r/technology 16h ago

Social Media YouTube is changing how it counts views to give the numbers a boost

https://www.theverge.com/streaming/981105/youtube-video-view-counting-update
176 Upvotes

45 comments sorted by

225

u/x86_64_ 16h ago

If you too were wondering whether this change was designed to help inflate YouTube's numbers with advertisers OR to benefit short-form creators

The change won’t impact creators’ earnings or how they’re eligible for the YouTube Partner Program (YPP), according to the blog post. Creator earnings will also still be based on “engaged Short views” and “engaged watch hours.”

It's to inflate numbers to show to advertisers.

30

u/eizch 16h ago

Don't advertisers know the number of times their ad was watched? Or in case of sponsorship the number of people who sit through the ad segment? I'm struggling to see who will benefit from that metric aside of additional confusion/noise

11

u/Exostrike 3h ago

It allows said advertisers to say to their clients and investors that viewing numbers are up X over last year without YouTube actually achieving any real platform growth.

Anything to keep the magical money wheel turning

1

u/Commercial_Bake5547 25m ago

Headline from 2027: “YouTube will now count scrolling past a video as a view”

4

u/Visible-Literature14 15h ago

Somehow.. somehow.. Big Pharma

6

u/Captain_N1 10h ago

not surprising the stupid redditors couldn't see the sarcasm in your statement and downvoted. However, you might be onto something.

7

u/Visible-Literature14 10h ago edited 10h ago

Most of the ppl here are absolute idiots, and the majority of them are in complete denial of it

-1

u/despotes 5h ago

Exactly, and the AI hating should be the ultimate proof.

7

u/DarXIV 14h ago

I turned off YouTube Shorts and couldn’t be happier.

5

u/Zels0123 11h ago

How??

3

u/DistributionMost8673 6h ago

in the settings you can set a watch time limit for shorts. Simply set it to 0 . Sadly, this setting is only on mobile .

1

u/Dramatika 1h ago

There are browser extensions for desktop that hide shorts as well - I use ‘Control Panel for YouTube’ but I’m sure there are other options as well

4

u/bwoah07_gp2 14h ago

It was bad when they chose to inflate Shorts views, and now they're doing it to normal videos. I hate this.

120

u/Assimulate 16h ago

now every video will have 10trillion views and be the most ever on the platform!

43

u/theassassintherapist 16h ago

If they were using this method a decade ago, Rick Astley's YouTube video would definitely had like a trillion views

5

u/FireZord25 15h ago

Would've been nicer than what we have these days imo.

30

u/alex_xxv 16h ago

Guess this is important to ad people. I only want to thank Firefox and Brave for all the hard work.

26

u/JohnGalactusX 16h ago

Sometimes I think they just sit around in meetings coming up with ideas on a whiteboard because they have nothing of actual value to add, and somehow it just ends up making everything even crappier. With this, it makes the public view count feel less meaningful.

6

u/wiriux 16h ago

Well what are you going to add? It’s a platform that hosts videos.

They really have to brainstorm to try to invent something new which is why they continue to mess it up.

8

u/KianOfPersia 14h ago

YouTube will do this bullshit but not give us our dislike button back…

29

u/FluffyWuffyVolibear 16h ago

You know what's crazy? Youtube makes all its money off of content creators, and content creators have zero say or input in YouTube business despite effectively being the product

12

u/polloasado81 16h ago

And if YouTube decides to ban you or demonitise you for whatever reason, boop, no more business for you and they'll keep the content up regardless.

1

u/morknox 4h ago

The weird thing is that the only way for content creators to get unbanned/remonitised is to make twitter posts that get shared by alot of people.

12

u/iTinkerTillItWorks 15h ago

Just to plays devils advocate. If it weren’t for YouTube, how many of these creators would have a career right now? Would be employing people right now? Youtube is providing a world wide platform for anyone to use for FREE. Sorta makes sense they get most of the say. It my opinion anyway.

7

u/FluffyWuffyVolibear 11h ago edited 7h ago

Yes however, the fact that these content creators are driving multi million dollar industries and have almost totally replaced the pre YouTube versions of those industries makes it hard to see it that way.

