youtube/Archive 19

Unless I'm missing something, I suggest removing the link, I can't do it because it's protected. 137.150.194.188 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

•   Done. What this seems to have been getting at is that YouTube was launched in 2005, but the first regional versions were not added until 2007. On a slightly different note, I am not a huge fan of the "Localization" section because it contains WP:FLAGCRUFT without adding a great deal to the article. It is probably enough to note that YouTube has introduced regional versions since 2007 without listing all of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

... misusing the popularity of YouTube to lure people into malware traps

such as

YouTube Service has sent you a message:  Your video on the TOP of YouTube  http://www.youtube.com/watch?***TAG REMOVED***&feature=topvideos_mp  You can reply to this message by visiting your inbox.  © 2011 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 

That section could be such as 7. Abuse (by third parties) 7.1 malware scams

--217.85.119.188 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTHOWTO issue here. People are often warned not to click on links in e-mails purporting to be from YouTube, Facebook etc as they are in many cases scams. If in doubt, log in to the account directly and ignore the e-mail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time of writing, there are 51 different language versions on YouTube.[1] This is not necessarily the same as 51 languages, as US and UK English are not that different. However, the article should probably say that there are 51 language versions available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The downloading section {which is unsourced) is way too much attention to a minor issue, and has clear WP:NOTHOWTO issues. The ownership of the vast majority of YouTube videos remains with the uploader. The issue of unlimited uploads is not as clear cut as it first seems. YouTube does not guarantee that any given user will be able to upload videos of unlimited length, as it requires that the account is in good standing. It is not as simple as verifying the account. This New York Times article describes the feature. It is unclear how many users have been offered the chance to upload videos longer than 15 minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The citation added [2] from Google support does not support the claim being made. No guarantee is given that verifying the account will allow videos of unlimited length to be uploaded. The citation says "Before enabling unlimited-length video uploads for your YouTube account, we may require you to verify that your account is active and under your control. This is an effective way to prevent abuse."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube video cited [3] is not a reliable source. It is also notable that someone has posted a comment on the video saying "Why don't I have that option to INCREASE YOUR LIMIT to over 15min?" To the best of the sourcing available, YouTube does not offer a 100% guarantee that all of its users can upload videos longer than 15 minutes. Please don't keep adding this without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Firstly, a YouTube video is not a reliable source. Secondly, all the video shows is how to verify IF the "increase your limit" message appears. There is no guarantee that all users will be shown this message. There has still been no reliable source provided to show that all YouTube users have this option available, which is what the NYT cite says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This feature was introduced in December 2010.[4] YouTube said at the time "Your creativity isn’t bound by a time limit, so why should your video uploads be? Back in July we raised the upload limit to 15 minutes for all users. Starting today, we’ll begin allowing selected users with a history of complying with the YouTube Community Guidelines and our copyright rules to upload videos that are longer than 15 minutes." This is also what the NYT cite says. YouTube did not give a guarantee that all users would have this feature, and the need to verify is a side issue. Please don't keep adding the claim that verifying the account will guarantee uploads longer that 15 minutes. This is not what YouTube said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed the word "they" to "some". Some users get the option, some don't.

Thanks for realizing this. The article currently says "In December 2010, YouTube announced that holders of standard accounts would be allowed to upload videos of unlimited length, provided that they have a good history of following the site's Community Guidelines and policy on copyright." I would propose changing this to "some users" to avoid repetition. It is important not to give readers the impression that all users can upload videos longer than 15 minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IT MUST BE MENTIONED! Youtube is unable to transform PAL AVCHD MTS files correctly (which HD formats are used by Canon Sony Panasonic JVC and Sanyo), it change the 25FPS of PAL camcorders into 30FPS, which causes quality loss and ernomous audio-sync problems. The NTSC AVCHD files haven't that problems on youtube.--84.2.197.184 (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This would need a source. YouTube's uploading guidelines are here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See Youtube Helpdesk claims: http://www.google.hu/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=hu&nord=1&site=webhp&source=hp&q=PAL+AVCHD+site%3Ahttp%3A%252F%252Fgoogle.com%252Fsupport%252Fforum%252Fp%252F&pbx=1&oq=PAL+AVCHD+site:http%3A%252F%252Fgoogle.com%252Fsupport%252Fforum%252Fp%252F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=54l25468l0l25779l17l15l0l0l0l2l245l2072l5.7.3l15l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a1373b1d0b04133&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=737 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.184 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube help page about this subject is here. When the feature was introduced in December 2010, YouTube did not promise that all users would be able to upload videos longer than 15 minutes, and made clear that it was subject to the account being in good standing. If an account can upload longer videos, the words "increase your limit" will be shown on the uploading page. This will then require account verification via SMS message. YouTube says "Content ID global blocks on even one video will lead to removal of this privilege." This accounts for why not all people see the "increase your limit" message, as they have probably uploaded videos that were flagged as copyright or other TOS violations in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

After the 10 minute limit was imposed, YouTube introduced Director accounts which could upload longer videos in April 2006.[5] This feature was available by application only, accounts of this kind were rare and the feature was withdrawn in early 2007. The Partnership Program is mainly for organizations that want to monetize their videos on YouTube. Partners can upload long videos, but the ability for ordinary users to do this was introduced in December 2010, subject to the account being in good standing. This is a bit too detailed for all of it to be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This was removed because it was uncited, and is basically a WP:NOTHOWTO tutorial:

