Week 3:
While discussing YouTube, José van Dijck argues that the site’s interface influences the popularity of videos through ranking tactics that promote popular favourites (Reader, page 94). How do ranking tactics impact on the formation online ‘communities’?
Ahhh, YouTube. A blessing and a curse. I love trolling the website and finding hidden treasures like the girl who thought she was a unicorn after getting her wisdom teeth out and still under the effects of Morphine.
But it’s also a curse. I wouldn’t like to be one of the unfortunate people who had my clumsy moments spilled all over the internet (I won’t insert a video of this, because I can sympathise with all of those people given my general ungraceful nature).
On a serious note, van Djik’s discussion about YouTube leads to a questioning of the term ‘participation’ within this particular interface. Participation is a key aspect of Web 2.0 and means that users now have a greater level of control and contribution to the sites they visit.
There are various ranking systems on YouTube’s interface- most viewed, most discussed, most liked etc. These systems mean that these same videos are being watched over, and over again. While fresh material is being uploaded to YouTube at an alarming speed, not everything is being viewed. The popularity of videos means that when you search for something, you can put the most popular video first depending on views and other features.
This not only takes away from perhaps fabulous, yet unheard of videos it also means that the role of the user in a community is diminished. By allowing ranking and advertising to occur on YouTube, they are taking away the ‘community’ aspect of the interface and replacing it with a more corporate feel.
YouTube has a bar on the right hand side of every video labeled ‘Suggestions’. The videos under this tab are more often than not placed there because of advertisements or promotions. ‘Vevo’ for example, is a branch of YouTube which exclusively features artists who they have agreements within their suggestions tab. This means that not only are you not seeing any other clips you are being bombarded, in a sense, by what one company wants you to see.
The same goes for once you’ve stopped watching a video. A ‘what to watch next’ or ‘up next’ window appears where your video was giving you more suggestions as to what they want you to watch. These are often either related videos or videos posted by the same member.
A lot of the time, videos from Vevo or other corporations with large accounts on YouTube, split their videos up into ‘parts’ to that you have to keep clicking on the different parts to get the whole clip. This not only boosts the view to each video, but also to the member’s profile.
Therefore, it can be argued that users become “inactive (van Djick, 46)” members of the community.
The users and members of YouTube have a degree of control over certain aspects of YouTube with the view counts, most discussed, top favourites and top rated, which can be influenced by the individual at home. Although not much else with YouTube is able to be changed or influenced by an individual.
So while everyone loves to get online and give their opinion on the latest released film clip by Lady Gaga, ‘rate’ a song or subscribe to users, this is about all the control we have.
I’ve got to confess though, as a member of YouTube and an active member of various online communities, I’ve only ever used YouTube for its video watching function. I’ve never really paid attention to the suggestions because whenever I watch a video, it’s because I’ve either been linked to it from a friend or I’ve actively searched for it in the search bar.
I guess it’s another example of how the large corporations have influenced what was meant to be a user controlled interface.
References:
Jose van Djick, ‘Users Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content’, Media, Culture and Society 31 (2009): 41-58
Vanessa Condemi 