiority narrative that the valley likes to perpetuate vis-a-vis
more traditional industries like banking, etc. is increasingly laughable and
absurd.

Let's be real tech bros and broesses. Bidness is bidness.

~~~
hahainternet
> You know G+ is an abysmal failure when the Page & Co has to force it on
> users of google's other services. C'mon bro, what gives?

They literally have been explaining this for nearly a year. There's no such
thing as a G+ account and a 'Google Account'. They are the same things.

I think if anything what this has proven is that you cannot rely on your
customers to read the slightest thing from you, but if you change how they
expect things to work, they will get incredibly angry even if the service is
totally free. Even if you are IMPROVING the service you will get anger.

Moral of the story: Don't have many customers.

~~~
ancarda
No. Moral of the story is "Don't fuck around".

I like my YouTube account. I don't like Google+. Stop forcing it on me. I'd be
happy with a YouTube that doesn't let me comment but let's me upload videos
and everything else I'm doing now. Instead, I'm packing up and leaving.

The irony is your moral might just work. Google will end up with less and less
customers if they keep behaving in this way. Only people willing to tolerate
Google+ will be left. Maybe that's what they want.

~~~
hahainternet
> I like my YouTube account. I don't like Google+. Stop forcing it on me. I'd
> be happy with a YouTube that doesn't let me comment but let's me upload
> videos and everything else I'm doing now. Instead, I'm packing up and
> leaving.

Literally nobody cares.

> The irony is your moral might just work. Google will end up with less and
> less customers if they keep behaving in this way. Only people willing to
> tolerate Google+ will be left. Maybe that's what they want.

I hope so! I can only imagine if Youtube was as full of interesting content as
G+, and not so filled with people whining that a terrible terrible system
isn't being kept soley for their own preferences.

~~~
ancarda
Is this how you treat your customers?

~~~
hahainternet
For the most part yes. There are always naysayers, always conservatives. If
you listen to them, no progress can ever be made. You have to decide on a
course and take it.

Ultimately, if integration with Google ruins Youtube, then a competitor will
eviscerate them. If it ultimately improves it, the criticisms will fade away.

~~~
MrZongle2
_" There are always naysayers, always conservatives. If you listen to them, no
progress can ever be made."_

Did it occur to you that perhaps some of these "conservatives" learned a
painful lesson the type of which you have not yet encountered?

~~~
hahainternet
No doubt, but my point is that _no matter_ the quality or validity of the
change, some will always oppose it.

------
OoTheNigerian
Although it may not be a popular opinion, here is the reason: there is only
one Google (at least for social stuff) and one login system now.

Google plus is the "Google account" you need to use any of their social
services.

I am frankly surprised that they allowed the login of their acquisitions to
stay fragmented for such a long time.

~~~
adrianb
The Google Account was already in use before Google+ was created. The
difference was that you could have a mixture of services enabled for your
account (I only use Gmail, I never use Picasa so I don't have it on my an
account).

Now they seem to force you to always have the Google+ enabled even if you
never use it. Including for older accounts. I guess this is what makes people
angry. It's like being prompted to create Picasa albums every time you try to
read your Gmail.

~~~
Shooti
Exactly his point: A lot of the Google services hosted within a Google account
essentially served as independent accounts themselves, each with their own
independent sharing model/systems divorced from the others.

Google's trying to switch over to a new system there's just one generalized
Google identity (hosted by G+), and all of the products/services tap into
that. If you want that identity to be your real identity, you use a Google+
Profile. If you want to remain anonymous or represent a business
entity/organisation, you use a G+ Page.

The problem is there's two Google+' sharing the same name: "Google+, the
identity system" and "Google+, the social network" and they've done a
hamfisted job of explaining what the value of any of it is to the user.

------
doe88
That way Google+ can claim 1 billion _active_ users and say their service is a
huge success, even surpassing their nemesis Facebook.