"Creative Commons licensed works offer a 'remix' option which opens the video in an online video editor. The video editor has a 'publish' function which posts the clip to the operator's account. While the clip is processing, one can select optional levels for privacy, license, title, and information related to the video. One has the option to 'audioswap' the clip, but at cost of losing the shared license option. Once processing is complete a 'download MP4' link opens adjacent to the clip. This technology should be taken in context of YouTube terms of use and with careful copyright considerations. In short, some CC-BY licensed clips were posted by people who did not have the legal right to do so." ^{[citation needed]}

It is also not really notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear Youtube When I was lookng at a video which was The Haunted Mansion Holiday and when the video ended and the graphics appeared there was a video called Chuckys fun house and I do not like those kinds of videos

99.152.48.39 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) so if you can send something to the one who put that video and tell him to remove the video from there please

We have no connection to yourube, I suggest you contact the person who posted the video, the link will be underneath the video--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As the sourcing says, at the moment Cosmic Panda is a beta test available only by opting in to the trial. This means that Cosmic Panda is not the default interface, and the newer logo with the darker shade of red is not official either. For this reason, the logo in the infobox was reverted to the previous version. The logo in the infobox should remain until Cosmic Panda is the default interface for all users. This is an important move for YouTube, as in the longer term YouTube and Google+ may share a common interface.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The red shade in the logo of the Cosmic Panda version is noticeably darker [6], but this image on Commons seems to make it somewhat too dark. The current official logos for press use are given by YouTube here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The red in File:LogoYoutube2011.svg is far darker than in the current official version. YouTube gives the RGB red value as 255 [7], the SVG is around 180 at the top, and 105 at the bottom.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

YouTube seems to have launched the new logo and site interface, but there is nothing about it in the news at the moment. There is also a new favicon for the site, which is an arrow/play button.[8]. This is the first time that the YouTube logo has been changed since October 2006.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki EnglishInsistence on adding a new version of the logo with inaccurate red tint. File:Logo YouTube por Hernando.svg is a more accurate likeness (see also Cosmic Panda section above).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Wiki EnglishWiki English

• If it's better use it, subject to the normal non-free restrictions of course. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC).
  
• I would go with the press version (the lighter red) until/unless the image with darker red becomes YouTube's default logo. It seems to me that the version they let the press use is probably more reliable than the one that is shown on the main page - the latter may just be being trialled and could change without notice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The new design was launched on December 1, 2011 and it does not seem to be a temporary trial. It is interesting, though, that the YouTube blog page announcing the redesign still uses the "old" logo.[10] It may be that there is a transitional period at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am proposing an edit to the section called Copyrighted material. At the end of that section, there is a brief mention of the "Video Id" system that is in place on YouTube. That was when it was in beta, and has since evolved into what is called Content ID. I noticed that there is almost no information about how it works or what some of the flaws of the system are. I have procured some sources, and wished to elaborate on the Content ID system more, but as I am not an established user, I cannot make these edits myself. If the edit is allowed, it is my understanding that someone will submit the changes on my behalf which is fine as long as what is put down are my words and not someone else's. Will this be possible? Upon acceptance, I will submit a copy of said edit along with sources for approval. Thank you.

Iguerreroucb (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article tries to avoid giving detailed walkthroughs of the site's features per WP:NOTHOWTO. Content ID is a system designed to flag copyright violations automatically, and was partly designed to prevent lawsuits like the one from Viacom, as it would be too time consuming to check all of the videos manually. Content ID is not infallible (one of my videos was blocked for allegedly infringing Formula One when it had nothing to do with it) but it does have a generally good track record of avoiding false positives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like elaboration on Content ID would be a valuable addition to the article, supported by reliable sources, of course. But please be aware that all Wikipedia content can be edited by others, including people who transcribe edit requests. In general, the better sourced and more neutral your proposed addition, the less likely it is to undergo substantive changes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'll take into consideration the fact that the edit shouldn't be a how to guide, and that at some time, whatever I write may be edited. After I've typed up the information, who should I send it to so it can be glossed over and submitted on the YouTube page? Thanks! Iguerreroucb (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you are inexperienced, perhaps a draft version could be posted here for comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the help. Iguerreroucb (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again guys and girls, I've finished said proposal and I noticed that I now have permissions to edit the article by myself. Regardless, I figured I post the information I've gathered for review before I expand on copyright section. I'm open to edit or removal of some of the content, but I will not be adding anymore.

In 2007 1, Google Inc.’s YouTube began testing on video identification technology in the hopes that if it could identify works posted to YouTube without the consent of the owner, the technology could swiftly remove them. With backing from AudibleMagic’s audio-recognition technology 2, in August Google launched in beta form the YouTube Video Identification tool 3. Upon moving out of beta and into final form, this technology was renamed Content ID as it is known today 4, a technology that allows “copyright holders to easily identify and manage their content on YouTube” 5, whether their content is identified in its entirety or only partially 6.

