In my experience, people tend to perceive that to be whatever they don't like, and it varies greatly with the perceiver.
I don't see why this story would get flagged. (Edit: some users are pointing out the don't-give-airtime argument. That's a fair point.)
Heh heh. This is supported by research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
It's the most astonishingly consistent phenomenon. Nearly as astonishingly, it appears impossible to convince anybody of.
Downvoting of simple fact-reporting is slightly too advanced a pattern for my somewhat simple mind.
For every person that youtube or whatever other ranking site give them lots of viewers, there are millions of people posting stuff that hardly anyone ever sees. It's not a conspiracy that no one really watches my son's youtube game discussion site. There are thousands of videos every day created with similar content.
So all these people mad that they don't have lots of viewers, a bunch of that can be explained because there are lots of people doing the same thing.
Now for the people who used to get lots of views and then things drop off after a google ranking change, sure, the change must have had some impact. So your site with videos in say Farsi about how to exercise with a particular style of workouts, probably there are 100 other people doing videos for working out in Farsi or whatever. There's basically no way google or anyone else can balance it out. They make changes that they think will serve their users. Google works for a lot of people because it's a good clearing house. But it's good for people cause they can find things they want. Google cannot show all the thousands of videos every day on say fortnight. But my son's video game discussion site hardly gets any views. but thats because he's not famous and he's not doing anything that other people are.
I also think people try to make their site go higher by paying for links to their site. In a previous job, (I heard) they paid someone who was a wikipedia editor to create entries for their company and the founder, of course this is a known problem.
I think I'm sounding like a google or big company apologist. I have seen a similar issue in phone apps. My friend had a bunch of android and ios programs for tracking various things that he sold for a dollar, and the ideas got copied by people doing similar things multiple times and now he's just one person is a sea of solutions. He used to get a few $100 a month from people buying his $1 software, now he gets $5. It's not a conspiracy.
> So all these people mad that they don't have lots of viewers
That's not the issue at all. They're mad they HAVE lots of views and their videos are being demonetised, and the rules around demonetisation aren't enforced consistently.
It seems very unfair the way this works at youtube and there's no human to appeal to. I can see that would be frustrating. So there's no other place to take their videos to get money?
I remember a time when there wasn't a place where people could get money for playing video games, except maybe a few people working at computer magazines writing reviews.
But I also still think theres also a lot of similar content for certain broad categories. Like say exercise videos.
Yeah but just because a niche is crowded doesn't mean that all creators produce equally good content.
You will notice that many of the top channels, say those that have more than 100K subscribers, very often have very good production standards, and are the creator's full time job.
Sometimes the reason why a specific channel is more popular than another is not obvious, but very often it's because they spent more time carefully crafting their videos, even if in the end they appear like candid shots.