And I resent not being able to do that in real life. I was in a store, realized pitas were probably in multiple places in the store (gourmet section, organic, ethnic, bakery)…and my first reaction was “Well, I can ctrl-F and search!”.
Oh, and I often get to a section and want to sort by price.
Agree. I don’t want to watch a two hour video that analyzes a 90 minute movie.
Agreed. I just opened an email purporting to be the end of term administrative message from my dean, but it was just a sentence and a video link, which I didn’t watch.
I endorse this pitting and agree with most of what’s been said in the thread. However, I feel obligated to point out…
There have been plenty of people who prefer to get their news from video (i.e. TV) than text (i.e. newspapers) since long before the internet.
And CNN, like many other news sources, was originally a TV station whose job was, and still is, producing news reports in video form.
Impossible to skim a video, plus you usually have to sit through an ad or two first.
Relevant Onion link (yes, it’s a video, but it’s short and funny):
There are some forms of information for which a video is genuinely the best way to convey that information. For instance, if your content consists of “Check out this great new song”, or a comedy routine. And sometimes video can enhance information: For instance, my favorite channel, Numberphile, usually includes diagrams, often dynamic ones, that really help get the point across.
But that’s not most information. Most of the time, video adds nothing at all. And sometimes, while the video adds something, it’s an add, not a replacement. If a politician says some horrible thing, for instance, I want the first line of the article to be “Senator Filibuster is being widely criticized for saying ‘All purple people should be fed to lions’”, followed by a blockquote with the surrounding sentences, and only then the video showing him saying it (and after that, the official responses from the American Lion-Tamer Society and the Association Against Defamation of Purple People). There, the video does add something: It provides evidence of what Sen. Filibuster actually said, and maybe gives insight in things like tone of voice, but I just want to know what he said, first.
But even reputable news sources are starting to run headlines like “Senator Filibuster Runs Afoul of ASPCA for Horrid Remarks", but when you click on it, there’s NO clue as to what he said.
You have to decide to sit through a 4-min. video or, what I’ve been doing, google “Filibuster comment [last 24 hrs]”.
I don’t know how many dopers run into this with video but in my job (web development) 90% of my job-related web searches are me looking for code tutorials or snippets. And almost everything I search comes back with several video examples. Sometimes almost exclusively video, or all of the results created within the past 5 years are video results.
Man, all I’m here to do is copy a snippet of code and put it into my project and read some of your text so I know how to manipulate it for my needs. I am NOT going to be searching through your video for the part that actually has what I want and pausing so I can see the code and writing it into my project by hand.
It’s not a copyright/IP issue. The ultimate goal of the video tutorial is for the viewer to copy the project. How or why they sit through a video to get the code is a mystery to me.
People who post blogs with explanations and full code are gods among men. People who post video coding tutorials are just in it for the views.
I do get the feeling that monetization is way easier for videos over text. AFAIK there really isn’t a good way to monetize your text articles. If you slap a video up on YT and check the “monetize” box you’re off to the races. It also seems like younger folks are leaning towards wanting yo watch videos over reading text so the video makers aren’t complaining. I know that in the web dev subreddits I follow most of the posts are from someone who’s been “watching a lot of videos and ready to do a portfolio.” So complaining about video is making me feel old!
I endorse this 1000%. I also skip anything with a video link.
You can change the speed of a YouTube video, and I sometimes do. I’m guessing that’s not possible with work/school videos that y’all are condemned to watch.
If it’s only a matter of length, they can put the blather at the END of the video like Fabulessly Frugal Cathy does (watch a couple of her videos and you will be compelled to get an air fryer – she is adorable).
Aside on Cathy: I was bothered in the beginning by her cutesy spelling of a real word, but I like her so much now that I forgive her. And for me that’s a huge bunch of liking in order to forgive. She’s a Mormon mother of eight kids and started out as one of those obsessive couponers to save money and help get her and hubby out of debt. Now she has a small empire going, and good for her!
I don’t begrudge YouTube performers doing what they need to do for ad money. This is a means of livelihood for many of them and more power to them!
Carry on.
I agree with basically everyone here.
I read fast. I typically read a couple of novels a week. (Kindle Unlimited is amazing for this; I can download thousands of free books at my leisure.) I probably read 10 times faster than most people talk and 20-30 times faster than a person speaking SLOWLY … AND … DELIBERATELY … in a video. Especially an instructional one. Just give me something to read, especially if I can copy and paste the relevant parts into my own notes.
I am an IT professional and I am 95% self-taught, almost all through reading then doing. I have problems with instruction-led training too because instructors are too slow. It was a problem in school and it’s a problem as a professional. I also very, very rarely look up a solution on YouTube. Just let me read it, show me pictures if a visual aid is needed.
I will propose this theory… Many people prefer having things shown to them on video. They don’t like to read. The Venn Diagram between those people and people who spend time on the SDMB will have very little overlap.