The Content ID tool works by first creating a fingerprint or, ID file, from content that the owners submit into the system, with content of higher quality and ample length yielding more effective ID Files. These ID files correspond to Reference files which are pieces of content that make up the Reference library, a database which houses copies of content that was given to the system by the owners. Whenever a piece of audio or video is uploaded to YouTube by users, that piece is checked against every file in the Reference library, looking for a match. Should one be found, a Usage Policy is carried out given the preference of the content owner. The three usage policies are Block, Track, and Monetize. A Block will render the uploaded video un-viewable. If Track is chosen, the video will be allowed for viewing on YouTube, with the owner receiving various statistics about it. Lastly, if Monetize is chosen, the video will be viewable but with ads running alongside of it. 5

In 2009, a string of tests which included various tweaks such as reverse playback, resampling, and amplification to the video, “I Know What Boys Like”, was conducted on the tool to gauge its effectiveness. While the Content ID tool was noted for its pervasiveness and ability to pick up various amplification changes, some uploads still managed to get by the tool. 78 That said, while the Content ID tool is effective in matching uploads to the Reference library, the tool is not perfect and is constantly fine-tuned to prevent user uploads from slipping past the system 5. Iguerreroucb (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is rather long and detailed. The key points are that the system checks uploaded videos against a database of known copyrighted content. If a match is found, the copyright owner is given several options, such as blocking the video or adding advertisements. The specifics of how the system works have WP:TOPIC issues, and would best be left for a reader to explore in external links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can shorten the middle paragraph for this then. Ill update it and post back here in a few. Iguerreroucb (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the shortened version of the 2nd paragraph. Please keep in mind that this edit may seem lengthy, but its a three part edit where each paragraph is a short elaboration on history, the system, and flaws as i proposed. Also, while i have shortened the 2nd paragraph to flow faster and not be so technical, I still briefly mention what each usage policy does because what each one does is a short one-liner with no reference as to how they actually work. This is about as much as I can think to shave off without compromising what I want to say. If anyone can think of anything else, your suggestions are more than welcome.

The Content ID tool works by creating an ID file from content that the owners submit into the system and correspond to pieces of content that get stored in a database to be checked against pieces of audio or video uploaded to YouTube. If a match is found, a Usage Policy is carried out given the preference of the content owner. The three usage policies are Block, Track, and Monetize, where a block renders the uploaded video un-viewable, a Track yields statistics about the video, and Monetize runs ads in conjunction with the video. 5 Iguerreroucb (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also thinking right now, if you guys think this is too lengthy for the copyrighted section, perhaps I could make a new section underneath addressing content id. Just a thought. Iguerreroucb (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again all. Since I have not heard back from anyone since, I will be editing the article sometime today with my proposed changes. Also, I will be adding a small section underneath copyright material entitled content id, since I dont want anyone to feel that im going off topic in just that smaller subsection were video id is briefly mentioned. If anyone has any objections, please bring them forward as I would like to avoid as much conflict as possible, and get this edit up right away. Thanks for all the help! Iguerreroucb (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I updated the page, and placed a subsection under copyrighted material entitled Content ID. If any of you feel it may be better placed, please feel free make the appropriate adjustments. Thanks again for all the feedback! Iguerreroucb (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This was copyedited and some of the detail moved to the citations. Content ID is worth mentioning because YouTube regards it as a safety valve.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The video with the most hits on youtube is not 'Charlie bit my finger' its 'Justin Bieber - Baby'

Daniel Gilchrist (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Charlie is the most viewed user generated video (ie uploaded by an ordinary member of the public). The pop videos are premium content on Vevo, which is an offshoot of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[11] and [12] are basically marketing links and do not meet WP:EL. [13] does not mention Android in detail in the text of the article. YouTube is available for Android, but one cite is sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it is relevant to mention YouTube has a native app for Android, do you think it is not relevant? If the sources are the problem I'm sure there are many other to choose from. --SF007 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact, not only I think it would be relevant to mention it, it would probably be relevant to discuss some of the features of the app. --SF007 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a WP:NOTHOWTO issue here. YouTube is available for most platforms including Android, and there is no need to go into great detail in the article. Details of the app should be left to a suitable external link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, but I don't really think WP:NOTHOWTO is a concern as neither is my intention to add "guide-like" material, nor would a list of some features would really fall into WP:NOTHOWTO. I only mention this because Google has really been investing in Android, and as they are both owned by Google, it seems relevant to show Google's focus. A similar situation would be the RealPlayer article, which discusses features of the several editions of the program (Windows/Mac/Linux/Android/etc) --SF007 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
We also get around 435,000,000 results for "youtube android app", and while google results mean little, it is certainly an indication of the relevance of the app. I also disagree that this and this are "basically marketing links and do not meet WP:EL", while I admit they contain some "marketing" focus, they are pretty much the official pages of the subject, thefore making them appropriate in the light of WP:EL. --SF007 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The two sources [14] and [15] do not meet WP:EL. They are largely adverts and do not say much if anything about how the app works. I looked around for other material about YouTube for Android, and it is mostly tech blog material based on the YouTube launch statement.[16] This is not very detailed either, other than a brief mention of Android.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
From my point of view they clearly pass Wiki: External links#Official links, but lets agree to disagree on that. But the main question is, do you think the native app is relevant to be mentioned in the article (I'm not talking about listing features, really just mentioning it exists) Can we at least agree on that? --SF007 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
[17] is the official page for the YouTube Android app, but it is far from ideal as a source. The article says that YouTube is available for Android, and [18] was chosen to source it as it is more detailed than some of the other links mentioned. What is worth mentioning is that in July 2010, YouTube completely revamped the mobile site at http://m.youtube.com/ to make it HTML5 and touch screen phone compatible. This is they key part of the story, rather than the app itself. YouTube is no longer an entirely Flash-based site, as the videos can be accessed without Flash if necessary. The lack of Flash on the iPad was controversial when it was launched, but there is now a realization that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices. Flash will not be supported in the Metro version of Windows 8 [19], and the Flash plugin for Android is no longer being developed.[20]. Goodbye Flash: YouTube mobile goes HTML5 on iPhone and Android is the source that sums this up most accurately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'll just write an article about it if/when I have more time and then we just would need an internal link... --SF007 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A mention of the Android app was added to YouTube#Platforms, with a couple of more detailed sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Uganda and Nigeria were added in December 2011. Ukrainian is one of the new language options, but not a content location.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph five (5) under Company History states that

• roughly 60 hours of new videos are uploaded to the site every minute
• around three quarters of the material comes from outside the U.S.

