youtube/Archive 9

I just have a question, is YouTube also excluding Britney Spears from their video rankings? Womanizer has over 50 million views, but it is NOT ranked as a highly viewed video. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you seem to have a point here. Britney Spears - Womanizer (Director's Cut) currently has 50,774,726 views, but is not in the most viewed chart. Frankly, I've given up trying to understand YouTube's chart system, since it is clear that some videos do not appear despite their high view counts (eg Panda Disculpa los Malos Pensamientos with around 98 million views, which has probably been banned for spamming). But why do Britney's videos not appear? Your guess is as good as mine. It might be worth asking YouTube, but they are secretive about their inner workings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. But I'm just wondering if there could be any mention on the Controversies of Video Rankings to include Britney Spears' videos of NOT being on the Most Viewed pages, when in fact she DESERVES to be on it. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the right hand side of the Panda video page, there are several videos that have been "banned" from the YouTube charts. There is a bit of a WP:OR issue with the Britney Spears videos, although this blog article mentions it. The Avril Lavigne controversy is mentioned in the article because it became notable enough for the mainstream media to pick up on it. However, the Britney mystery might need a bit more sourcing to go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section on subculture that was created after YouTube? Pop cultural things such as the YouTube Poop meme is growing to a recognisable infamous state that people want serious information on its background and development, rather than keeping it to the likes of Urban Dictionary [1], Encyclopedia Dramatica → (Copy-paste:encyclopediadramatica.com/YouTube_Poop), and Uncyclopedia [2]. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This would require sourcing to establish notability. The sources given above do not usually comply with WP:RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Some videos that have audio that is not approved copyright use are being silenced. I have two screen shots that maybe helpful. http://i40.tinypic.com/3462n7s.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/2m0h0y.jpg

and for a source, here you go. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1180045 Patrolman89 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this be added somewhere in the article? Tempest115 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference to the news this week that YouTube is now available for the PS3 and Wii.[3] The article is trying to slim down the WP:RECENTISM at the moment, so this may not be notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that youtube is no more blocked by my ISP. I live in Tehran, Iran. Lordfkiller (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Asking people in other cities, it seems the website is not blocked in Iran anymore. Lordfkiller (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove Iran from the list of countries blocking YouTube. Lordfkiller (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the wording of the article is not intended to say that YouTube is blocked in Iran at the moment, although it has been blocked in the past. This news story comes from 2006 and things may have changed since then. To confirm that the government in Iran is not blocking would require a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The most popular phenomenon of Youtube is Youtube Poop. It's about making videos with sound clips from "The Unholy Triforce", and Hotel Mario. RocketMaster (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page thread at YouTube subculture. YouTube poop can be seen as an Internet meme, but it has never really established notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a section that discusses YT's business model in detail. For example, YT sells front page ads for $165,000/day. There should be info on partnership programs, the new ads, etc. How profitable is YT right now and how has the situation been improving over the past few quarterS? I'm not an expert on this subject, but I'm sure someone here is. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Google, Inc. bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in October 2006, it has been almost obsessively secretive about YouTube's running costs and advertising revenues. The entrepreneur Mark Cuban famously remarked "Only a moron would buy YouTube"[4] due to concerns about copyright lawsuits and profitability. Google's official accounts for YouTube are astonishingly opaque, and this has led to financial journalists producing estimates of YouTube's running costs and advertising revenue that may or may not be accurate. Some of these are quoted in the article. There is scope for expanding what the article says about YouTube's business operations, although estimated figures by sources outside YouTube are not really the same as a WP:RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is described as geolocational filtering by the Open Net Initiative which tracks censorship on the net. http://opennet.net/blog/2008/03/youtube-and-rise-geolocational-filtering

The actual mechanism used to block is documented by Google http://code.google.com/apis/youtube/2.0/reference.html#youtube_data_api_tag_media:restriction

To check the contents of any videos xml manifest simply use the web based API http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/[video id]

In many cases the video is blocked from countries due to licensing issues (music videos and NBA clips) however some are done for political (legal) reasons such as Thailand's block of any video critical of their King. Germany, Poland, and France also block all forms of hate speech.

It would be great if someone were to add some of this research to the page, particularly when discussing censorship by other countries.

