|
Do people even literally self-host anymore? As in have server racks in their very own home?
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Ganson posted:I don't know, if amazon comes out with an AWS roll-your-own-media-site service I could see it happening, especially if they find out a way to make it easy to monetize (either through them directly or through some third party partners). "The only problem is the problem people are having on YouTube, once we solve that it's golden! Oh and by the way you need to pay upfront for this unlike YouTube which is free."
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:"The only problem is the problem people are having on YouTube, once we solve that it's golden! Oh and by the way you need to pay upfront for this unlike YouTube which is free." If you're looking at self hosting you've kinda already made the decision to spend some money. I'd also be looking at it as more of an optional model than an outright replacement. Youtube isn't going anywhere, even if it's eventually only the megacorps and legacies making any ad revenue off it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do people even literally self-host anymore? As in have server racks in their very own home? Depends. Are they turbonerds and/or running on the scale of major corporations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do people even literally self-host anymore? As in have server racks in their very own home? Not except for the tiniest of sites or dumb projects. I left a raspberry pi open to the world just to watch and graph the ssh attempts by would-be hackers for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Beginner YouTube people aren't being shut out though. They're just not picking up the maybe $60, more likely $20 or less, across a year in advertising that they might have gotten if they were real lucky with their level of viewership. My impression was that the issue isn't the pittance that small viewership channels will be losing out on now that they don't qualify for advertising, but rather that Youtube (understandably) prioritizes monetized content when making recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Ganson posted:If you're looking at self hosting you've kinda already made the decision to spend some money. I'd also be looking at it as more of an optional model than an outright replacement. Youtube isn't going anywhere, even if it's eventually only the megacorps and legacies making any ad revenue off it. Once again, your revenue situation is going to be even worse off of YouTube. While you try to afford all your extra hosting costs on top of the already existing costs to produce your content. It's not a winning strategy for the people supposedly being pushed out, and if you're huge enough for that to stop being an issue you're probably huge enough to be able to throw some weight around with YouTube. Wallet posted:My impression was that the issue isn't the pittance that small viewership channels will be losing out on now that they don't qualify for advertising, but rather that Youtube (understandably) prioritizes monetized content when making recommendations. YouTube also prioritizes a bewildering variety of other factors in its search algorithms. Ultimately though, a very small viewership channel whether monetized or not is likely to have their recommendation rankings stay low, unless/until something unusual happens where they're the only one covering a specific topic, or a particular video gets a lot of views from outside sources, etc. And when that happens then they can become a monetized channel and they can have that in the rankings - it builds on itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:YouTube also prioritizes a bewildering variety of other factors in its search algorithms. Ultimately though, a very small viewership channel whether monetized or not is likely to have their recommendation rankings stay low, unless/until something unusual happens where they're the only one covering a specific topic, or a particular video gets a lot of views from outside sources, etc. And when that happens then they can become a monetized channel and they can have that in the rankings - it builds on itself. I don't disagree, that just seems to be the primary point of contention. People seem to be missing that YouTube's willingness to host videos that no one is watching is hugely reducing the barrier to entry for new/small content producers that want to do video. Producers without a sufficient audience for YouTube to care about them aren't large enough for advertisers to want to deal with them directly; the only way that someone like Amazon can fix that is by acting in the same intermediary capacity that YouTube already does, at which point they would get the same pressure to moderate the content they are serving adds for that YouTube has received. The basic, and presently unsolved, issue is that it isn't worth the time/money for anyone involved to vet or moderate content with minimal reach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:There's