YouTube is trying to make scrolling through subscription feeds easier by introducing an idea that, according to creators, threatens the ecosystem: personalized feeds.
The name sounds great. Why wouldn’t someone want a personalized feed? It infers that people are served the videos they’re most likely going to watch, and they won’t have to hunt those particular videos down. The move is a major departure for YouTube, which up until recently, listed videos in chronological order. Hypothetically, any video published by a creator a user subscribed to would appear in in the sub box at that time. At the end of a day, people could then browse through those videos and see every single video offered, choosing which ones to watch. That’s no longer the case at this moment.
Personalized feeds always sound great, but they rarely are. Just look at every other app that moved from chronological feeds to personalized or algorithm-defined. No one’s particularly happy.
“We are currently experimenting with how to show content in the subs feed,” a YouTube representative said on Twitter. “We find that some viewers are able to more easily find the videos they want to watch when we order the subs feed in a personalized order vs always showing most recent video first.”
The announcement caught most creators by surprise. Not only did it suggest a move that no one asked for, but it introduced even more concerns over how YouTube’s subscription boxes worked. As Ethan Klein tweeted, “The sub feed was the last place that was untouched by YouTube’s ‘optimization.’”
“Now YT can make ur channel completely invisible even to ur own subscribers. Stop wasting our time @TeamYouTube — just erase the sub button already and show us what you want us to watch,” Klein said. “The final step in removing any control users have over content they see.”
Multiple YouTube personalities, many of whom previously complained about their videos not appearing in people’s subscription boxes at all, echoed Klein’s comments. YouTube’s optimization efforts led to fewer views, less traffic and, most importantly for creators, less revenue. As Klein alluded to in his tweets, personalized feeds feels like the final nail in the coffin for so many creators.
YouTube’s goal is to increase engagement. That’s why Facebook, Twitter and Instagram all switched over. Companies believe the more someone engages with a creator or follower’s content, the more likely they are to want to see more of that person’s posts. It’s a logical concept, but one that doesn’t work in reality. As Jordan Crook wrote at TechCrunch when Instagram unveiled its algorithmic feed, moving away from the much preferred chronological display. Crook wrote:
Meanwhile, I also follow @thefatjewish and @fuckjerry. I don’t like many of their pictures because my likes don’t really make a difference to them (kind of like my vote for president). Still, I read and giggle at almost every one of their posts. I’m not friends with either of them on Facebook; they’re not in my address book.
And now, they’re nowhere to be found on my Instagram feed, either.
This is the issue. Someone who comes home and checks their YouTube feed may not immediately find a creator’s video because it hasn’t surfaced on their feed. There may be 10 or 15 videos they have to scroll past just to find H3H3 or Phil DeFranco or Sailor J’s videos — and if they only have time to watch a couple of videos, that means certain videos go unnoticed and unwatched.
Demonetization is the unspoken word at the heart of this issue. Creators already struggle to put their videos in front of people, fighting against growing restrictions, YouTube’s promotion of traditional Hollywood-type content (late night show clips, for example) and an ever changing notification systems for people who are subscribed to their channels. The subscription feed, as problematic as it is, remains one of the few ways for creators to connect directly with their audience, and ensure those people will at least see new videos when they publish.
This isn’t just a change in displaying videos; it’s a security threat to creators. At least, that’s how they see it. It’s a escalating pain for creators who are trying to find a way to not only remain relevant in a sea of constant changes, but seen — and heard.
Update: A YouTube representative offered the following statement following Polygon’s article:
With more videos coming to YouTube every minute we’re always experimenting with ways to help people more easily find, watch and share the videos that matter most to them. We’re testing a setting that allows users to sort the subscriptions feed based on the content a user usually engages with the most. This is one of many small experiments we run all the time on YouTube. We use both quantitative data as well as user and creator feedback to make decisions on which features to launch.
The company has experimented with the new format since February 2018, and will let YouTube users decide if they want to view their subscription feeds chronologically or by preference.
Comments
Just stop, none of this is necessary.
By mguniverse on 05.24.18 12:02pm
it is for their bottom line
By Jigabachi on 05.24.18 12:06pm
Why? If anything this is just gonna make it worse.
By mguniverse on 06.13.18 1:18pm
It kind of pisses me off that YouTube is doing this, because my instagram and facebook feeds already do it, and it drives me fucking nuts. I want my shit in chronological order, not in a miss-mash computer generated order.