This should be:

• roughly 48 hours of new videos are uploaded to the site every minute [21]
• around 70% of the material comes from outside the U.S.[22]

ImminentFate (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The source given here is YouTube - press statistics. The 48 hours figure given here is out of date, and the latest figure of roughly 60 hours a minute was given by YouTube in a blog post on 23 January 2012. The figure of around three quarters of the material coming from outside the United States was given by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and is broadly in line with the 70% figure in the press office statistics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is guilty of Intellectual Property violations and profiting from the proceeds of corporate obstruction. Youtube was invented in Canada. Yet American profiteers tried to hijack the business and lock it into American proprietary software and misappropriate assets by using servers in the United States. YouTube has suspected links to Barry From DC as well as Texas, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.226.30.211 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a new local version for Chile, and apparently one for Peru coming soon.[23] The localization table in the article is now quite long, and maybe its columns should be adjusted so that it takes up less vertical space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the new pay-per-view moving streaming service at youtube.com/movies is something that should be included here? I couldn't find any articles mentioning the service, and it looks to me like something groundbreaking that will compete with ITunes#Movies. JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The movie rentals are mentioned in the History section. They are available in the US, Canada and the UK, but apparently not all countries at present.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this article on page B1 of today’s usa Today, Ron Paul has the most views (10 million) of the GOP candiadates on Utube. Ron Paul has been viewed 432,608 times in the last 30 days on Wikipedia See: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Ron_Paul (please check my facts for mistakes, TIA) 71.231.62.26 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki isn't the right place for this - WP:NOTFORUM--Taylornate (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Bit My Finger is NOT the most popular video on Youtube. Justin Bieber - Baby ft. Ludacris has 707,000,000 views. Here's the link to the video if you need a citation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffacxfA7G4 Peacelovefrenchhorn (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:YouTube/Archive_19#Edit_request_on_9_December_2011: "Charlie is the most viewed user generated video (ie uploaded by an ordinary member of the public). The pop videos are premium content on Vevo, which is an offshoot of YouTube."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake! Peacelovefrenchhorn (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that some YouTube videos produce the message "This content may contain material flagged by YouTube's user community that may be inappropriate for some users. To view this video, please verify that you are 18 or older by signing in or signing up." eg this video. YouTube also has Safety Mode, which prevents videos with a 18+ rating from showing up in search results. This edit is original research; Safety Mode Lock does not require the user to be logged in for the lock to operate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube made a business decision to transfer large amount of bandwidth from its user generated content to its new movie rental business. As a result, most of the user generated content loads so slowly that it is unusable even at the lowest resolution. source: http://www.hightechforum.org/youtube-becoming-unusable-during-the-day/ Quinacrine (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is not currently offering Turkey via the website interface as one of the content locations.[24]. The date of November 14, 2007 given in the table is also unsourced. Please explain this addition.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Title basically says it all. I've been trying to hit the criticism of youtube on the drop down area on the botton and from the criticism of google links and nothing happens. I seem to remember a seperate page for the criticism but I can no longer get to any such page. So was there ever such a page and how do I get there if there is still one??????????67.180.56.151 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There's currently no Criticism of Youtube article. It was converted to a redirect to this article on 22 Sept 2011, and whatever content was notable and properly sourced was supposed to be merged here. I can't see whether the actual merger ever happened, though, perhaps because there was no notable and properly sourced material that wasn't already in this article. There are discussions here and here, and you can view the last version of the old article here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that google, youtube, facebook, and others are locked forever leaving nobody to edit the page freely?174.19.139.81 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

These articles are high traffic, and are semi-protected. Unfortunately, many of the IP edits in the past have been vandalism. It is possible to edit these articles by registering an account or making an edit request on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

An image map for the picture of the founders to send to their respective articles would be helpful :) ReflectedCross (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)ReflectedCross

There is nothing specific about Youtube Advertising practices. This certainly should be done as advertising goes so far as to superimpose on Youtube videos. Consider that Google, when it started out, had a policy from its Originators for search that separated advertisement from search results. An explanation for the policy of mixing the two in Youtube and how this politically and economically came about would be appropriate and informative.

Also, the issue of advertising should be looked at from a historical perspective since the policies at Google seem to be shifting toward the mixing of the two, considering that Youtube didn't originally use to have superimposed advertising, and Google didn't used to have advertising at the top of search that looks very similar to its search results.

