Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Probably because most of us come to forums like this one for discussion. Not to be click-baited into sitting through someone’s video exposition.
The video is short and excellent.
OP posted an off-site link with a useless title, and nothing else. No explanation. No synopsis. No point of view. Just an off-site link with a title that tries to bait us into spending our time bolstering their view count for them. That alone is enough to disqualify it as an excellent post in a text forum. If he had written something thoughtful here, them maybe it could have been a valuable post.
I feel exactly this way. Its like give me something on this platform to look at or discuss and sure provide a source link and if Im interested enough I may go to it but link and nothing else. nuts to that.
Seems I’ve invited the wrath of the community. Still learning the etiquette. Regret asking the question as I appear to have really miffed some people. It’s a shame. I left Reddit because of the nastiness of the comments. Mostly here it has been so much better.
Perhaps not everyone uses the platform the same way you do? If someone provides a link to an explanation of a complex topic I think that can sometimes be valuable. You seem to have a very black and white view of how the platform is to be used.
Perhaps not everyone uses the platform the same way you do?
Obviously not, as we can see by the fact that OP uses it to promote their youtube content, but that’s irrelevant. You asked why all the comments in response are asking why, and I took a moment to explain. Whether or not you like the answer is up to you. Good day.
It’s really not hard to please both camps. Lemmy is different from Reddit in that you can provide a text body even for link posts, and the etiquette is to use it to provide a short summary.
In this case, give the top few reasons WINE 10 is interesting, and perhaps provide a link to the changelog. Then if I want to watch a video I can, or if I can’t but can read an article/changelog, I can do that instead, and maybe I’ll come back to the video later if I’d like more explanation.
But just posting a YouTube video with a clickbait title feels like the rest of the internet that I’m trying to avoid by coming here, and I consider it rude.
Perhaps not everyone uses the platform the same way you do?
What I meant was that you can see an exact number of the people thatuse the platform one way or the other (enjoy youtube link posts vs those who don’t enjoy them) in the likes and dislikes (on the original post).
Calculating the ratio is as simple as dividing one number by the other … but it is a bit more useful to divide one of the votes against the total number of people who voted.
You can further normalize the results as percentages.
Currently there are 23 upvotes and 26 downvotes. That results in:
Upvote Percentage: ~47%
Downvote Percentage: ~53%
(and I challange you to do the math yourself because I am too lazy to type it out)
The point is - this percentages (or the ratio of likes to dislikes) represent the groups of people you talk about. Why are you saying “perhaps not everyone …” when you can see that about half of the people are enjoying the content and half don’t.
(I know the numbers are not perfectly correlated to the attributes we discuss, due to bots, irrational votes etc. but they are good enough to get an approximation)
Thanks for responding. I figured that’s what the ratio would represent, but my client only shows the net score, no ratio. Maybe I need to play around with other clients.
I barely ever used Twitter and deleted my account when Musk started his shenanigans, so I’m not really sure about how Twitter works in that regard. Anyway, I get the basic concept. Just can’t access the data.
Probably because most of us come to forums like this one for discussion. Not to be click-baited into sitting through someone’s video exposition.
OP posted an off-site link with a useless title, and nothing else. No explanation. No synopsis. No point of view. Just an off-site link with a title that tries to bait us into spending our time bolstering their view count for them. That alone is enough to disqualify it as an excellent post in a text forum. If he had written something thoughtful here, them maybe it could have been a valuable post.
I feel exactly this way. Its like give me something on this platform to look at or discuss and sure provide a source link and if Im interested enough I may go to it but link and nothing else. nuts to that.
And to a few communities at once
Yeah I’m not a fan of that.
Seems I’ve invited the wrath of the community. Still learning the etiquette. Regret asking the question as I appear to have really miffed some people. It’s a shame. I left Reddit because of the nastiness of the comments. Mostly here it has been so much better.
Perhaps not everyone uses the platform the same way you do? If someone provides a link to an explanation of a complex topic I think that can sometimes be valuable. You seem to have a very black and white view of how the platform is to be used.
Obviously not, as we can see by the fact that OP uses it to promote their youtube content, but that’s irrelevant. You asked why all the comments in response are asking why, and I took a moment to explain. Whether or not you like the answer is up to you. Good day.
It’s really not hard to please both camps. Lemmy is different from Reddit in that you can provide a text body even for link posts, and the etiquette is to use it to provide a short summary.
In this case, give the top few reasons WINE 10 is interesting, and perhaps provide a link to the changelog. Then if I want to watch a video I can, or if I can’t but can read an article/changelog, I can do that instead, and maybe I’ll come back to the video later if I’d like more explanation.
But just posting a YouTube video with a clickbait title feels like the rest of the internet that I’m trying to avoid by coming here, and I consider it rude.
You can see the ratio … in the ratio.
Hmm, my client doesn’t seem to show a ratio. Using Connect. Where would one usually find that kind of information?
Not sure if troll, but I’ll explain just in case.
You wrote:
What I meant was that you can see an exact number of the people thatuse the platform one way or the other (enjoy youtube link posts vs those who don’t enjoy them) in the likes and dislikes (on the original post).
Calculating the ratio is as simple as dividing one number by the other … but it is a bit more useful to divide one of the votes against the total number of people who voted. You can further normalize the results as percentages.
Currently there are 23 upvotes and 26 downvotes. That results in:
(and I challange you to do the math yourself because I am too lazy to type it out)
The point is - this percentages (or the ratio of likes to dislikes) represent the groups of people you talk about. Why are you saying “perhaps not everyone …” when you can see that about half of the people are enjoying the content and half don’t.
(I know the numbers are not perfectly correlated to the attributes we discuss, due to bots, irrational votes etc. but they are good enough to get an approximation)
Further trivia about the term “ratio” in the context of social media platforms, especially twitter: https://reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/n25w8s/whats_the_deal_with_the_term_ratio_on_twitter/
The “why” comments in this thread are a similar kind of ratio concept as on twitter. Even though here we have likes and dislikes directly visible.
Thanks for responding. I figured that’s what the ratio would represent, but my client only shows the net score, no ratio. Maybe I need to play around with other clients. I barely ever used Twitter and deleted my account when Musk started his shenanigans, so I’m not really sure about how Twitter works in that regard. Anyway, I get the basic concept. Just can’t access the data.