Why do YouTube comments suck so much compared to Flickr?
Posted on: April 18, 2008I've often heard jokes made about the lacking quality of YouTube's commenter "culture", and in the light of Flickr adding video, observations about this have only amplified. While I've never seen a formal study done comparing the civility of various Internet social sites, I'm doubtful the divide is as simple as the difference between still and moving pictures. Part of it likely has to do with demographics, and while this is an unfair generalization to a bright & precocious minority, younger participants lacking experience are more prone to emotional outbursts manifested through poor grammar.
Another part may have to do with the different approaches to participatory media: YouTube thrives on raunchy and crude comedy (while not allowing porn), while Flickr's (which does allow porn as long as the pictures are flagged correctly… and your "beautiful wife" should not be moving!) mainstay is largely simple nature and newborn babes — check popurls® daily for evidence.
Beyond these two often-cited sites, I've often been fond of Lifehacker's useful comments — I've only seen really crappy personal attacks a couple times, whereas some of its Gawker Media sister sites, like Kotaku, take on a more acidic tone. (Again, likely because productivity buffs are generally older and avid gamers are younger.) It's also fascinating to note the article-views-to-comments ratio amongst Gawker sites, in particular the NSFW Fleshbot's relative silence and sexy subtext of "doing more than talking".
I don't state these without giving plenty of a berth for exceptions, however.
And what about you? What do you think?
Related Posts
Be my friend!
Stay up-to-date
Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to me and be auto-updated when new stuff is out!
April 19th, 2008 at 1:47 AM PDT
I am not sure if age is the main difference. Blue Linden is fond of saying that TSL is often more civilized than SL. Rudeness / harshness is much more related to the strength of someone's convictions and the extremism of them.
Young people often have stronger convictions of the extremist kind (when you're 15 and a fan of Limp Bizkit you will say THAT THEY ARE GOD OK SO STFU ALRDY), but venture out into the murky world of politics and you'll find that older people will slander you, threaten you, mock you or simplty delete you if your views do not match theirs.
Strongly held and/or extremist views are something personal in such a way that disagreement is not just that; it is a personal attack.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:19 PM PDT
I don't think it's necessarily just age, I think Torley answered the question when he said it was demographics.
Many gamers use YouTube to show off their machinama or very boring gameplay. Most of the gamers in this category are not teens, they are 20-somethings. The gamers I found, when I played WoW, that were the most rude and obnoxious were 23yr old males. Extremely narrow demographic, but they would be the ones to write the bulk of rude posts or messages in WoW.
I am not saying that YouTube only has that narrow demographic but I believe that the comment issue is all about demographics and what the majority of videos are posted there in the first place.
@Laetizia you are right about politics. It's taboo subject for me with strangers. You never know if you're talking with a wacko or not.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:29 PM PDT
I personally think that it's just the way things just tend to be online. Online communications can, in some people, bring a side of them that they would keep hidden otherwise. (Unfortunnate, I know.)
Most people (on youtube, for example) tend to make a (in my opionion) strong or hurtful comment, which to me, only seems to be done solely on the fact that they are "protected" by a username. As a result, it tends to be like a warzone or a playground sometimes.
I could mention a few examples, but that's another story for another time. Just my two pence worth.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:39 PM PDT
I've come to enjoy the youtube comments, I just put my humor-hat on and enjoy the haphazard commentary. Some merely like to post something/anything, others want to get a rise out of people, and mixed in are brave attempts at seriousness alongside spam.
I see at least as much spammy commentary ("GOLD STAR Masterpiece!!! Join our group Digital Elbows!") on Flickr, if for nothing else than the fact that spam and otherwise disliked comments on youtube are thumbed down and eventually hidden from initial view.
Some would argue that group invitation comments aren't 'spammy' on Flickr, perhaps because it's generally complimentary rather than linking us to ad-laden $$ sites.
I (and apparently many others) generally browse youtube for *entertainment* (whether educational, comedic, or bizarre in content). If we see it based on how it's perceived/used, I think it makes more sense without needing to split up such a disparate group of users into well-defined categories.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:06 AM PDT
@Laetizia: I remember Blue saying this to me (he's full of sage observations), but I think it also depends on what environment (related to demographics) someone is in: teens are more likely to follow peers if they think they're "cool", even if that's for the "wrong" reasons. I've heard some tales about teen griefers who had carried over behavior from previous first-person shooters and didn't know it was inappropriate to shoot casual passerby in SL — they since went on to become productive creators after being shown what tools we can use to shape our virtual world. I loathe the nastiness that comes with political arguments. Much of it seems so petty, and whether it's a few curses or paragraphs of rambling sewage, words can't hide the nastiness of personal attacks.
@Kittenanne: I find it peculiar when people within a certain demographic act so alike (in terms of insults and such) that they sound like they could all be one person. Especially when the Internet offers many opportunities to express one's self, it's bizarre to see those clumps of crude homogenity.
@Jaymes: What you mention reminds me of David Pogue's http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/21pogue-email-2/ — in a way tho, I'm thankful when people show their "hidden" parts, whether they're nasty or nice. Personal attacks often reveal a lot more about the attacker's insecurity and woes than the person they're picking on. Anonymity can be used to empower those with worthwhile insights, but as we've all-too-often seen, is also coupled with cowardice.
@Flack: Sometimes I've wondered, "Are these people for real? Surely they can't be so ignorant!" re: really blunt, st00pid YouTube comments. But all around us, as sad as it is, I see people swindled by quackery and scams. There's usually not enough time to ascertain where some people are really coming from.
You have a really good point about Flickr spamy comments, I LOLed at that (for real).
November 14th, 2008 at 8:05 PM PST
It has mostly to do with content. It is like a museum vs. your friends couch during Sunday night football. You will be a bit more respectful at the mueseum because they put time and effort into it and that is the right way of acting. However, no one really cares at your friend's house so you can swear and be an ass. Flickr is more like the museum where people who are serious about pictures really go and it doesn't have the same content as a kitten running down the steps or a teen jumping over a wall. That content is just for quick enjoyment and will usually get really stupid comments in return because people don't want to really take time thinking about it and responding.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 AM PST
@ccsfan: But there are lots of bizarre and wacky photos on Flickr too, which end up on a lot of humor sites. What about those?