~~~
hobs
Don't forget the likely increased revenue tying more accounts to real names to
sell impressions that are more targeted. It's all about the money.

~~~
mathattack
I think the goal is ultimately more targeted advertising. In a way this is
helpful. It would be great for adult advertising to stop showing up on cartoon
videos.

------
da_n
Tangentially related, my experience with the YouTube/Google plus social
network merge has been pretty awful. I opted-out initially to integrate with
Google plus, I couldn't have cared less so I just stuck with my original
username/account. It seems even though I opted out, Google created a Google
plus YouTube profile for me anyway and now chooses to nag me about it every
time I go there. I have to pick every time I go to YouTube which 'profile' I
want to use (defaulted to Google plus social network) even though I never
wanted this new profile, and I have a big banner telling me I am using YouTube
as profile 'x' permanently stuck at the top just to rub it in.

This annoyed me enough that a couple of weeks ago I gave up and tried to
integrate it into their social network so I could just have 1 profile. Now it
appears I no longer have the option to merge my original profile into Google
plus, it just isn't there on the account settings. Because I made one decision
to opt-out of their social network it seems I will permanently have 2 profiles
from this time forward, the Google plus one has none of my history,
subscriptions, likes etc it is a completely useless account.

~~~
this_user
I have a Google account but without G+ and a YT account that was linked to the
Google account. The solution for getting rid of the repeated popups asking you
to turn your YT account into a G+ account seems to be to delete your YT
channel. That way you will only be logged in with your normal Google account.
Of course, you still won't be able to comment (or operate a channel), but at
least the popup seems to be gone.

~~~
da_n
It's funny I used to get that screen to turn it into a plus account but I got
annoyed with it and opted out, I guess I didn't appreciate it was a one time
option. All I get now is a plain profile picker (which as I say defaults to
the social network profile, I have accidentally used it several times liking
videos etc and then realising I was in the wrong profile). All things being
considered this is only a trivial annoyance, I am just surprised at how bad
the UX is for me now.

------
smanuel
\- Google is afraid of Facebook

\- Google wants more users in Google+

\- People don't care about Google+

\- This doesn't change the fact that Google is still afraid of Facebook and
wants more people to use G+

\- Google will try to do everything it can to drag you into this service which
you won't use anyway

What's so strange about this?

~~~
BitMastro
-90% false

-100% true

-100% false for people using Google+ (absolute percentage unknown)

-50% false

-80% true

~~~
smanuel
Let me rephrase "google is afraid of facebook" because it obviously leads to a
lot of falses. Google would like to keep the marketing money that goes to
Facebook back at Google.

~~~
BitMastro
True, I believe that it is a simple reasoning: more people on Google+ leads to
the better targeting for a wider audience, so better ads and more revenue. The
social interaction is just another channel of information.

As you said, why is it so strange? It makes a lot of sense from a marketing
point of view (the business strategy dictates so) and an engineering point of
view (they already have a commenting system for users).

------
verelo
"Because you sold YouTube to Google"

In all serious though, I think this just further opens up the door for
competing services like Netflix, Instagram and Vine to dig in. With Netflix
for my serious video watching, and Vine / Instagram for cat videos, I find
myself visiting YouTube much less. Requiring a G+ account for comments is the
little extra effort that makes me not engage.

IMO YouTube on its way to be the MySpace of video.

~~~
nivla
>IMO YouTube on its way to be the MySpace of video.

Highly doubt it. Youtube is one of the hardest thing to compete with, even
Google search is much easier to go after. Did you read that article about
Youtube where Google pays local ISPs to act as a CDN? That is the best CDN
money can buy. A competitor without matching performance is going to be
largely ignore by both consumers and publishers.

------
jonknee
Considering that it was nearly impossible to make YouTube's commenting system
worse, I'm interested to see if the G+ integration improves things. For
whatever reason YouTube has forever had the lowest quality comments of any
site I can think of.

~~~
silverbax88
And now they will have the lowest quantity as well.

~~~
jonknee
That would be great! Comments aren't cumulative--1,000+ comments of low
quality aren't as a whole better than 50 comments of high quality.

------
jaxomlotus
In answer to his comment: Because you sold it to Google.