The fact is, the article is certainly incomplete without such information about advertising practices. 99.22.94.80 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

fmt value 36 should be added to the "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" table. It's a 3GP container with H.264 encoding at 240p resolution. Tubaman24 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not done for now:Please provide a reference to verify this. In addition, it would be helpful if you would make the change yourself in the chart below, so I know exactly what to change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

hi, I can provide reference for some formats. reading this wikipedia page makes people think the formats itself aren't there any more, but internatlly they are still used as you can see using programs like quvi for example. here's what I just got running quvi and mplayer to determine the different available codecs for one and the same video (note the original submitted video must have been a bit too small for high video dimensions):

fmt05_240p: Selected video codec: [ffflv] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg Flash video) AUDIO: 22050 Hz, 1 ch, floatle, 64.0 kbit/9.07% (ratio: 8000->88200) Selected audio codec: [ffmp3float] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg MPEG layer-3 audio)

fmt18_240p: Selected video codec: [ffh264] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg H.264) AUDIO: 44100 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 125.6 kbit/8.90% (ratio: 15697->176400) Selected audio codec: [ffaac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg AAC (MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio))

fmt34_240p: Selected video codec: [ffh264] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg H.264) AUDIO: 22050 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 64.1 kbit/9.09% (ratio: 8016->88200) Selected audio codec: [ffaac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg AAC (MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio))

fmt36_240: Selected video codec: [ffodivx] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg MPEG-4) AUDIO: 22050 Hz, 1 ch, s16le, 62.8 kbit/17.79% (ratio: 7847->44100) Selected audio codec: [ffaac] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg AAC (MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio))

fmt43_240p: Selected video codec: [ffvp8] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg VP8) AUDIO: 44100 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 0.0 kbit/0.00% (ratio: 0->176400) Selected audio codec: [ffvorbis] afm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg Vorbis)

Why are there two fmt =46 values? I think the 46 value is the 3D, 1920x540 WebM codec. Sometimes it´s a 320x240 codec. What is this 46 value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXUZIXx (talk • contribs) 08:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Social Impact" it says that the video Charlie Bit My Finger had over 300 million views, this is not true. It had over 400 million. I'm fixing it. ChocolateLover193 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, the current view count for Charlie is 454,542,623, so the 300 million figure was significantly out of date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a section be added that explains YouTube Poops, which are a popular and significant part of YouTube. 69.27.230.202 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't think YouTube poops are notable enough to deserve an entire section. They're just one type of video that has been popular in the past, but which has seen a significant decrease in quality (subjectively) over the past few years. I think it'd be worthwhile to add a section on general popular video types (including trailers, game videos, vlogs, animation, comedy, etc...); singling out just one popular video format breaks WP:NPOV. --11rcombs (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that not enough is said about the disturbing or unpleasant content to be found on YouTube. I have been on there and only found out too late that there are home-made videos that depict scenes of violence that gave me a horrible stomach-wrenching feeling (all the worse because, for a while, a developed a craving for it). I feel that something more should be said about this monstrous willingness to pollute this site with such videos. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Some videos have an 18+ rating, this is mentioned in the article. However, explicit depictions of sex and violence are forbidden by the site's TOS and are usually flagged and removed quickly. Although the claim above is unsourced, it is hard to argue that YouTube is full of disturbing material, when there are numerous other sites that specialize in offering it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I know I did not make my sources clear, but I want to prevent as many people as possible from seeing the vidoes I have mentioned. So, sorry IanMacM, but I couldn't, with a clear conscience, give references or record the exact names of the videos. Sorry if I seem silly, but that is what I feel. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an important part of YouTube's history when in 2010 they switched from the star rating system to a thumbs up/thumbs down and hid the video's rating from its thumbnail view. It could even be in the "criticisms of youtube" part since it allows people to get rick-roll'd easier or tricked into watching "Reply girls" videos since you can't see the actual video's rating before clicking on it. Their reasoning on changing the system is that most videos were either voted 1 or 5 stars, however I could find nothing on why they only display the rating until after you click on the video. According to the archive of screenshots, the change in rating system happened April 1, 2010. http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100801000000*/http://youtube.com 99.130.105.51 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You should use:

instead of:

--99.38.244.81 (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the previous style for the quality/codecs table was better? (see below) David (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the old table is that it does not scale. With any large table (which this has become) the records go down, not across. Already as is the table you posted goes off the page to the right. As YouTube adds even more qualities this old style will become even more unfeasible. Svnpenn (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the version shown above was becoming too big for easy vertical and horizontal navigation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What screen resolution are you guys on? 640x480!?! The new "table" is complete and utter BS. Just because some of you guys are using prehistoric screen resolutions which can't even hold this tiny table above doesn't mean everyone else does too. --84.62.159.190 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the new layout is better. I'm on a1600x1200 monitir and I have to use a verylarge font since i'm legally blind. This table still run's off the side of my screen, the new one works better. F>Y>I> I think I still have my old 640X480 monitor from 1991,collectin gdust somewhere!!

Could someone link all languages in that table to their respective wikipedia pages, e.g., Spanish language, and Polish language. I cannot do it, as the article is semi-protected (no IP edits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.53.182 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Youtube download. Not clear who decides on the permission to download? Please 194.78.58.10 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC) FMUWorks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.102.152 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Where it mentioned the Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, I got confused, thinking it was British Actor Matt Smith. Can someone have it go by some other name, or at least state his profession so no one thinks it's the British Actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.71.88 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked this as requested by adding "professional singer". He is not Matt Smith (actor). There is also a disambig page at Matt Smith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please scan through this article to see if any of the URLs support SSL. If so, please add an "s" to "http". 64.128.27.82 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For the past few weeks I noticed there was a settings feature available under the videos on YouTube that allowed you to choose the resolution, and this generally went down to 240p. This allowed me to watch videos in real time, which was really nice. But today I logged in to YouTube and the option was gone; but now you can watch the video at different speeds. Also a nice feature, but I'd rather watch lower-resolution videos in real time than to watch a better resolution video at 25% speed. I wonder if there are any plans to restore the option to watch the lower resolution videos in the future. I think that a discussion of the video playback settings and features be appropriate to add to the Wikipedia article, if anyone has any expertise in that area. Thanks JDoolin (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The option to vary the speed of playback is currently available only in the HTML5 trial version.[25] The resolution control should still be present.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything on this page about YouTube's policies when it comes to focibly closing accounts? en:BLEAKGH (got:ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ) 00:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As I recall there is something that they will do that will close it. Deunick (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

