My core point is that there are people like DHH, like Massimo, who should be getting way more views on their videos, given the quality of the content they’re producing and what they’ve done to promote that content. Do you disagree with that?
What do you mean by ”… who should be getting way more views… …Do you disagree with that?” (To provide context around my thoughts as I write, I’m thinking of the phrase “the purpose of a system is what it does”.)
I’m thinking there’s at least two meanings with at least two different ways to interpret.
First, you could mean “I have an understanding of the system that leads me to expect a different distribution of popularity by viewcount. I have an understanding of the system. Good content → high viewcount. It should do this. It does that. Do you disagree?”
Second, you could mean “I have an understanding of meritocratic justice such that the distribution of popularity as judged by viewcount is unfair. Good content → high viewcount. Life should be this way. It is that way. Do you disagree?”
If neither of those hit the mark or if anyone has alternatives, I’d like to know.
For the first interpretation, “do you disagree” can’t really be applied to your understanding of the system. You understand it the way you do. I suppose a similar question that might be more appropriate could be “How might the system differ from my expectation such that I am surprised by this behavior?” A brief response to that question would be something along the lines of YouTube’s purpose having to do with money, algorithms to keep people viewing and clicking on ads, what makes something viral, etc...
For the second interpretation, that might be a long-winded philosophical topic that I expect could be summed up with “Yeah… that sucks.”
Definitely closer to the first than the second. I’m not trying to touch on the second at all, but I also don’t think the first is entirely accurate either. In all honesty, I’m having trouble articulating what it is that I am trying to articulate. Let me give it another stab:
Imagine a metric that encapsulated everything related to quality. Call it “encapsulated quality”. (I’m not just trying to point at “raw quality” alone in this post. I am totally onboard with the idea that various other things matter.)
Imagine a world where “encapsulated quality” leads to reception pretty reliably.
In that world, I’d expect people like Massimo to have much, much more reception, and people like Random Shitty YouTuber With Hundreds of Thousands of Views to have much less reception. Do you disagree with that?
Those expectations I have aren’t matching various things I’ve been observing in this world.
Therefore, I’m developing a strong inclination that quality doesn’t reliably lead to reception in our world. Instead, like MaximumSkull says, it’s more that it helps stack the deck in your favor.
I think this gets at the heart of the confusion I see in this post, specifically confusion around the work “best” is doing, although highlighting “should” works just as well. I’d argue there’s no fact of the matter about who should get more views, there’s just the question of who actually gets more views and whether view count correlates with personal judgments of quality. That a person doesn’t like what others do is not surprising to me.
On a more concrete note, never underestimate how much many people like liking things that other people like. Popular stuff is popular because it’s popular past some threshold where positive feedback kicks in.
What do you mean by ”… who should be getting way more views… …Do you disagree with that?” (To provide context around my thoughts as I write, I’m thinking of the phrase “the purpose of a system is what it does”.)
I’m thinking there’s at least two meanings with at least two different ways to interpret.
First, you could mean “I have an understanding of the system that leads me to expect a different distribution of popularity by viewcount. I have an understanding of the system. Good content → high viewcount. It should do this. It does that. Do you disagree?”
Second, you could mean “I have an understanding of meritocratic justice such that the distribution of popularity as judged by viewcount is unfair. Good content → high viewcount. Life should be this way. It is that way. Do you disagree?”
If neither of those hit the mark or if anyone has alternatives, I’d like to know.
For the first interpretation, “do you disagree” can’t really be applied to your understanding of the system. You understand it the way you do. I suppose a similar question that might be more appropriate could be “How might the system differ from my expectation such that I am surprised by this behavior?” A brief response to that question would be something along the lines of YouTube’s purpose having to do with money, algorithms to keep people viewing and clicking on ads, what makes something viral, etc...
For the second interpretation, that might be a long-winded philosophical topic that I expect could be summed up with “Yeah… that sucks.”
Definitely closer to the first than the second. I’m not trying to touch on the second at all, but I also don’t think the first is entirely accurate either. In all honesty, I’m having trouble articulating what it is that I am trying to articulate. Let me give it another stab:
Imagine a metric that encapsulated everything related to quality. Call it “encapsulated quality”. (I’m not just trying to point at “raw quality” alone in this post. I am totally onboard with the idea that various other things matter.)
Imagine a world where “encapsulated quality” leads to reception pretty reliably.
In that world, I’d expect people like Massimo to have much, much more reception, and people like Random Shitty YouTuber With Hundreds of Thousands of Views to have much less reception. Do you disagree with that?
Those expectations I have aren’t matching various things I’ve been observing in this world.
Therefore, I’m developing a strong inclination that quality doesn’t reliably lead to reception in our world. Instead, like MaximumSkull says, it’s more that it helps stack the deck in your favor.
I think this gets at the heart of the confusion I see in this post, specifically confusion around the work “best” is doing, although highlighting “should” works just as well. I’d argue there’s no fact of the matter about who should get more views, there’s just the question of who actually gets more views and whether view count correlates with personal judgments of quality. That a person doesn’t like what others do is not surprising to me.
On a more concrete note, never underestimate how much many people like liking things that other people like. Popular stuff is popular because it’s popular past some threshold where positive feedback kicks in.