top of page
Other Factors
Pro's and Con's
Problems with Youtube
Francine Harvey

This new algorithm of Youtube from Fig. 9, could result in a decline of talented independent animators because of the large amount of time needed to make them. People are making animatics over animations now, which are simpler, lesser quality cartoons, just so they can match the frequency expectency.

Top Comments
Started in 2012,
YouTube has changed it's algorithm of rewarding YouTube channels with a large number of views with a larger presence on the platform, to rewarding channels with the most number of minutes watched and high frequency of uploads. This will change the content we see on YouTube, as users like animators who need to take time to make high quality videos will struggle to be seen on the website and will no longer be the place for them.
Google
Fig 9. (Support.google.com, 2016)
YouTube

(Amidi, 2014) quoting YouTube in his article about animators finding it harder to make money, "We now reward videos that have more watch time. This is a better reflection of the value of the content rather than how many times it was seen.

Suggested videos are ranked by watch time.

Value is not dependent on the individual video. It also depends on the viewing session from the video."

This algorithm shows that YouTube are chosing quantity over quality which contradicts what they say about viewers benefiting from enjoyable content being suggested to them.

(Amidi, 2014) gives an example,"Simon’s Cat, one of the most successful YouTube channels operated by an independent animator, has uploaded around 70 minutes of content in six years", (Simon's Cat, n.d,) "Each film can take 10-14 weeks to make", in short durations. This means Simon's Cat doesn't work with the algorithm. Luckily as Simon's Cat started off before the algorithm was put in place, it has built up a large fan base so doesn't have to worry about breaking through.

 

This could be solved by using the Patreon website which allow fans to donate money and in return the Youtuber will rewarding them in some way, so "YouTubers'" budgets will increase and work so they have the potential of sustaining themselves.

Francine Harvey
(RubberNinja, 2014)
bottom of page