None of this is specific enough. YouTube has a set of Community Guidelines, and says that "Violations of the Terms of Use may result in a warning notification or termination of your account". Like most sites, YouTube has TOS which have to be followed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki EnglishThe title of the file Youtube Logo 2005.png is incorrect, as this version of the logo did not appear until October 2006.[26] The earliest YouTube page on the Wayback Machine is April 28, 2005. The main difference in the October 2006 version of the logo is the more pronounced use of a color gradient in the red of the word "Tube". In the earlier version, the shading of the red is more or less constant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Wiki EnglishWiki English

The article mentions that youtube is banned in Turkey. This is not the case any more, so I think that this part of the article should be corrected. Cheerio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.197.12.237 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says that the block on accessing the site was between 2008 and 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit was reverted, because it appears to be trying to make a point rather than reporting the facts. Every day, people upload videos with wacky political and religious views to YouTube, and the site has to determine whether they fall within the site's Community Guidelines. YouTube has stated that Innocence of Muslims does not violate its guidelines, but has withdrawn it in several countries. There are numerous pro-Islam videos on YouTube, and the ones by Anwar Al-Awlaki were a source of concern. The wording of the edit implied that YouTube was biased towards Islam, which is unlikely to be the case. If a video showing severed heads is on YouTube, it would violate the site's guidelines on shocking content, and could be flagged as abuse. YouTube videos are not checked individually before going online, so the presence of a video should not be taken as an endorsement by YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing a POV while I'm arguing reliable sources. You're arguing what YouTube should do if it follows its guidelines while my notable source states what YouTube has done. If there is another reliable source that says YouTube hasn't done this it should be added to the article to counter my reliable source. Finally, your speculation about the intention and purpose of the writer in the Wall Street Journal is not relevant. It says what it says. Removing sourced content because you don't like it isn't a good reason. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that the beheading video in question could since have been removed. The fact that the WSJ is a reliable source would not alter this possibility. Social media sites with user generated content are not directly responsible for their content; for example in 2010 Google executives were convicted in Italy over a bullying video even though they had no knowledge of it, and had removed it within three hours of being told about it.[27] It is not instructive to say "This social media site allowed A but not B" unless it was aware of a formal complaint about both A and B. The most important part of the WSJ article is that it points out that social media sites have to decide what is acceptable free speech. Unless a complaint is made, they are powerless to act.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, write that and have it published in a major newspaper so we can cite your view as well. You are arguing your POV in contrast to the viewpoint of a well-sourced well-accepted publication. You haven't disputed the notability of the Journal. Their assessment, reporting, and criticism is notable and worthy of mention in this article. If you want to mention more points or other points from their article, that fine. And please feel free to provide other sources that state a fact and not just your POV that it "could since have been removed." Jason from nyc (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
We know for a fact that YouTube has received complaints about Innocence of Muslims and has said that it will stay, at least on the English language version of the site. The problem with the WSJ source is that the videos referred to may since have been removed, so if a person reads the article in a month's time they are not getting an accurate picture. The WSJ article was accurate at the time of writing (October 9, 2012) but the content of a social media site changes rapidly. The statement in the WSJ source that "YouTube does little to police jihadist videos" itself seems to have POV issues, as numerous videos have been removed after being found to violate the site's Community Guidelines for this reason. This is an editorial from the Media Research Center, an organization which says that its "stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values". Instead of arguing about which videos YouTube did or did not allow - which could easily be out of date by next week - it would be better to focus on the difficulty in framing acceptable standards of free speech on the Internet, when there are different rules in different countries.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The WSJ's editor viewed the article as fit for publication. It's a criticism of YouTube and in a noteworthy widely read publication. We can easily add the date of the complaint. When YouTube replies we can add that too. If you wish to wait until there are multiples sources for this kind of criticism so that it isn't an outlier, I'm fine with that. I don't believe your personal objection to the authors position is a good reason to oppose well-sourced material. Let's leave this for now as I don't intend to survey criticism of YouTube's editorial policy. If others care, they can take it from here.Jason from nyc (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This entry is completely lacking in this area. Google began using YouTube to track users in January of 2012 if I am not mistaken,plus they list all videos an individual has accessed as they tailor suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.147.76 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Google overhauled its privacy policy in March 2012, leading to an overlap between the policies of services including Gmail, YouTube and Google+. Under the new unified policy, a person's use of YouTube can be used for targeted adverts in Gmail.[28] Signing up for a Google user account will mean consenting to this in the small print. This is more of an issue for Criticism of Google.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the table to be wrong. Especially the audio bitrates are lower for certain formats. For instance this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPf8-6u3NU

FMT 22:mp4[720x1280]
has audio AAC average 127 Kbps, maximum 152 Kbps

FMT 45:webm[720x1280]
has audio VORBIS 128 kbit

and not 192 kbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.248.168 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, in table "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options", surely the video resolution for itag value 6 is 720p and not 270p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.71.226 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

MP4 480p is missing. --64.32.121.96 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC, format 6 is indeed supposed to be 270 pixels in height (although there is no such standardized format as "270p", and incorrectly over-applying broadcast standards naming conventions for a non-television-centric video site seems... Completely daft, actually). However, the first person appears to be right about format 22 (720p MP4: h264/AAC) having an audio bitrate of ~128kbps -- every video I've checked was around there, none were near 192. Actually, I've even checked a few official (VEVO, etc.) HD music video uploads and even their 1080p MP4 (format 37) uploads STILL have an audio bitrate in that same region -- it appears that ~128 is where YouTube's AAC encoder is scripted to cap? (Have not compared any 3K/whatever videos; have never encountered any and didn't go looking.)

