Talk:YouTube/Archive 1

message: This doesn't affect the article but is it only Americans who pronounce "tube" as "too-b"? I pronounce it almost like "t-you-b". The fact that the name was meant to sound like "You too" didn't initially occur to me. --59.167.110.86 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O a fot it was meant as in idiot aswell haha is it only scots tht use tube as a slagging:O didnae no tht either lol
Tube isnt just american slang for tv, more like outdated slang for those days when tv's had big tubes. Do Americans really pronounce it toob? Never heard that tube means contemptible person so it is even less likely that the US founders had any idea about that one but the tube/tv connection sounds absolutely right regardless of how tube is pronounced, SqueakBox 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation and Meaning 

message: I fail to understand how companies like this and google video sustain themselves.  That much bandwidth and server space can't be cheap...
::Here's an article I read that talks about how Youtube is losing money. The article basically says that Youtube is only going to survive if they 1) get bought out by a lrage company (which the author thinks is unlikely, seeing how all the major web companies are already planning their own video services) or 2) go public (which still might not work.) 
::Here's the full text of the aricle, (the graphs are missing, sorry I couldn't copy them):
Will YouTube last past 2008? 
As wildly popular as the video sharing site may be, YouTube's sinking like the Titanic (too soon?) into a big pile of VC debt. TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington runs a rumor that YouTube took another $25 million, more than tripling its total funding. Some quick Excel-ing yields the following. 
YouTube's venture capital (measured here in millions of dollars) is increasing exponentially. Now what can be done? Answers after the jump. 
First off, they could just blow all the money at their current rumored burn rate (oh no, that phrase is usable again?) of $1 million a month. Say they have $5 million left from the last two funds, for a total pot of $30 million. That'd bankrupt them by November 2008, just in time to miss homemade bootlegs of the Hillary Clinton concession speech. Just for fun, I graphed that out too. 
Oh boy, graphing is fun! 
But costs will rise as YouTube becomes more popular, until it completely saturates the lip-synching and performing-on-SNL market. Given these costs, YouTube's VC feeding frenzy will need to grow by magnitude. Will we see an exponential curve that suddenly plateaus? I couldn't make Excel do that, so imagine it. In your brain. 
YouTube faces two exit strategies: 
Go public. With enough ad revenue, YouTube could eventually turn a profit. The $25 million would buy it time to get in the red and IPO by late 2008. But IPOs are still rare in the new boom, and with total investments of over $35 million, YouTube needs to act fast or hit an impressive market cap from the start. 
Get sold. Not much of an option. Google has its own video setup. News Corp. has too many movie, music, and TV properties to buy a piracy-ridden site like YouTube. Microsoft just doesn't need the technology. The only hope may be Yahoo, where YouTube could complement Flickr and make Yahoo a stronger portal. And changing the title to "YahooTube" won't even raise anyone's eyebrows.
:: Next time, you might as well at least link to the article too.   - Bennity 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why not just put tv style video ads in front of the videos, or a single frame for quick loading "This video brought to you by, Burger King" JayKeaton 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, iFilm does sometimes place short ads in front of the videos. If they can do it, YouTube can too. They need the money badly... -- M (speak/spoken) 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the business model? 

message: "Advertisements were launched on the site only in March of 2006, indicating that the company did not have a source of revenue since its founding in February of 2005"
Though this may be true, I fail to see how the advertisements indicate precisely this. Reads like a non sequitur to me. FAL 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisements/revenue 

message: For instance, a phenomenon of male users has surfaced wherein extremely tight underwear is worn and the subject masturbates through the fabric, thus not actually revealing genitals.
I've never heard of this before. Can anyone provide a source for this? JSIN 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable? 