~~~
joshribakoff
My thoughts as well. If you're going to sell out, you should fully anticipate
that "the man" will just gut your company & let it bleed out. Maybe they
bought it to kill it off, etc.

~~~
jobigoud
But you should still have the right to be pissed off on a personal level.

~~~
jaxomlotus
Not really. You give up that right when you traded it in for a cool billion.

Users should maybe be more pissed at him for selling, than Google for tying
Youtube to their overall Google strategy.

(Not that anybody should be pissed over such an issue. Just saying.)

------
rl12345
[http://i.imgur.com/WIApJHX.png](http://i.imgur.com/WIApJHX.png)

the screenshot, just in case.

------
jiggy2011
Surely it wouldn't be it couldn't be _that_ hard to built a better youtube and
seed it with quality content. I'm surprised nobody has succeeded.

Is it just that the costs of serving video require an enormous company or is
it that the term youtube is basically synonymous with "internet video".

~~~
homosaur
uh, you mean like Vimeo?

~~~
citricsquid
Vimeo is not a Youtube alternative. Vimeo is to Youtube what Hacker News is to
reddit. Vimeo is a nice video platform for creative projects, they do not
allow a large amount of the content that Youtube does (no gaming videos, no
dumb cat videos) and so it's not really suitable to replace Youtube.

There are other alternatives though, dailymotion.com is fairly popular and
will accept anything.

~~~
homosaur
I'm not sure you can have both high quality content and a zero barrier to
entry. I actually think YT does an okay job surfacing some decent content for
folks on the homepage, especially when you're logged in. I seem to anecdotally
find the "related" sidebar more useful in recent times as well.

------
jrs99
i hate going to youtube and realizing that i'm signed in and my history is
being saved.

~~~
spectrum
That's why I use different browsers. Chromium logged in with my Google
accounts, Firefox for everything else.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
I go one step further, and put chromium in incognito while logging in to
google services. The only problem is clicking youtube links from gmail/gtalk -
I have to remember to paste them in to firefox.

~~~
trendoid
block cookies from YT?

------
Mindless2112
Headline is inaccurate, though I can't really blame the submitter. jawed
occasionally makes comments on YouTube (example: [1]), but eventually hides
everything but YouTube's first video from his channel (presumably so he can
"make his first comment in X years" which then gets headlines).

[1]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo&lc=XBr2JHTM1EEDT3...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo&lc=XBr2JHTM1EEDT3_YVfvISinZ5fjS2Ri-
HLNHcLz58Ns)

------
mlyang
This isn't just to make commenting more social (i.e. pushing friends comments
to the top)-- I imagine it's also largely to hold more people accountable for
their comments (w/ their reputation) so that there aren't as many
nonsense/flame/bigoted comments like there always have been on Youtube, and in
turn get higher quality comments (e.g. Quora vs. Yahoo answers analogy)

~~~
acdha
> hold more people accountable for their comments (w/ their reputation)

This belief has been thoroughly debunked by Facebook comments. There's
absolutely no reason to believe that Google+ will be any better, particularly
since the ghost-town nature of G+ means people will rightly assume they can
flame away and nobody they know will ever see it.

~~~
mlyang
That's true-- although just based on my observations it feels like Facebook
comments on popular posts are silly because of how angry/polarized they are,
not necessarily how nonsensical they are (relative to Youtube's comments
historically).

For example: typical bad Facebook comment = angry rant at Sean Parker from
person who seems genuinely angry

vs

typical bad Youtube comment = some nonsense troll/needlessly racist comment.

~~~
acdha
Perhaps, although I've seen an awful lot of trollish/bigoted Facebook public
comments on anything related to politics — it's not as bad as YouTube but
increasingly close.