Conversely, it appears as if the WebM formats do indeed use 192kbps Vorbis on at least most (not necessarily all; I do seem to remember a video here or there having an audio stream at WP's stated 128kbps when in format 45, but I may be mistaken) videos of 720p or higher profiles. I'm assuming that YouTube doesn't bother holding onto the (usually much larger) original uploads, so my best guess is that when they initially added WebM support (and transcoded stuff from h264/AAC to fill in content; you'll notice there are webM versions of uploads from far before they added WebM), they set things to give them a similar (~128kbps) Vorbis audio bitrate to the original AAC, and then set all later uploads to encode the WebM 780p & up versions with 192kbps. --24.18.58.79 (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: An article indicating that the bitrates have been bumped for AAC repeatedly, and the most recent one (up to 192kbps) was only June '12, thus why many official videos that are still available in 1080p MP4 actually have lower audio bitrate than that. In which case, the listed chart is technically accurate to YouTube's current specifications for new content, just not representative of the entire content library already uploaded. --24.18.58.79 (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This page does not have a lot of problems any more. Its last vandalism is something I can't remember happening here. I think page protection for this page is no longer needed. 86.166.91.28 (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a Chicken or the egg dilemma. The semiprotection removes the possibility of random IP vandalism and linkspamming, which was frequent when the article was unprotected. Since this is a high profile article, it is best to register an account before editing it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Is YouTube safer using http://youtube.com or https://youtube.com? Thebest WikiEditor (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

YouTube began using HTTPS for video streaming in February 2011.[29] For average viewing, there is not a great deal of difference between the two. Using HTTPS makes it harder for an adversary to see what you are watching on YouTube, so it may be helpful if certain videos are blocked. Wikipedia pages can also be accessed via HTTPS for the same reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I found that it said the "Charlie bit my finger" is the most popular video when it is in actuality Justin Biebers' Baby (Justin Bieber song) (although at the speed its going at Gangnam Style is sure to take over soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese22211 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Charlie is the most popular video uploaded by an ordinary member of the public. The pop videos are on Vevo, which is a semi-detached platform hosted on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

gangnam style was not uploaded to vevo though. and it nearly has a billion hits... Assassin|1511 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This was added to the article, as Gangnam Style is almost certain to become the first YouTube video to hit one billion (1000 million) views in early 2013. It is also one of the most famous videos on the site, and worth a mention as an example of the cultural impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Youtube censored in Egypt during its revolution? I'm pretty sure it was, yet this article fails to mention it. EgyptKEW9 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)EgyptKEW9EgyptKEW9 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There were reports of YouTube and other social media websites being unavailable during the Arab Spring protests in early 2011.[30] The block appears to have been temporary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Still, I believe it should be mentioned in this article ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are countries in the middle east that censor both written and video media publications on a wide and regular basis. A mention on censorship of Youtube during the crisis in Egypt might be too much detailed information cluttering the article. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no immediate instruction on the You Tube web page for using the controls. It's just a bunch of symbols. Since I must access the page over land lines, I have hit the wrong controls (more often since they were changed [Play Again appears to have vanished]) and so some instruction must be accessible somewhere.

I assumed I could find it in wikipedia. 4.154.250.71 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube changed the design and layout of the site in December 2012.[31] Play again has not vanished, at the end of a video the play symbol turns into a replay symbol. This is not in the article because it would have WP:NOTHOWTO issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Can youo please help me improving article YouTube Top 100--62.22.53.100 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

People have added the YouTube most viewed charts to this article in the past, but they are no longer here because they need constant updating. They have also become misleading, because user generated videos such as Charlie Bit My Finger are ranked alongside pop videos like Gangnam Style, making it hard to draw exact conclusions about their popularity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article contain some explanation and description of the notion of "channel" in the YouTube context?  --Lambiam 08:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A YouTube channel is similar to a user's Twitter feed or Facebook wall.[32] There is something of a WP:NOTHOWTO issue here, but the article could explain the concept briefly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Such an anouncement at april fool's day makes me doubt. By the way since when does youtube has a staff of 30000 people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.186 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2258435/Google-April-Fools-Pranks-2013-YouTube-Closing-Google-Nose-Gmail-Blue-More — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.186 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just an April Fools Joke. Everyone knows that YouTube will continue tomorrow and things will be back to normal, as usual. Here's another source link for the joke: [33] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am fully convinced it's a joke. Despite the live video stream, which apparently makes a few people a bit unconvinced, there's absolutely no reason for them to do this on April 1. And for a company like YouTube to do this. And there's no mention of this on the front page of http://www.youtube.com/ . No, this is definitely a joke, and I don't think they would either shut down the website or publicly announce that it is a joke. What you can say, though, is that they're pushing this joke a bit too far. Since I've been reverted twice, I'm not gonna get into an edit war and keep reverting. For now, I'll let it be as it currently is, because the joke will be 100% known tomorrow, after midnight. Cheers, HeyMid (contribs) 21:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi... I am wondering... what is better than a "Good Article" re YouTube... Me thinking... being frozen... is bad... Me thinking... WP... need update sensibility!