message: ALL YOUR VIDEO ARE BELONG TO US. 
This is all there is on the page now
203.69.15.23 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at it now it says that it hasnt been hacked and that you need to get a sense of humor =P PrettyMuchBryce 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See the "View" tab on the top of your browser? Click it. Do you see the "page source" or the "source" option? Yes, congradulations, you have found the source code. Observation 06:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question about the "retarded message," but a terrible way to say it. My friend in web-design speculated that it's a way to advertise, and that site hits will increase in the next couple of days. I personally thought the message was kind of offensive to YouTube's viewers. (YouTube clearly doesn't follow Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith rule). Also, I don't think the site maintenance actually happened at midnight, but even earlier at 10:30 pm or 11:00 pm PST. - Zepheus 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It has been hacked, right? 

message: I was looking around the site itself and this article and noticed that it doesn't mention the purpose of those individuals with the title of "Director". I'm curious as to what that means (i.e. is it a donator status on YouTube? A janitorial title? etc.) and since it seems prominent enough, I could see it warranting some explanation here in the Wiki but I suppose that may be subject to a number of things in regard to usefulness overall. 71.156.82.162 07:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in other words, it's a relatively pointless title imposed for show? Interesting. 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More along the lines to give Vloggers a 'cool' name.--Bschott 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User hierarchy explanation 

message: I'm not sure this section about a single news report has much value. The news source it has used is an alarmist, sensational and populist TV station in the UK. Are there any good sources to back this up? --Oldak Quill 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the second biggest television channel in the UK, but you liberals love to sneer don't you? There aren't going to be any liberal sources because liberal outlets all think it is uncool to be bothered by violence. Choalbaton 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are liberals usually the ones promoting peace? 69.40.252.136 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was horrible! lol JayKeaton 01:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence 

message: Just curious why her own article doesn't exist--she's been cited by both the New York Times and the Guardian in England. I tried (unsuccesfully) to find the previous AfD, could someone give me the link? rootology 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because no one has made her a pageor believes that she is notable? I am a director on YouTube and was mentioned in the regional paper and interviewed on the three local TV channels about YouTube but do not have a page (or want one). Quite honestly the line has to be drawn somewhere or nearly anyone would be listed on Wiki, making it pointless. Wiki shouldn't be about giving pages to every person that has 15 minutes of fame.--Bschott 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NORNNA 

message: What happened to the worst rated section on the site? 69.40.247.149 17:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Rated 

message: I have removed this section as there is no scandal on YouTube's part.  Someone posted the video to YT but had YT not been around it would have most likely been posted to Google video.  A scandal, by definition, is: Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace. 
Where is YouTube's immoral or grossly improper behavior in this? None that I can see. The system worked as intended where anyone can post a video and it will be hosted on their servers. They didn't post the video to their own servers nor did they 'feature' the clip.  Yes it hit the 'most discussed' and 'most viewed' list for one day but how is that YouTube's fault?  That is completely the "users of YouTube"'s fault. This is a NPOV addition and Soapboxing. --Bschott 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, no one is saying it's YouTube's fault like they were complicit in whatever lawbreaking or slander or whatever has occured, but obviously DCI chose YouTube to be the unwitting pawn of this marketing ploy, and it landed YouTube smack in the middle of the Wall Street Journal story on this whole scandal, so it's a notable moment in YouTube history even though no one is saying YouTube did anything wrong!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is suggestive that they are, and only one article from one newspaper does not make it notable. Lonelygirl15 only has 1 mention from the New York Times, yet her page is going to be removed in an AFD discussion.  If that page was put on AFD, it would more than likely be deleted as well.  The way the article was worded before I edited it was suggestive that YouTube was involved, and the history of the article can show that.  Be happy it wasn't put up for AFD. --Bschott 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it up for deletion if you want to put it up for deletion... whatever it is you're trying to imply by your tone is not going to keep me up at night, the news is already out there in front of the people whether it gets knocked off this website... //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article only has one verifiable source but it still lacks major notability. One news article from one major news source does not make this notable and I am not the only editor on Wiki that may stumble accross it...but I am too tired and apathetic at this point to care what happens to the article as long as the implied suggestion that YouTube was some how tied to this is removed and stays off that article --Bschott 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCI Group-YouTube video scandal 

message: Why is Video Format listed under "Criticisms and Controversies"? All of the major streaming video providers (Myspace videos, Google video) use it. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed that.  I think it was moved there by accident in all the editing --Bschott 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Format 