no real point setting up a platform for small time content creators that have demonstrated they don't generate enough ad dollars to bother about. Yeah. I drank the "Long Tail" Koolaide in 2006 and launched a content portal where independent artists could post and sell video clips, wallpapers and ringtones to mobile phones (shortcodes and all). Even creating stuff so they could sell on MySpace etc. Almost all the sales was one artist selling Christian Rap and only because he was the one artist who self promoted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Wallet posted:My impression was that the issue isn't the pittance that small viewership channels will be losing out on now that they don't qualify for advertising, but rather that Youtube (understandably) prioritizes monetized content when making recommendations. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en&ref_topic=6029709 quote:Monetization status is not used to inform how videos display on YouTube. If your channel is no longer in the YouTube Partner Program after February 2018, it does not mean your videos will be limited in search and discovery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
I think the issue is nobody believes that. It's pretty weasel-worded too: "is not used to inform how videos display" can translate to "we don't put a gold border on the monitized channels" "does not mean your videos will be limited in search and discovery" doesn't mean that monitized content is not promoted in search and discovery, just that you aren't penalized in the algorithm. YT just wants to promote TOP TEN REASONS WHY YOUTUBE'S ALGORITHM IS GARBAGE AT PROMOTING CONTENT I WOULD LIKE videos so I've found myself not going there to browse, only going if I'm looking for a specific thing or following someone's link. I guess they're making the most money on that format, but it's so awful I can't see the long-term prospects being rosy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Uber ignores security bug that makes its two-factor authentication uselessquote:But that two-factor code can be bypassed, making the second layer of security protection effectively useless, said Karan Saini, a New Delhi-based security researcher, who found the bug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Ganson posted:I don't know, if amazon comes out with an AWS roll-your-own-media-site service I could see it happening, especially if they find out a way to make it easy to monetize (either through them directly or through some third party partners). There is a very good reason why Bachman always uttered "those loving AWS fees" or swapped it with "azure bill is killing me" on silicon valley. Its loving e x p e n s i v e. AWS has CDN and video delivery tools already but you need to ensure you have a lot of money to burn to create content on to stop the bleeding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
incoherent posted:There is a very good reason why Bachman always uttered "those loving AWS fees" or swapped it with "azure bill is killing me" on silicon valley. Its loving e x p e n s i v e. AWS has CDN and video delivery tools already but you need to ensure you have a lot of money to burn to create content on to stop the bleeding. Which is why you want to build a distributed system via IPFS or some sort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Harik posted:I think the issue is nobody believes that. It's pretty weasel-worded too: It doesn't matter whether people believe it, it's the truth. Youtube doesn't prioritize videos in search based on the monetization status. Monetization status is just a side-effect of having a channel that ranks highly due to the factors that actually matter, such as low abandon rates, channel authority, embeds, engagement, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
[dumb stuff deleted]
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Why would Youtube care if you monetize your video or not? They serve their own ads on all videos, so every video is monetized for them. It's far more likely that the algorithm serves up videos that would deliver them maximum profits based on how many users subscribe to a channel or continue watching other videos after watching a particular video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:They serve their own ads on all videos, so every video is monetized for them. This part is incorrect
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:This part is incorrect I'll concede that I don't actually know how Youtube ads work, and I use ad blockers so I only see them when I'm on my phone, but I certainly get served up ads on small time non-monetized channels. It may not be every single time, but it seems like every couple videos YT will serve up an ad, so my point still stands. Why would YT care to prioritize a video solely because it is monetized?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Uhhhh hey everyone can't the distribution and payment problems be trivially solved here by just throwing blockchains at them???