By Slygathor on 05.24.18 12:07pm
Particularly since they already have a personalized feed on the homepage. Subscriptions should remain as they are so a user can choose which one they want to use.
By ench on 05.24.18 1:37pm
Not just that but I wish I could just get the date a video was published in search results/feed/where ever. I want to know when a video was published without giving a creator a click.
By Fandabidozi on 05.24.18 3:26pm
I wonder how many people watch their subscription feeds vs. watching a video and letting YouTube pick what’s "up next" anyway.
By agies on 05.24.18 12:10pm
Doesn’t everyone turn off autoplay/up next features? I rarely even look at the Home tab on YouTube; I go straight to Subs.
By AshaBellanar on 05.24.18 1:30pm
I’d love it if autoplay actually worked, like showing me other episodes in the same series I’m currently watching. As is it seems to just give up and always ends up looping back and forth between the same two videos. Google is supposed to be good at algorithms, but YouTube is a strong counter-argument.
By ench on 05.24.18 1:38pm
lolz oh my world… go get jobs people.
By eatdogs on 05.24.18 12:21pm
The thing is the act of keeping their channels full of quality content is often a full time job. You cant see this as an entitlement issue because that shit is harder than its worth for most creators, the ones who do it for the enjoyment are like artists, they do it for personal enrichment. doesn’t mean they dont deserve recognition or reward for hard work.
They are entitled to be upset by the thoughtlessness of this move. Youtube throws their moneymakers under the bus.
By Hallin on 05.24.18 12:27pm
>The thing is the act of keeping their channels full of quality content is often a full time job.
That’s a big stretch. The majority of youtube is mostly low quality productions pumped out at a high rate that young kids watch because their parents can’t afford a babysitter. If they can afford to produce quality content, they can afford to provide their own web hosting and not have to deal with YouTube policy changes. (Or at least supplement it)
By theBeerBaron33 on 05.24.18 1:09pm
No it’s not.
This argument completely ignores the barriers to entry it creates. The entire reason YouTube exists as it does today with so much popularity is because there are so few barriers to entry (which has also caused a lot of problems for YT to deal with).
By goldfingerrd on 05.24.18 1:38pm
gonna have to disagree with all of that.
the money should go into production, not trying to create their own platform and market it…thats incredibly stupid, this isnt the mid 90s, nobody is gonna go to your website. lol
By Hallin on 06.10.18 12:56pm
…parappa the rapper would never say such things.
In the rain OR in the snow!
By Redd88 on 05.24.18 2:08pm
There’s no correlation between YouTube preferences and having a job.
By Remyblaque on 05.24.18 2:49pm
Oh my word*
You’re welcome.
By Remyblaque on 05.24.18 3:02pm
maybe it’s just me becoming an angry old man, but I still can’t take anybody seriously when they use "ur" That entire tweet lost all of it’s meaning to me.
By nos.is.lame on 05.24.18 12:36pm
For me, it depends on if they had to do it to be able to fit it all into a single tweet. Even then, I prefer the more clever approaches, like leaving out some of the unnecessary vowels in words, hieroglyphic style!
But I lost my respect for H3H3 productions a long time ago, so the ‘ur’ didn’t even register for me.
By NimjaIV on 05.25.18 1:41am
No.
By Jason Spears on 05.24.18 12:53pm
Humans really can’t handle change very well…
By cavedude on 05.24.18 1:12pm
This is an interesting article considering that Polygon does the same thing with there news feed. The articles on this website don’t appear in chronological order
anymore not sure what drives it but certain articles are bumped up the list and appear on the front page even though they are a week or so old. I noticed several websites have started this over the last year, as well as squeezing in adverts disguised as articles and articles from other sites snuck in aswell
By kevgallacher on 05.24.18 1:25pm
The feed is mostly chronological, but not by post date. It’s ordered by the date an article leaves the "Top" grid. Some articles will get re-posted to the top when they become topical again, like a review posted two weeks ago get’s re-upped when that piece of media gets released. Polygon’s system seems to make sense, even if it’s not a direct blog-list.
By ench on 05.24.18 1:41pm
Remember a time when companies would put in a lot of work to make their products better, not worse?
Pepperidge Farm remembers….
By Gamer8585 on 05.24.18 1:49pm
No, I grew up in the 80s. I remember companies purposefully making their products worse so people would have to buy more of them because they’re poorly made.
By theBeerBaron33 on 05.24.18 2:22pm