message: I removed the following from the controversies section
===Video Format ===
The file format used by YouTube is Flash Video, or *.flv.
There is no explanation as to why this is controversial. Possibily something to do with it not being an open format? I know that on some platforms the latest version of Flash Player has not been released (Linux, WM). If this is the case, feel free to readd the subsection with more information and sources. --Darksun 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was there either because it was originally used as part of the 'illegal/downloading' section or it was moved there accidentally.  The only thing I could think of is perhaps to re-add it somewhere else in the article, though it really isn't needed since YouTube provides a player to watch the videos with.--Brian (How am I doing?) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to note that you can in fact watch youtube videos using the Linux version of flashplugin.  I have done this.  (My personal opinion is that this is not good enough, as flashplugin is proprietary.  But that probably puts me in an extremist-viewpoint category.) –Andyluciano 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed video format from controversies 

message: The file format used by YouTube is Flash Video, or *.flv.
There is no explanation as to why this is controversial. Possibily something to do with it not being an open format? I know that on some platforms the latest version of Flash Player has not been released (Linux, WM). If this is the case, feel free to readd the subsection with more information and sources. --Darksun 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was there either because it was originally used as part of the 'illegal/downloading' section or it was moved there accidentally.  The only thing I could think of is perhaps to re-add it somewhere else in the article, though it really isn't needed since YouTube provides a player to watch the videos with.--Brian (How am I doing?) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to note that you can in fact watch youtube videos using the Linux version of flashplugin.  I have done this.  (My personal opinion is that this is not good enough, as flashplugin is proprietary.  But that probably puts me in an extremist-viewpoint category.) –Andyluciano 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Format 

message: Hey I am trying to get on the site and NOTHING! I reackon it has been hacked, like the last times where just trys, loads of people were saying it. 
Also someone has put on the front page JAMES LIKES BIG BLACK COCKS. someone might wanna get that sorted out
byeJimmy93211 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Apparently you weren't the only one calling: "UPDATE 3: Please stop calling the office, we're trying to work in here." (from the source). -- Woseph 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HACKED???? 

message: Please read this boing boing article. . Once a non-blogish type news outlet writes about and verifies this, I think it should be added to the controversies section.--Shinto 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it's a connection as they are not providing email addresses to Plaxo, just using a 'widget' from them...and Plaxo has cleaned up their act in the past few months.  Only the extremely paranoid (not calling Shinto paranoid here) have really continuted to beat on Plaxo since their company policy review. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a total non-story to me. Remy B 11:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube / Plaxo connection 

message: i've noticed lately that it is taking longer than usual for videos to get posted.
earlier this summer i'd watch jon stewart and twenty minutes later 10 posts from the same episode would be up there. But now it takes nearly a week. is there new software or what is going on?
:I had the same problem. I uploaded something the other day and it didn't show up in the searches until 5 days later. I wasn't sure if it was working and deleted it 3 days later and uploaded it again. Now its been showing the old video with the "User has removed this video" notice on top and now I have to wait another 5 days for the new one to show up again. It never used to be like that. All I can assume is that the high volume of uploads is causing the huge back logs in updates to the search system or something. Could be a problem or the norm now there and maybe should be mentioned on the main article PantheraLeo 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, fellow editors, this is not a forum to talk about YouTube but rather the article on YouTube. I would probably direct you to 'YouTubeTalk..com' if you wanted to discuss this backlog/upload time issue. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  slower uploads lately? 