------
Kylekramer
YouTube comments have long been reviled as the worst of the worst the internet
has to offer. I don't know why people seem to want the status quo.

~~~
InclinedPlane
You're making a very basic logical error. Youtube comments on the whole may be
horrible, but that doesn't discount the possibility (in fact, I'd say
certainty) that _some_ youtube comments could be good, even valuable. There
are many channels on youtube where the comments are fairly high quality, even
by HN standards.

The downside is that the people who put in the effort to nurture high quality
comments on their channels, and the people who have been high quality
commenters on youtube are the most negatively impacted by these changes. And
the negative impact on the highest quality of comments might end up reducing
the average quality much more than any moderate impact on the volume of the
lower quality comments.

~~~
Kylekramer
So in order to preserve a small minority who have somehow carved out a working
system (which I'll assume exist despite never seeing them) in the overwhelming
onslaught of vitriol and crap, we just have to deal with said vitriol and crap
continue as is?

This also assumes that Google+ comments will kill off these high quality
comment channels. I am sure it is true for some, but it is hardly the absolute
death knell for quality conversation to require a Google+ account.

~~~
InclinedPlane
False dichotomy. I'm arguing that google should have figure out a better way
to add better functionality to the youtube commenting system than just shoving
google+ down everyone's throats.

Google actually has something like 7+ different comment systems. And yet for
some reason they felt compelled to cram youtube's square peg into google+'s
round hole because that was the only reasonable technological solution?
Because that was the only possible way to improve the situation?

Bullshit. It's because they want to prop up google+ and they want to make
targeted ads easier.

------
ktran03
I get annoyed by those _____n stupid popups on every video now. Do I really
have to close 15_ __ __* overlays before I can watch a video?? really?

Google, how does this add to the experience? How does it make youtube a better
product?

I won't even get started on the asinine recommendation system. Backed by one
of the largest companies in the world and the brightest employees in the
world. And yet youtube gets crappier every year. Scratching my head on this
one.

------
zaidf
This is a sad, desperate attempt by Google to take on a competitor(facebook).
I wish Google showed as much restraint and care in taking on facebook as
facebook is showing in taking on google when it comes to search.

------
mrpotes
Is the answer not "Because you sold out"? What did he expect to happen when
Google snapped them up?

------
sdfjkl
I find the web works much better with fewer logins[1]. In my opinion, the old
way of using the web, by URL alone, worked best. Want to share something? Copy
the URL to your blog, paste it to IRC/IM or wherever. Those that actually care
enough to follow you will comment on it if they really want to (and you want
them to). We never needed those moronic sharing buttons, only those who wanted
to track us did. And we don't need logins for any of that.

[1] I noticed this since using the Self-destructing cookies addon for Firefox,
which deletes all cookies for a site when the last tab on that site is closed
(unless whitelisted). I'm whitelisting only a select few sites, and
Google/YouTube are not among them.

------
cromwellian
Here's a simple way to improve YouTube. Turn off comments.

I have never once, as far as I can remember, read a YouTube comment that was
in any way, insightful or provided meaningful information that wasn't better
obtained elsewhere. It is a cesspool, and the people who are complaining about
needing to login to G+ to leave a comment frankly largely intersect with the
set of people who are the problem.

Honestly, if logging into G+ bothers you, you probably are the kind of person