Not always, but there are extensions available for Chrome (and I assume other browsers, at least if you’re using a computer as opposed to a phone or tablet) that allow you to adjust video speed in many cases. I use Video Speed Controller, and it is wonderful to be able to adjust the speed on Amazon Prime videos, Facebook videos, etc.
Absolute whole-hearted support for this pitting. I am sick of the post-literacy trend. It’s bad enough there are people (including my sup!) who seem to think those who read for enjoyment are some sort of freak, but when I have to spend at least 5x as long for the same info (and that’s IF I’m in a situation where video would not be wildly inappropriate and disruptive) and chew up rationed bandwidth to do so, that’s really obnoxious.
As for work “training” videos, I recall one we had to endure. Everyone watching at their own desk (this is a call center, mind you) and sups FORCED us to have sound on to hear the EXACT text that was being displayed in captioning. Utter cacophony, since the sound was NOT playing through the viewer’s phone headset, but through the PC speaker (so add poor sound quality and no two people near each other in the same spot in the video at the same time). Again, this is a call center, with some enduring the video and some trying to take actual calls.
Seconding.
(Except it’s not the middle of nowhere. It’s the center of the world. Just like everyplace else on the planet – )
Try video-only instructions for setting up a piece of tractor equipment sometime.
I managed, eventually. But I was not happy.
Hello everyone! My username is Acierocolotl, and I am also buying a ticket to ride this train. In full disclosure, I was tempted to disagree with the pitting just to be contrarian, but my hatred of videos is thorough.
I am currently in a position where I must teach a new course next term, and I wish to be familiar with what the current prof is teaching and his manner of teaching it. While we do make videos because of perfectly-reasonable plague concerns, I also provide a lot of explanatory text. He… does not, just highly stylized, rather vapid powerpoint decks.
So I’m weeks behind on videos and utterly unenthused.
I also endorse this pitting, and I would like to say to Lightnin,
If your lawyer can get you a jury of Dopers, I’m sure you’ll be cleared of all charges.
One more endorsement of this rant and for all the reasons mentioned above.
Imo video is for entertainment or for something that can only be shared visually. Information should be written.
I purely do hate news articles that are only available on video. It’s tiresome and it’s even more tiresome when you have crap rural internet.
I watch doggy videos when I need the smiles, but getting news via vids? Nah.
I once had a kitchen drawer that was jammed, and the video was actually useful! The sliding mechanism is different on each side of the drawer, and it was so helpful to just see it, I could unstick my drawer almost without any explanation at all.
But the blathery ones drive me batty.
I agree with this pitting. The drift toward presenting news as video on the web is irritating as hell. I consume my news online as text, full stop.
I just want to add one factual note, and one personal exception to the “video sucks!” generalization.
The factual note:
It’s not just an aesthetic thing. It comes from the desire to attract and retain traffic by serving enjoyable and “sticky” content. There was an argument a few years ago that “video is the future!” so lots of media organizations made a hard pivot.
As it turns out, the argument was nonsense, based largely on fraudulent data generated by Facebook in an attempt to drive interest in their own video platform.
Facebook spent a couple of years pimping its video services as a sticky traffic driver, other orgs saw this and said “if Facebook is doing it, it must be right,” and you can predict the rest. Now the pivot is done and everyone knows it was a dumb thing to do, but they’re also committed and can’t admit failure. It’s kind of hilarious as an example of desperate media-ignorant MBAs chasing spreadsheet-based trends without actually knowing what they’re doing.
Okay. So, now my personal exception:
I really, really enjoy the “expert rates the realism of [common movie scene]” videos, when they’re well done. They’re not “news” videos, strictly speaking, but it’s still in the category of information delivery, so I think it’s worth discussing.
I especially like the series done by “Insider” — they get interesting experts, the videos are just the right length (usually 17-20 minutes), the clips are well chosen, and so on. Say, you watch a veteran military sniper, or a forensic pathologist, or a financial-crime prosecutor with a specialty in money laundering, looking at movie and TV scenes where the characters do those things, and then the expert tells us what they got right and wrong. Some of the entries are duds, but at their best, they’re genuinely entertaining and educational.
More to the point, I think the best entries are superior to a text-only alternative, where the movie scene would just be mentioned or described and then the expert would write a paragraph or two analyzing what happened. Here, you actually see the movie clip play out, with the expert free to pause playback to point to a specific visual element. It’s also a good balance between watching an interesting personality having an emotional reaction to something, and then having that same interesting personality deliver factual information about their field of expertise, in comparison to the Hollywood version. It just makes a really nifty package that wouldn’t work as well in text.
Here’s one of my favorites, looking at scenes where Secret Service agents are guarding the President or adjacent VIPs.
The expert, a retired agent with years of real world experience, absolutely radiates competence and confident knowledge, and pulls no punches as she alternatively skewers the failures and compliments the few that do well.
This is, however, the rare exception of how to use the video format correctly. Most web video doesn’t come close to this. Which is why I sign on, broadly, to the pitting. It’s just not an absolute prohibition, though, is all I’m saying.