message: I think it's time that someone adds info about the big trailer videos shown on the main youtube page. These are without doubt advertisment deals, they started in august. There is also a concept of branded channel (Paris Hilton, for one)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.145.86 (talk • contribs) 
This was deleted by User:Remy_B for being too much of a reference to "Revver", without addressing what may or may not be a viable profit center for the site.
A rough estimate of the current revenue may be extrapolated from income generated on Revver by the Diet Coke Mentos eruption video by Fritz Grobe and Stephen Voltz. They estimated 5.5 million views from Revver and US$30,000 in shared revenue starting in June 2006.Green, Heather.  "Whose Video Is It, Anyway? ".  BusinessWeek'.  August 7, 2006. This video was also widely viewed at YouTube and other sites, generating no revenue for Grobe and Voltz. Unlike Revver, YouTube currently does not insert any other video content in the clips. Revver places clickable ads at the end of videos. Thus the YouTube ad revenue may solely be dependent upon clicks outside the video content. Also, YouTube videos are often shared on other web sites with only a link to the video and no other YouTube ads presented. At 100 million videos watched per day following the Revver model, YouTube could make well over US$1 million in daily revenue, thus turning a profit.
''
There should be some way of stating that they are either making money or losing money. Revver does place clickable advertising clips in the videos, YouTube does not (yet). The question not answered in the Revenue paragraph is "Are they making money?" Since no one has been forthcoming, you have to make some guesses. Otherwise the "Steal at one billion" purchase price seems like sheer lunacy.
:The trick is to see whether or not it is a legitimate estimate (ie. from a reputable source) or just someone making their own sort of research (which is not acceptable in Wikipedia). If there is no publically available reputable sources on the revenue of YouTube then it should be left alone... everything else is speculation and doesnt belong here. Remy B 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue Model 

message: :As such, YouTube maintains the practice of deleting individual videos and entire user accounts without warning or reason, despite content or guideline violation.
That's obviously not true. YouTube only deletes accounts that are violate their EULA. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. Accounts are deleted without warning or announcement as to why. If there are reasons, they exist only in secrecy without making them publicly known. No attempts are ever made to justify content with the user, for example allowing contributors to provide documentation which proves ownership. I'm not even talking about blocking individual videos, but entire accounts without provocation or communication. I understand if the deleted line from the article was worded poorly, but I would invite someone to word it more suitably to clarify the point. —scarecroe 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add that you are going to need a source that meets the standards of WP:V. Without one it can't be added even if true. --My old username 00:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted content 

message: Why the information about spin-off sites were deleted from the main article? Ramsquire 21:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because those spin-off sites arent very notable. The mere fact alone that spin-off sites were created isnt necessarily interesting enough to be mentioned in the article. Remy B 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know ... 

message: appearently youtube suspended the user morbeck because he had a video with a pierced lemon that siloutted at first looked like a pierced nipple. Dunno if this is talk worth and if not then please delete this for me --XMajinx 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That weird, some videos get taken down if they are found on other websites, others can get taken down for reasons i do not know about :D Duff12 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was kicked off for posting videos that have to do with the WWE.  They weren't overly long clips or anything.  Copyrighting is a big thing with them.  Vince McMahon and the WWE hates YouTube and Vince McMahon has been wanting to take them down for sometime now.  Mr. C.C. 05:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube Personal Censorship: Morbeck's Suspension 

message: In the fact box, it states that YouTube has 60 employees. In the critizisms and controversies, it states that there are only 50 employees.
Bobguy89 19:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed both to 60 with a source. —Mets501 (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Data 

message: I just went to YouTube for the 1st time in a week and its new. The videos aren't loading on my computer for some reason. Anyone know why or is this my problem? --66.218.18.237 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Site 

message: YouTube has also placed the fact in front of all the parents out there fretting over the moral's of their children that their sons and daughters really aspire to be porn stars and strippers, a point proven by Tubehos.com.  This sentence is doing my head in.  What is it trying to say, exactly?  --ozzmosis 09:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he is trying to say that Youtube promotes or enables people who want to be porn stars or strippers online. It doesn't matter since the sentence is commentary and non-encylopedic and has been removed. Gdo01 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: Considering YouTube is relatively new on the scene (February 2005), it is highly doubtful it can claim any Influence on an idea that was around before it's inception.
I know back in 2004, I was starting up my video site.
So, unless somebody can at least provide a source saying that YouTube has influenced ANYTHING, I suggest that section be deleted completely.
--Jon Ivy 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100 million views a day isnt influential enough? If you want specifics, the lonelygirl15 thing was all over the mainstream news. Remy B 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence Section