who "shoots from the hip" and doesn't put a lot of thought into your comments
anyway.

I don't believe the G+ comments on YouTube are about the idea of real identity
being a check against racists, assholes, douchebags, and other comment
archetypes. That has failed for Facebook comments and so has up/downvoting on
YT. Instead, I think it's about filtering based on social network sharing.

Simply put, if someone shares a link to your video somewhere with their circle
of followers, the external thread that develops outside of YT, within that
community is likely to be more coherent and cogent, and that will be surfaced
in the YT comments especially if you have social affinity with that person.

Think about it as a kind of comment federation. What if every YT video that
has been linked from HackerNews stories surfaced the HN comments directly
under the video on YT if you were in fact, a HackerNews user (had a login).
Don't you think the HN comment thread would be higher quality than the general
YT audience comments? That kind of federation is technically not possible
today, because we don't have a standard spec for comment upstreaming, but
because Google owns G+ and YT, they can do this kind of integration.

The reality is, comments from video reshares from people you know, who have
small circles of followers, will be higher quality. Someone with 10,000 or
100,000 followers however probably will exhibit the same problems because the
probability of bad actors rises with quantity. However, at least you can
control this by filtering who you follow.

There's a general purpose derangement going on with respect to G+ that I just
don't get. I don't like Facebook, never have, I barely ever log into it. I
don't like social networks in general, I like _interest networks_. But I don't
throw a hissy fit when most of the sites on the web force me to either create
an account, or login with Facebook. I just login with Facebook and go about my
business, denying most of the permissions it wants from me. It's really not
that big of a deal. I don't use FB, but it is not a burden on me personally to
use it as a single sign on service.

The reason why I use G+ is similar to the reason why I use HN or Reddit -- the
communities. Simply put, there are more interesting, tightly knit, communities
with less annoying, disruptive people on G+ than there is on FB. Maybe that's
elitist, but that's the way it is. Perhaps it's the advantage of having less
users, less adoption than Facebook. There's merit in being a so-called "Ghost
Town", in that anyone willing to live there is more dedicated to the town, and
less willing to take a shit on it.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Here's an even simpler way to improve youtube comments: ignore comments on
videos that are likely to have low quality comments.

But there are plenty of videos where that's not the case. There are many
excellent scientific and educational videos on youtube, and the comments
sections for many of them are excellent. Or were anyway. Periodic videos.
Minute physics. Veritasium. EEVblog. Vihart. And so many others. In such
places the comments can be civil, interesting, enlightening, sometimes just as
good as an average comment on HN. But now those comments are a bit less
valuable in general because so many of them are of the form "X just shared
this on google+".

Instead of being a response to the creator, some comments are now a shout out
into the crowd. And all of this is just jumbled together. It's an incredibly
stupid and broken way to handle commenting that is only just slightly stupider
than the old incredibly stupid and broken way they were doing commenting.

The idea of freighting around my one and only social circle as some sort of
background peanut gallery everywhere I go is, frankly, not interesting to me.
The reason I go seek out different channels and different sites is to have
different experiences, often with different people. HN isn't my friend-group,
and I wouldn't want HN to be replaced by my friend group either, and I value
my friends greatly.