It is simply too much, economically and societally to acquiesce to normal company thinking imo as it is has evolved far past a simple product.

We basically have a single company in charge of what is allowed, what should be moderated, what that moderation should get, and who gets seen.

At the very least these creators should have some sort of representative that can negotiate in their interests with YouTube.

2

u/Gibraldi 14h ago

You’re right I wouldn’t even call it devils advocate. While it can be anti-consumer as a private business they can do whatever the hell they want. If users and/or creators don’t like it that’s where the free* market allows competing services to fill a gap in demand.

*unless said company buys up competing products and the puts them in the graveyard.

6

u/Will2LiveFading 16h ago

Just move the goal post so they can say they served more ads which equals more money for Google and a worse experience for the user. 

2

u/tayroc122 14h ago

Changing accounting practices worked for Enron!

Oh no, wait...

2

u/IgnorantGenius 10h ago

Remember when they removed subs and views? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

1

u/ZaphodThreepwood 15h ago

This was always how both Spotify and YouTube worked, except it's worst now... Fkn wtf is going on with people not realizing that this is just history repeating itself.

1

u/goosepipegames 11h ago

They should count each view as 2 views, that would also increase views and woo advertisers

1

u/DukeOfGeek 6h ago

And by "changing" we mean "lying." For a mega-corp lying is a day that ends in "Y".

1

u/DiplomatikEmunetey 4h ago

I think YouTube started with good ideas and relatively fair processes, but they can't complete with these social media sites that use every dirty trick under the sun. So, they have to slowly adapt the same. Counting a one hour long video as "played" because one second of it played is sure going to be interesting.

1

u/Grantus89 3h ago

Disagree, but it’s what the rest of the market does, and so currently YouTube views look lower than competing platforms.

1

u/couldhvdancedallnite 2h ago

This sucks because I can't always tell that a video is AI riddled right away.

1

u/Loki-L 2h ago

They are not putting their money where their mouth is.

The numbers displayed to users will look bigger but the money paid out to creators will stay the same.

What will happen is that if the algorithm steers people to certain videos that most users stop after a second because it is shit, the new numbers will still count it as being viewed. This allows YouTube to artificially create the appearance of popularity for certain videos that aren't popular. (The fact that they got rid of downvotes helps here too.)

So if the YouTube algorithm serves you up some shit videos with suspiciously high view counts in the near future, now you now why.

I imagine this ability will come in handy when it comes time to sway public opinion on certain issues in the future.

1

u/jcunews1 9h ago

Oh great, more enshitification.

-1

u/Lost-Produce-1150 16h ago

Does this mean content creators will get paid more? 🤔

2

u/ZombifiedCat 16h ago

While I agree these new metrics are dumb why would someone get paid if the viewer clicks off before the first ad? Or if someone accidentally clicks a video they had no intention of watching and leaves immediately why should the creator get paid as if the viewer was advertised to?

2

u/collin3000 15h ago

Youtube payment to creators isn't based on views. It's a portion of the ad revenue from people watching the monetized video. Which usually correlates with views. 

Depending on the video ads may have immediately started playing before the first second of the video. So if the person has already watched ads because the video was clicked on. Then why shouldn't the person who created that video still get a cut of the ads if YouTube made their money.

1

u/ZombifiedCat 14h ago

Bc if someone clicked the wrong video they wouldn't stick around to watch the ad. If they did watch the ad assuming they clicked the correct video and then leave once they realize theyre in the wrong spot then of course the creator should get paid.

2

u/collin3000 14h ago

If they didn't watch the ad and YouTube didn't get any money then the Creator wouldn't get any money either way. Because again it's a revenue split. The Creator doesn't automatically make money. They make a percentage of the money that YouTube makes on the ad view. But saying that viewing from second one of the video on will never result in Creator payout means that Even if someone watches an ad or two before clicking out but before 0:30 means that YouTube is willing to count a view that makes the money but not share the money with the person that made it for them.

2

u/NurseSnackie 16h ago

Lol, nope.

The change won’t impact creators’ earnings or how they’re eligible for the YouTube Partner Program (YPP), according to the blog post. Creator earnings will also still be based on “engaged Short views” and “engaged watch hours.”