Михал Орела 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Mihal Orela — Preceding unsigned comment added by MihalOrela (talk • contribs)

Has anyone else noticed in the past week or so that youtube added several new itag values (134, 135, 137, 141, ...)? Does anyone else know what exactly these are? JabberWok (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

134 for example is 1080p MP4 but I didn't analyse the details of the new itags. --Christi3443 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

140 and 160 are 144p --130.180.57.255 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There should be added to this page that even though 3succesful strikes against a YouTube-account do result in that account being terminated, it does not NECESSARILY result in the channel being suspended. There is a expiration-time consisting of 6months, if the user does not result any more copyright strike during this period of time. If the user is lucky enough to avoid a new strike within the next 6months, with other words, the previous strike(s) will be removed from the account. Its also as well worth to note that this only counts if the user has completed the copyright school on YouTube.

Sources: http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2814000&rd=1

Asweti (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit too complicated for the article and has some WP:NOTHOWTO issues. The basic thrust is that three copyright strikes will result in removal of the account and its related videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

check msn for further info.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 25 May 2013

I remember MSN. I hear they only have 563 email addresses left. :O Sceptre ^(talk) 01:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If the news story is this, it relates to the introduction of subscription channels in May 2013. This is a trial scheme and at present there are no plans to charge to watch the vast majority of videos on the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

http://cdn3.reelstatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-YouTube-Study-FINAL.pdf has some interesting data, anyone think it's worth including in the article anywhere? Roguebluejay (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The dinner party and Janet Jackson Super Bowl explanations are both anecdotal, and are hard to fit in with other information. YouTube was not the first video sharing site, as Metacafe was launched in 2003, and Vimeo in 2004. The earliest known version of YouTube on the Wayback Machine shows that the site experimented with video dating before dropping the idea. Hot or Not has also been suggested as an influence on YouTube.[34] One of the problems with the Super Bowl theory is that it would involve a copyrighted clip from broadcast television, which members of the public would not be allowed to upload. The Time magazine article says "No company, of course, is ever founded in a single moment, and YouTube evolved over several months. Chad and Steve agree that Karim deserves credit for the early idea that became, in Steve's words, "the original goal that we were working toward in the very beginning": a video version of HOTorNOT.com."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There's an request for comment underway at Natalie Tran. There's a question about using Vidstatsx statistics to track YouTube views. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: this edit: YouTube did not attempt to sue YouTubeMP3.org. In June 2012, it sent a cease and desist letter threatening legal action if it did not comply within seven days.[35] At the time of writing, the site is still operational. YouTube's position is that if a video does not have a download button, it is a violation of the Terms of Service to download any part of it. It is something of a mystery why YouTubeMP3.org was targeted, because it is far from being the only third party tool that can download YouTube videos. This was not a frivolous lawsuit, because there was no lawsuit and YouTube has to protect the copyright of material on the site. Overall, this is not really notable enough for the article in its current form. If YouTube did succeed in taking the site offline through legal action, it would be worth mentioning.

The forum link here does not verify the claim that links were blocked in comments in 2007. URL linking in YouTube comment sections was banned a long time ago because of the large amount of spam abuse. It is unclear exactly when links were blocked, but it was some years ago. People often type things like address dot com to get round the block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I guess their "legal action within seven days" was an empty threat. Whether the action was frivolous is a matter of perspective. Even if users had to agree to the terms of service in order to watch videos (which is not the case), EULAs that can be "clicked through" are not legally binding in many jurisdictions. I thought this would be a nice sentence to put after the citation indicating their objection to downloading videos. It shows that they have taken this position a step further. But I'm okay with waiting until a more notable example comes up.

About the URLs in comments, it would be nice if YouTube had an official page saying that they were blocked in 2007. The best thing I could find was the forum complaining about link blocking in 2009 with some users saying that it had been around for two years. If this is not sufficient, so be it :).

The one thing I will argue is the statement that Charlie Bit My Finger holds the record for the most views of any user-generated video. Clearly the "user-generated" qualifier is the only thing that might prevent Gangnam Style from disproving that. But how is a wealthy corporate user who represents PSY not a user? In the interest of not putting people on pedestals, I think it is better to go with the wording in the article saying that it holds the records among videos that are not professional music videos. Connor Behan (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Nowadays virtually all of the most viewed videos are pop videos on YouTube/Vevo. Charlie Bit My Finger is the most viewed video uploaded by an ordinary member of the public. I changed the wording to how it is given in the Charlie Bit My Finger article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the quality and codecs section. it's really useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by User9733 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I added new video- and audio-only streams (itags 133-160). The entries still need the encoding details. I assume they are, respectively, H.264 and AAC, but that needs to be verified. Kerberos (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Copy debug info" on a YouTube Live video in the Flash player on Chrome reveals some "fmt=" codes that are probably extra itags. 240p is fmt=92, 360p is fmt=93. 480p is fmt=94, 720p is fmt=95. All original research though, so I'm not adding it. (I echo User9733's thanks for this section, it's really useful.) Nelson (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: one of the problems is that the source given is a market research company. The figure is plucked from the air with no methodology, eg how big was the sample, in what countries was the sample taken etc. Without this, it is hard to know how accurate it is. Market research, opinion polls etc are not generally a reliable source unless there is some methodology given. I have left it in the article with a qualification about the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)