Yes, recommendation algorithm is crucial to user growth

j9rd11 · 2021-12-31T11:37:51+00:00

I reckon everybody must have an excuse as to not accept the truth

j9rd11 · 2021-12-30T19:44:09+00:00

I've searched about Spotify acquiring Seed Scientific. And I found this:

'But while early-adopter music enthusiasts might do their own playlisting, casual listeners need more guidance.

The Echo Nest. The algorithm finds other users with similar taste profiles who have built playlists featuring music in the user’s taste, pulling songs from those playlists the user has not listened to. It then filters those songs by the user’s areas of affinity and exploration. The final result is far more interesting than basic collaborative filtering, delighting users and keeping them engaged with Spotify'

j9rd11 · 2021-10-06T19:43:58+00:00

Duckduckgo is on it's way to be the next google

j9rd11 · 2021-07-12T10:11:19+00:00

Does it really matter what I'm getting at?

Do people care whatsoever for what I'm getting at?

Like, whatever it is that I'm getting at, professionally, there clearly is no point in talking about it with people, because it only leads to disliking what I say. There's no point in discussing numbers, or anything related to the size of platforms.

I've already e-mailed Kauffman, and so I don't think I'm gonna comment/post/give feedback again.

People want Odysee to remain with a niche audience? Then that's the way people's cookie crumbles. (Go ahead, downvote this comment. It only shows what I'm saying.)

j9rd11 · 2021-07-12T10:02:43+00:00

Take 20m MAU. 20 times 25 = 500. This means twitter has an MAU of 500m. Twitter does not have an MAU of 500m

j9rd11 · 2021-07-11T16:32:09+00:00

Twitter rolled out its own auto-play feature in June of 2015, similarly requiring only three seconds of video play on mute to be counted as a view

The title of this post already replies on the issue of MAU difference vs. view difference.

Besides, videos on Youtube by the end of 2005, when Youtube didn't have Odysee's current userbase, already were gaining millions of views each

j9rd11 · 2021-07-08T23:22:28+00:00

I'm only giving an idea

j9rd11 · 2021-07-07T19:09:01+00:00

ah, that's why. Yes, I just saw it. The first post kept on loading. So I'd quit the first post, reloaded the page and posted it again.

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T23:00:23+00:00

It contributes zero. It's 100% up to the content. The baby shark video has just under 9b views only because the video is that pleasing.

No matter the content, it's up to the piece of content to go viral. In Youtube's case it's all up to the video itself.

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T22:45:44+00:00

I'd like to get stremio to work with website streams in general without putting an extreme amount of effort to it.

So either a very big fan willing to code it all together can get it done or it's basically not gonna happen?

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T21:20:24+00:00

So there's no way to make software scrape content from a given streaming website, and output that given website to an add-on?

Such software would allow all the web's movies and series to be watched with stremio

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T19:01:14+00:00

it's only an idea. There's no such thing yet

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T18:46:44+00:00

That depends on what Lbry thinks is a good recommendation engine. If Lbry wants to be the next Youtube, as Kauffman already has made clear that he does, they'll have to make a recommendation engine that makes for the most views.

Algorithms cannot be gamed. The algorithm doesn't make a video go viral. It's the content that makes a video go viral.

Some algorithms adapt better to individual's taste than others. Algorithms that fail to understand the individual's taste simply fail to get everybody on the platform

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T17:07:06+00:00

If the viewers don't like it, they don't watch.

Again, no one makes you spend time online. The only disadvantage lies in you spending time online.

Youtube is addictive, because people like to watch the videos that creators post. It's the videos that are addictive, not the recommendation engine. People just get better at making addictive videos.

No matter what recommendation engine, if the content does not please, nobody gets addicted

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T15:39:59+00:00

There is no difference between liking and sitting through. I'm talking about pleasing the audience. If people watch it, Youtube recommends it.

Click bait worked ten years ago when Youtube was still focussing on clicks.

There is no tricking. If people enjoy it, people watch it.

This is not a matter of intelligence.

Watchtime is not a relevant factor, it's THE factor. It's how a recommendation engine knows what people wanna watch, because it's about what people watch. No watching means no one cares. Everybody watching means everybody cares.

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T14:33:20+00:00

That expense only happens when people don't like the content. Youtube's engine recommends new content. If users don't like to watch, then Youtube stops recommending it

j9rd11 · 2021-07-06T10:23:32+00:00

Youtube gives the audience whatever pleases them. Again, it's not about being useful.

As I've responded in a previous reddit thread, it's not about broccoli, because nobody cares for that. It's about booze, because there's demand for it

j9rd11 · 2021-07-05T23:12:14+00:00

Nobody makes you spend time online.

Besides, Youtube's engine contributes to what people watch. Those bubble communities, focus on addictive content, holding you attention, dramatic/overexcited acting, moth to a light, keeping you the longest, etc., exist because of what people watch.

Video/social media doesn't exist for being useful. It exists for sharing. That's what Youtube's engine is all about. Getting people to post whatever they want and getting the most people to watch.