Zeroday (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, some of this is already mentioned in the article, but the info at [5] is interesting. Some people might see this as having original research issues, so other comments are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering how Wikipedia is pretty serious about references and copyrights and such, it's strange how so many articles on songs link to music videos of the song on Youtube, which is a copyright violation. I've never seen any opposition to this, either. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki's policy on links to YouTube videos is at WP:YOUTUBE, and states that There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines. Obvious copyright violations are not permitted, and should be removed from articles if they are found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When I signed up for youtube on November 07, 2006 i have posted MANY videos well above the 10 minute limit, and another user who joined on November 25, 2006 has also uploaded videos above the 10 minute limit, one of which is 36:04 minutes long. The wiki on youtube says that the limit was created on March 2006. So I wanted to know, is this info correct even though the sources are correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BronxNY (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BronxNY (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it is a bit complicated. For ordinary account holders the 10 minute limit was imposed in March 2006. However, for a time it was possible to sign up for a "Premium Content Program" (sometimes called a Director's account) which allowed uploads longer than ten minutes.[6] This feature has since been withdrawn (in early 2007, I think), although people with this type of account can still upload videos longer than ten minutes. The article tries to avoid too much information, since for the vast majority of users today the limit is ten minutes, and all new accounts are ten minutes without exception.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard that if you had over 500 subscribers you COULD post videos over 10 minutes. But, you start losing people unless it's a movie. charlestrippy has a video 4 hours long! missalicia1994 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed today that an edit I made a while back changing it to 256 has been undone. The 232kb/s seems to be the average bitrate with 256kb/s apparently being the max bitrate according to: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1216529&postcount=6

I don't know if this counts as original research (hence why I brought it up here first) but at least the info should be varifiable using MediaInfo.Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The MediaInfo readout given for the "Where the Hell is Matt (2008)" video is correct. Sometimes digital audio has an average and a maximum bitrate. The wording in the table has been tweaked, because the other videos have a fixed bitrate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't believe it when they said that normal and some high quality videos have mono audio. Watch any video of an old stereo recorded song through headphones and it is so obvious that it is stereophonic. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify why you believe that the wording in the article is wrong. The availability of stereo audio on YouTube videos is not easy to summarize in a single sentence, but the normal quality and fmt6 videos have mono audio by default. Only fmt18 and high definition videos have stereo audio by default.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "by default?" What I'm saying is that the audio is unique between the two speakers when you play back a song on Youtube in normal quality. Just go to Youtube and look up Revolution by the Beatles or some other old stereo recording whrere their technique is obvious (in Revolution the drums are only on the left channel). If you put on headphones it's pretty obvious. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a video that proves that normal quality videos are in stereo. Use headphones for maximum effect; note the guitar is quite clearly mapped to the left. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRr5nwXUYhU Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the video link given here is Tab Hunter- Young Love (Original), and sure enough, the sound is in stereo with normal quality. This is linked to something that was mentioned on the talk page a while back, which is the fmt=34 and fmt=35 system.[7] The stream info of the Tab Hunter video is:

Video Format  : AVC Format/Info  : Advanced Video Codec Format profile  : [email protected] Format settings, CABAC  : Yes Format settings, ReFrames  : 3 frames Muxing mode  : Container [email protected] Duration  : 2mn 16s Bit rate  : 87.2 Kbps Width  : 640 pixels Height  : 480 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 4/3 Frame rate  : 30.007 fps Resolution  : 24 bits Colorimetry  : 4:2:0 Scan type  : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.009

Audio Format  : AAC Format/Info  : Advanced Audio Codec Format version  : Version 4 Format profile  : LC Format settings, SBR  : No Duration  : 2mn 16s Bit rate  : 62.1 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Channel positions  : L R Sampling rate  : 22.05 KHz Resolution  : 16 bits

This uses H.264/MPEG-4 AVC for the video and AAC for the audio, so it is not a traditional YouTube video, which uses H.263 video and MP3 audio. YouTube has been experimenting with this format recently, and it is interesting that the Tab Hunter song was uploaded on 4 Feb 2009, which makes it very new. Most of the older YouTube videos do not seem to have this option available. There are some original research problems here, since YouTube has not announced a formal launch for this type of video, and there is very little about it in the tech blogs either. The article now needs some updating, but it would be difficult to give a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of community research on these new formats (eg on ViDEOHelp.com forum), could these maybe be a suitable source? I am specifically referring to this post and those immediately surrounding it. It has a very good example of what formats uploading a video currently produces, and theories on which ones are the default videos shown. --vickas54 24.78.49.4 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that blogs, tech forums etc are not usually accepted as a reliable source. YouTube has been experimenting with a range of AVC/AAC formats for several months, but has not announced a launch. Sources like CNET are OK, but individual tech forum posts are likely to have too many original research issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should rewrite this section to integrate the "widescreen and HD videos" in to it, instead of having a seperate section about HD. I tried to do it myself but wasn't sure how to put it whilst maintaining sources. Smurfy 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In recent months I've read of various entertainers, politicians, professors, organizations, the pope, and others establishing "YouTube channels". Is every YouTube user account a "YouTube channel"? Or are "channels" different from ordinary user accounts? I thought I'd find the answer to that question in this article. I just went through and found every occurrence of the word "channel" in this article, and found no attempt to address this question. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who has a user account on YouTube has a channel, and the address is www.youtube.com/your_user_name. For example, Barack Obama is at http://www.youtube.com/barackobama . Some channel pages are ornate, while others (such as mine at http://www.youtube.com/ianmacm ) use the default template. The article tries to avoid reading like a manual for YouTube, as YouTube has its own Help Center at [8].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

