It's a common idea that entertainment has become more democratized with user-generated content dominating more of our attention in everything from blogs to videos to computer games.
YouTube presents a problem along with its opportunity: no gatekeeper function, resulting in bad videos. With no way to filter what content is good and bad, fewer people will use the service as a form of browsing entertainment. (I know it's most useful to my peers when we need to deliver a newly-made presentation to a group without transporting hardware.)
The Onion's reporting on this is very funny.
So they're stepping up with a little gatekeeping; or at least a way to steer users to making and viewing better content. This is what I've noticed so far:
YouTube Project: Report
In partnership with the Pulitzer Center, the project asks users to submit content that tells a 5-min documentary-style story. It's a contest "intended for non-professional, aspiring journalists to tell stories that might not otherwise be told." The winners were decided in Dec and now these videos are being promoted on the homepage.
YouTube Project: Direct
In partnership with the Sundance Film Festival 2009, the project asks users to submit short 5-min films incorporating 3 famous props. With a grandprize of a trip to Sundance and a screening of your film there, YT is pushing users to SUBMIT better content. Also by asking users to vote on the 10 selected finalists, YT is helping viewers to find better content to WATCH (and serving some artistic purpose, drawing some attention to young filmmakers.)
YouTube Symphony Orchestra
If you're a musician, you download your part of the custom-written song, and practice, and record and upload yourself playing it. And you can view other people playing their parts to see how you measure up. They then select winners to go play in Carnegie Hall. This is also interesting for what it means for the arts; a new way to find artists, an online-based community for musicians to connect and collaborate, etc.
What do we think? Will efforts like this increase YouTube's use for entertainment purposes, rather than simply looking up music videos? I took a few minutes and watched the Project:Direct finalist short films. Some were ok...
Posts
7 months ago
2 comments:
Your post isn't really about gatekeepers, but here are a few observations.
1. The last thing YouTube needs are gatekeepers. This is the beauty of YouTube; it's a complete meritocracy.
Alan Wolk wrote a fabulous post about this.
"For years, gatekeepers determined what we read and, more importantly, what we didn’t read...The editor was supposed to have a higher level of taste and to be an expert in predicting both the audience’s desires and enhancing the publication’s status."
"Web 2.0, with its free and easy self-publishing techniques (everything from YouTube to Google Blogger) changed all that in a way whose effects are still being processed. We eliminated the gatekeepers. And allowed a whole new array of voices to rise to the top."
2. When I check you YouTube, the first thing I might go to are the top videos of the day. The number of views or 5-star ratings is my Gatekeeper. YouTube's lack of "editor with higher tastes" does not result in "bad videos." There are just more voices, and YouTube doesn't do a great job helping you find the good content (buzz word for this: collaborative filtering).
3. I'd also consider reading "The Long Tail." You'll be a gate-keeper genius by the end of the book.
Hey Matt, thanks for reading and for the comment.
I do think this is about gatekeepers, though, or perhaps a new function of an administrator as a modified gatekeeper in some genres of entertainment.
I understand and appreciate the value of Web 2.0. It is surely a good thing that all people can now freely publish sound recordings, movies, photos, and writing without a discriminating editor suppressing what we aren't allowed to view, hear, and read.
This does not, however, antiquate the role of gatekeeper. People like to be guided in their entertainment choices; their time is a valuable commodity. There is too much music and film out there for the average person to sort through and find something that fits his taste. (We accept this role in art/entertainment where money is at stake, in galleries, museums, movie theaters, dance companies, but I think it's still an important role in at-home "free" entertainment if you want satisfied users.)
Even the meritocracy of YouTube is less than satisfactory because a high number of views, star ratings, or "videos being watched right now" that appear at the very top of the screen that you suggest, does not imply a high quality product or content that I (or any average viewer) will be the least bit interested in. (I tested this theory; generated videos included "elevator drunk dial" "top 5 favorite nintendo ds games" and "so hot & wondergirls: last farewell performance." All losers in my book.)
I like the idea of some other guide, and I think it is necessary to improve YT's ability to provide reliable entertainment. (Does anyone go there just to poke around? No, you go to look up something specific or if your friend sends you a recommended link, or a video made by someone you know.)
This patriarchal editor figure of the past that Alan Wolk paints is different than what is the valuable role of a gatekeeper today. Wolk's editor controlled availability of content completely. The gatekeeper function that might be desirable for YouTube is one that better sorts and recommends content, or encourages production of certain types of focused content, such as the journalist story-telling or young director contests they're currently administering.
No one wants gatekeepers to restrict content available, but we do want someone to sort it out for us, and show us where the quality is most likely to be found.
I remember reading your post about power laws and the long tail - how the economy might be changing to sell less of more -- it's interesting. And I do need a good book... Thanks, Matt.
Post a Comment