~~~
cromwellian
I watch Vihart's videos, and the comments are full of low signal. All of the
high quality comments are from G+ from anecdotal evidence. Let's look at the
top ones on her Dragon Doodle video:

"Ever wonder why fractals are called "fractals"? It's because they have
"fractional dimension". This idea comes from noticing that when you scale a
2-dimensional object up by a factor of 2, its area increases by a factor of 4,
but when you scale a 2-dimensional Sierpinski triangle up by 2, its area
increases by a factor of 3. With a normal 2D object, if you scale it up by a
factor of 3, you'd increase the area by a factor of 9, but when you scale a
2-dimensional Koch snowflake up by 3, its area increases by a factor of 4. So
fractals don't behave like normal objects. They behave as if they have
fractional dimension"

First non-G+ comment? "Can I marry your mind, please?" Or this one: "hey, no
knock on community colleges, studied at a couple myself I just feel like
everyone's giving this girl way more credit than is due, but like I said,
that's just me, and it has been made clear by everyone and their mother
watching this vid that it is ONLY me. lol"

Or this one: "Yeah, you're totally a dick."

General consensus is, YouTube comments are, by and large, shit. I don't think
you're going to convince many people that they're worth it because you can
find a few videos that might have slightly higher signal.

Frankly, I would like to see "unification" of comments so when I'm looking at
a video, I can see what people are saying about it from around the Web, rather
than the same video linked to from 15 different blogs. For example, if some
new tech video comes out, and is covered by HN, TheVerge, Engadget, Reddit,
etc, I end up having to visit 4 or more sites to see what people's reaction to
the video is, rather than having them collated in one place.

~~~
sillysaurus2
As an employee of Google, you should realize you're in a groupthink
environment. I absolutely despise the new Google+ change. The top comment on
the most recent video I watched was a Google+ comment consisting of the title
of the video plus ten hashtags. That was it. The other Google+ comments were
similarly horrible and content-free.

At least with the previous implementation, you'd get a top comment that made
you laugh once in awhile.

~~~
cromwellian
It's not really Google groupthink that YouTube comments suck, that's an
external observation. Obligatory xkcd:
[http://xkcd.com/202/](http://xkcd.com/202/)

It may be groupthink that G+ comments are better, but for my social stream,
the people I follow, G+ is not a ghost town, it is a highly interesting place
full of lots of thoughtful commentators. If I can filter comments by those
whom I respect, and transitively, maybe one degree extended, it would be a
vast improvement.

I say let people turn off the filters and leave the old comments as an option.
Personally, first think I'd do is turn them off.

~~~
ivanbrussik
For the past 5 years I've been appalled by the amount of SPAM being generated
on YT. Like this cute baby, then you'll love Ivans P800X Weightloss System
4.0. 56 thumbs up. Top comment. Every video.

I'm sure Google knew this was going to cause a stir. Every major interfact
change that FB does causes mass outrage and even groups like "get 100,000
likes to petition for mark zuckerberg to switch back to the old FB" and such.

a lot of the pissed off ppl (not all) are the anonymous cowards that liked to
hide behind throwaway identities, spammers, and people that generally like to
read meaningless comments.

I am also an active G+ user and really enjoy several communities and groups
that are of interest to me. What's really missing is the mainstream market:
pics from last night, pet photos, moms, teens, etc. right now it is mainly
super interweb savvy people who are active because they know how serious
google is about G+

as a channel owner I am stoked about the change. i dont like getting used to
new interfaces any more than the next person but I can definitely see how this
will add a ton of value to my channel and YT in general.

------
hardwaresofton
I had a hearty laugh at this. Thanks to everyone who made this possible.
Walled gardens forever

------
mcintyre1994
I don't think they've handled the merge well at all, but it happening was both
inevitable and sensible. Google+ obviously has much better communication
features, and it's ridiculous that Youtube didn't have them for so long.

------
Shooti
IIRC don't think this comment was actually made today/yesterday. I remember it
being linked to a couple a weeks ago when they flipped the switch on G+
comments for the discussion tab and this was his response to that.

------
peterwwillis
I thought the point was to reduce the hate-filled screeds by linking their
comments to a real profile of a real person. But with the "nyms" fiasco that's
probably impossible now.

------
adem
seems more like a channel status update (or whatever they call it in youtube).
i see it as some kind of "what happened to the youtube we built" attitude,
which seems appropriate.

------
visualphoenix
Larry Page has his office in the G+ building, and has said a number of times
he is committed to seeing G+ be a success.

[http://www.virante.org/blog/2013/04/23/is-google-still-
the-f...](http://www.virante.org/blog/2013/04/23/is-google-still-the-future-
of-google/)

There is a lot of hate for G+ and/or the service unification stuff... I
personally dislike it - but I don't think it's going away anytime soon.

------
jamaicahest
Top comments are about complaining about how people don't like youtube,
instead of actually debating the actual issue. Seems this site is becoming
more like Reddit every day. I love Reddit, but it's like beer and cola. I love
both, but I love them for their different taste and I don't want them to taste
the same.

------
pearjuice
So does this increase the quality of comments now that anything you post will
turn up in search results with your name?

------
harimau
Not only YouTube but everything Google is trying to integrate with G+. When
showing a colleague a photo from a trip or looking at a review of something, I
don't need to be shown as being available for a "hangout".

I'm not "always available all the time" \- I just want to get mundane things
done sometimes.

------
mullingitover
I'm not at all a G+ fan, and yet I wholeheartedly support Google's decision to
require it for YouTube comments. There is no single policy they could've
enacted to improve the quality of their comment cespool, and I feel that the
people complaining about it the loudest were likely part of the problem.

------
filipedeschamps
Before I clicked the link, I tried to imagine all the possible comments I'd
read, but not this one.

------
ape4
It seems with Google+ people can add you but you have no option to reject
them. Anybody know a way?