.....OK, I've added the above information to the article in an early paraagraph. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that settings on accounts can vary: I submitted a comment on a musician's youtube channel and was told that my comment would appear on the page only after being approved. Some time later it did appear. Would I be right in surmising that the person who needs to approve it is the owner of the channel? Or could it be someone working for youtube instead? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on a YouTube video usually appear immediately, but this is not without its risks. It is depressing but fairly common to find offensive comments underneath a video. It is possible to pre-screen comments or turn off the feature altogether [9]. This is another of those issues from the YouTube Help Center that is not in the article due to WP:NOTHOWTO issues. See also YouTube Comment Snob.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to comments on a channel, not to comments on a video. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if youtube allow children create accounts?Elmopedia89 (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube's terms of service (2.3) at [10] say "You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with YouTube, or (b) you are a person who is either barred or otherwise legally prohibited from receiving or using the Services under the laws of the country in which you are resident or from which you access or use the Services." This is rather complicated legalese, but in many cases it means that a person under 18 years old cannot have a YouTube account. People who have tried to sign up for a YouTube account with a date of birth of less than 18 have apparently been turned down. Like everything else on YouTube, the rule seems to be disregarded regularly, since there are plenty of teenagers with accounts. This is not in the article, partly because it is a WP:NOTHOWTO issue, and partly because the laws in different countries would make it hard to give general advice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to put what Version of Flash Youtube currently uses; is it 7, 8, 9, or 10? (Unless you just need 7 as a minimum). It could really be helpful to know if Youtube uses the superior Flash 10 or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FstrthnU (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard quality and fmt6 high quality YouTube videos are H.263 encoded and should play even on older versions of Adobe Flash Player. Some of the newer videos, such as fmt18, 720px high definition and fmt34, use H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, which is available only on Flash 9 or higher since August 2007.[11] Providing that a computer has an up-to-date Flash plug-in, it should play all of the videos on YouTube. The version of Flash Player on the computer is not the deciding factor in the image quality.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be interesting to note that the many of the flash program version problems are happening mainly to videos with copyright issues. Some have theorized that this may be one of youtube's methods of enforcing copyright on its users, however this has yet to be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.217.35 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some formats that are not yet in the table. fmt=34 and fmt=35 are in High Quality. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.245.172 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fmt34 and fmt35 are not mentioned in the article at the moment because they are experimental and do not work for all videos. There has also been a sourcing issue, because blogs and tech forums are not considered to be a reliable source. It will be interesting to see if YouTube announces an official launch of fmt34 and fmt35, and if it does, it will definitely go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What's with the green?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.134.151 (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is for Saint Patrick's Day. Google has a special page today as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. I though they have changed the colour for new purpose. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There was some similar head scratching when YouTube changed the logo for Earth Day last April (here in the talk page archives, and here for the Earth Day logo).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that there has been heavy criticism of Youtube Partners by many Youtube users because of their extra benefits and ability to receive ad revenue (not to mention being featured on the main page and most viewed page constantly), should be add this to the criticism section? Nite Owl II 06:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There would need to be some sourcing here in order to establish notability. Some YouTube users have complained that partner videos are given preferential treatment. This could be added to Criticism of YouTube if there was proper sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that we have heard the last of this story, but at the moment it is a breaking news item and affects only people in the UK. Wikipedia is not a primary news source, so to avoid WP:RECENTISM it may be necessary to wait to see how things develop. For example, will UK viewers no longer be able to watch Avril Lavigne - Girlfriend, which is the all-time most viewed video on YouTube, with around 117 million views?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can see it right now, although - since its on Avril's record label's channel - I wouldn't be surprised if we're unable to see it in the next day or two. (To quote the article - Videos will begin to be blocked from 1800 GMT with the majority of them made inaccessible over the next two days.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

youtube site have not blocked music videos to UK users i tested it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.179.191 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. 24 hours on, it is still not clear if and when UK music videos will be blocked. Avril Lavigne - Girlfriend is one to watch, since it is licensed to Sony BMG, which is involved in the dispute.[13] If anyone watches a music video in the UK and gets an error message, please mention it here. At the time of writing, Girlfriend is still up and running.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the past hour, Avril Lavigne - Girlfriend has gone offline in the UK and now produces the message "This video is not available in your country" (see here for a screenshot). This is undoubtedly worth mentioning in the article, since it is a major development. This is a bizarre situation that places the UK alongside Turkey and Bangladesh as a country where YouTube cannot be accessed fully. Or can it? Fans of Avril Lavigne (and other pop musicians) can use a YouTube proxy server, of which there are many on the Internet. It will be interesting to see how long this dispute lasts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, almost two weeks on and no news about when this dispute will end. I've just tried to watch some (legitimate, and even UK-based) music videos and most of them are coming up with the "not available in your country" error message. Pretty much all the illegitimate videos are still working, which seems totally stupid to me. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)