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Steve French posted:Uhhhh hey everyone can't the distribution and payment problems be trivially solved here by just throwing blockchains at them??? That's the attitude!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
I'm launching Tubecoin, video distribution simplified using blockchain technology. PM me your bank account info to get in on the ground floor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:I'll concede that I don't actually know how Youtube ads work, and I use ad blockers so I only see them when I'm on my phone, but I certainly get served up ads on small time non-monetized channels. It may not be every single time, but it seems like every couple videos YT will serve up an ad, so my point still stands. Why would YT care to prioritize a video solely because it is monetized? The person that uploads the video chooses to monetize or not  Every Youtube video has an image ad on the right, but overlays, cards and skippable video ads can be enabled to disabled by the uploader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:The person that uploads the video chooses to monetize or not The exception* being if your video has material that is copyrighted, then the owner of the copyright can monetize your video anyway *That I'm aware of
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:I'm launching Tubecoin, video distribution simplified using blockchain technology. PM me your bank account info to get in on the ground floor. does it have smart contracts too? If yes, please take my money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Steve French posted:Uhhhh hey everyone can't the distribution and payment problems be trivially solved here by just throwing blockchains at them??? Not unless you solve the problem that people hate ads and don't want to pay for content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Not unless you solve the problem that people hate ads and don't want to pay for content. Full Communism Now
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Not unless you solve the problem that people hate ads and don't want to pay for content. People have been incredibly willing to pay for content. Subscription based streaming video services and digital distribution are massive. People even pay to poo poo post on this forum. It just needs to actually have some perceived value. People generally aren't willing to pay for what they think is worthless garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:People have been incredibly willing to pay for content. Subscription based streaming video services and digital distribution are massive. People even pay to poo poo post on this forum. The problem I have is that while I am willing to subscribe to the NYT, I am unwilling to subscribe to the WaPo just to read one article. Hence the reliance on really annoying ads on most sites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The problem I have is that while I am willing to subscribe to the NYT, I am unwilling to subscribe to the WaPo just to read one article. It’d be nice if the papers got together and created some sort of news iTunes, so you could pay a small fee per premium news article read (say 10c.) It gets added up and charged once a month. Even the biggest news junkie can’t afford to subscribe to 3 papers. The Guardian has huge influence due to no paywall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It’d be nice if the papers got together and created some sort of news iTunes, so you could pay a small fee per premium news article read (say 10c.) It gets added up and charged once a month. Even the biggest news junkie can’t afford to subscribe to 3 papers. The Guardian has huge influence due to no paywall. This would solve a lot of problems, but there's still a good segment that believes "everything on the internet should be free" and I believe over 50% of people are now running Ad Blockers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:This would solve a lot of problems, but there's still a good segment that believes "everything on the internet should be free" and I believe over 50% of people are now running Ad Blockers. Yes, because ads are generally annoying, harmful, and actively hinder access to content. Liking ads or not has nothing to do with an unwillingness to pay for content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Yes, because ads are generally annoying, harmful, and actively hinder access to content. Liking ads or not has nothing to do with an unwillingness to pay for content. That is correct but the reason websites rely on the ads is the lack of a decent micropayment system and users willing to use it. This has been an issue for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I am willing to subscribe to the NYT
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It’d be nice if the papers got together and created some sort of news iTunes, so you could pay a small fee per premium news article read (say 10c.) It gets added up and charged once a month. Even the biggest news junkie can’t afford to subscribe to 3 papers. The Guardian has huge influence due to no paywall. Blendle does this, but you have to read through their app/website. It's a pain finding an article you want to read and then digging through the app to find it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:That is correct but the reason websites rely on the ads is the lack of a decent micropayment system and users willing to use it. There can be no such thing as a "decent micropayment system". Very small purchases like that really only work when someone has a pre existing billing arrangement with a provider and thus the provider can reliably consolidate the costs across an extended billing period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There can be no such thing as a "decent micropayment system". Very small purchases like that really only work when someone has a pre existing billing arrangement with a provider and thus the provider can reliably consolidate the costs across an extended billing period. my man, have you heard the good news 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There can be no such thing as a "decent micropayment system". Very small purchases like that really only work when someone has a pre existing billing arrangement with a provider and thus the provider can reliably consolidate the costs across an extended billing period. If anyone figures it out, they will become very rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
I'm sure that with every single other aspect of media and consumption on the internet, from movies to music, to magazines and books moving to an unlimited monthly subscription model, that newspapers and websites moving to a pay-per-read model is a great idea and the thing that will surely save them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:That is correct but the reason websites rely on the ads is the lack of a decent micropayment system and users willing to use it. I hear ya, but the #adtech situation is so bad nowadays that it's almost irresponsible not to use a blocker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:29
|
|