~~~
LeonidasXIV
You don't have to add them back. Just like twitter, following/circling is not
a symmetrical operation.

------
Springtime
Hilarious.

------
Sarkie
Blame Steve Jobs. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130122022004/http://silicon-
ne...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130122022004/http://silicon-
news.com/news/2012/06/17/steve-jobs-google-plus/)

------
knodi
Also WTF does it keep asking me if I want to use my real name. SAVE MY FUCKING
PERF!!

------
voorloopnul
Resistance is futile. Google+ is awesome and soon or later you will be
assimilated.

------
wil421
I dont want another social media site, and I especially dont want to get
forced into using one. I also want to use google's apps such has gmail,
youtube, and others without having to sign into google+.

------
rjv
The Internet never ceases to amaze me. Why does everyone act like a child
throwing a tantrum when something changes? Are people that incapable of
adapting? It's really not that big of a deal.

~~~
kunai
Because recent changes by many tech companies are being made because they're
running out of ideas.

We all had a good thing going until around 2010 or so. That's the point when
companies stopped making good changes, and went on fanatical change-sprees
that made things harder, less efficient, and worse.

Change for the sake of change is not always progress, you know. Windows 8 --
sucked. Windows 8.1 -- much better.

At least Microsoft had the balls to backtrack a little bit, and it paid off
big time for them. Somehow I don't see Google doing that.

------
personlurking
I just tried to comment on a Youtube video and was not asked to sign in to
Google+, so not sure what the co-founder is talking about.

I don't have Google+ but I have a Youtube account.

------
StandardFuture
Uh ... these guys have created their own response to the changes on YouTube
lol: [http://www.vus.io](http://www.vus.io)

~~~
adrianmalacoda
What exactly _is_ that, though? None of the social links in the bottom right
corner go anywhere. The only thing on that page is an email submission form.

The wording leads one to conclude that it must be some alternative to YouTube,
but I don't see anything else on that site.

------
aestetix
At this point it seems like Google's mission is to help make profit for Apple
and Facebook.

------
ccash71
check out the CueNotes app for Chrome for YouTube. The CueNotes comment system
is much much better, allows you to stay anonymous on YouTube but still get
quality comments, follow people, tag stuff by time, etc. really fun.

------
nclzz
He's a real genius.

------
thrillgore
_slow clap_

------
mfarid
Mischief, thou art afoot !!!

------
deeteecee
the inbox is a mysterious thing to find for me nowadays

------
mankypro
Most excellent.

------
gabrielcb
So hilarious!

------
pastullo
Genius!

------
ApacheEcho
Why do they insist on shoving Google+ down people's throats. It isn't going to
work out. It's going to crumble and die just like Buzz.

------
schlegelrock
Internet you complete me.

~~~
filipedeschamps
LOL

------
joshuaspaulding
I find it funny when people complain about shit they get for free.

~~~
alayne
I don't understand the "free" argument people keep making. Haven't you read
the arguments debunking that point of view? It's only "free" in terms of there
not being a transfer of money from you to Google. Google is trying to entice
you into using their services so they can sell advertising. You are being
pimped out by Google and they are paying you with their services. If Google
wants to keep pimping me out to these advertisers, they better make the
working conditions palatable and their services useful.

Google runs a business which users are a part of and if you think they are
providing their services as a charity and have no right to complain about the
business because you don't give them money, you really haven't thought about
this very deeply. Since there is no charity here, the idea that we should be
grateful is absurd.

Additionally, Google's huge control makes is difficult to participate in parts
of the Internet (e.g. watching videos) without using their services. I think
between their business model exploiting their users and their market
stranglehold people absolutely have a right to complain when they make
unwanted service changes.

