no accounting for algorithmic taste

I went to check out G+’s new layout, and saw this poorly-done meme image at the top of my list.

Now, I understand the appeal of things like this. They tickle the recognition part of the brain, and since many children play this game, many people will have that recognition and click the Skinner button. Lately, image memes have been spreading in Facebook as well, but at least there you can connect the idea to a person in your social circle. With this one, 134 random G+ Herpderps +1ed it, and that is enough for the algorithm to consider it “hot.” If this is what’s hot on G+, count me out.

On the web, curation is important. If I feel like wasting some time getting exposed to random ideas, I’d like them to have some redeeming social value*.

Boingboing is curated by a handful of people that make it their job to post interesting stuff. Reddit has designed a curation algorithm that works with subcommunity curators that seems to work better than Google’s (at least this crappy image would never have made it to Reddit’s frontpage).

Youtube’s frontpage is a wasteland. There is plenty of good content in YouTube, but with 60 hours of video uploaded every minute, most of it is bound to be crap. In this random screenshot it looks like two clips are recorded by pointing a camera at a TV. Couldn’t their algorithm at least weed those out?

Compare YouTube’s frontpage video selection to Vimeo’s:

I would be interested in 5/6 of the videos on Vimeo. I would avoid 6/6 of YouTube’s top videos like the plague, unless morbid curiosity compelled me click one of them, and then I would feel bad about the decision.

Most of the videos on Vimeo’s homepage are also in YouTube, so there is plenty of good content, but I almost never find it from YouTube itself. It is always a link from a blog or another service. This decentralized curation isn’t a bad thing, but within the site there is obviously a lot of work to be done.

* Thanks Dad.

Gabraham

Well said. If the Goog did it all perfectly then corporatism may rule. Or not.
Kvantti

Good points. I just tried introducing Youtube to my mother and even though her online service literacy is limited to using gmail, it took her only seconds to voice out that YT is “full of mindless drivel”. It is, at least from a new user point of view. The starting point experience is abysmal, as most of the useful content needs to specifically searched and most of the featured content producers are trying to be “viral” or “crazy” in Youtube’s own special grammar.

I’m hoping the unification of the content from different G services will make their algorithms more meaningful for the end user and not just the advertisers.
- Forrest Oliphant
  
  That’s the promise, but I have my doubts.
  - http://softwareandart.com Isabel Walcott Draves
    
    If you’ve taken the time to create a community on G+, content from your circles will rise to the top of reviews on maps, web and image search, G+ etc. The less of a community you have on G+ the less well it works, so it’s more of an ideal than a real – like many things online.
    
    But the real difference that you are pointing out here is that Vimeo limits its content to original, non-commercial videos, and you’re the type that likes that. (As far as I can tell the “Sixteen Saltines” doesn’t even fit Vimeo’s TOS and I’m guessing that’s the one you wouldn’t look at.)
    
    So you’re not really talking about the algorithms for suggesting what you might like; you’re talking about the basic difference in the Vimeo vs. the YouTube service.
    
    When it comes to those pathetic “memes” in G+ – I agree with you they drag the quality down, and they are fake anyway (usually not posted by real people AFAICT, someone is gaming the system). Until more people are in your circles, put you in their circles, and actively use G+, their “what’s hot” algorithm won’t work that well. FWIW I don’t find Facebook’s very compelling either.. or Reddit’s for that matter. Or Buzzfeed’s… and Boing Boing isn’t what it used to be either
    
    I agree with you that curation(/editing/filtering/exclusivity) is essential in our information intake (not just on the web) and in our social interactions (F2F and online). It’s surely the toughest nut to crack algorithmically and I think Google’s approach has the most potential (a merger of A. thumbs-up with B. who you care to listen to, as opposed to just A or B), but it won’t work until it has something to work with.
    - Forrest Oliphant
      
      The promise with these services is “give us some of your privacy, social graph, thoughts or images and we will give you more relevant content.” I just haven’t seen that play out anywhere. Google has been reading my email and watching my blog reading for years and I can count the times that I have bought something from a Google ad on one finger (http://youtu.be/-TrSD1UctTs). (Facebook ads are not better… I guess I’m pretty resistant to advertising.)
      
      Building community on G+ is a chicken and egg problem, and it just doesn’t seem worth the effort. I have seen some good blog posts and comment threads on G+, but again, these were linked from Twitter or other blogs.
- Spreadsheetninja
  
  You said it perfectly, now send it to googleyoutube we need it fixed.. im realy annoyed by how youtube has changed to allmost a tv station where they show what they want to show…
Tim

There’s a sort of Youtube usage pattern that arises out of trying to adapt the service for your own needs (i.e. self-curation), which involves ignoring their suggestions and making your own.

Google doesn’t necessarily know what’s what within their content, they have a heck of a lot of data, but they ultimately rely on the user to filter content. That’s where communities such as Reddit come in, allowing real people to share within a common filter, so you don’t see cats while you’re looking for video art projects. Google’s primary is to maximize ad views while also providing a useful service, not necessarily one that betters education and culture, although if you know where, or better yet how, to look it’s definitely all there.