I wish folks would put a description when posting video clips

[captain queeg]

I would really prefer to read my news. I’d like to know if it’s worth my time to watch some video. But my preference is to read. Guess I’m old school.

[empedocles]

1. Me too

[Orrex]

2. I've been saying that for years and years and years

The answer has generally been something like "if you don't want to watch, don't click on it."

Well, how do I know if I want to watch it if I can't see what it is until I've clicked?


A little courtesy would go a long way.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. You are not alone.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. To get out of the house, I went down to the library on Saturday.

I read paper copies of The Wall Street Journal. and the Washington Post.

I know where you're coming from.

-- -- -- -- -- --

If the clips are from YouTube, there's a block of descriptive information beneath the clip. I include that when I post a video clip.

[comradebillyboy]

5. Amen Brother...

[lagomorph777]

6. Me too. Also blind links to who knows what. And random posts on Twit.

[marble falls]

10. The obscure title with only a tweet link or a nonsequitor body of one quasi-sentence is the only ...

... stupid thing on DU and I don't know how DU can fix it.

[zuul]

17. And they usually have a thread title of something like

"You have to see this!" with no description at all.

No, I don't have to see that, especially if the OP can't be bothered to give at list of hint of what's at the link.

[lagomorph777]

28. "This!1!"

Yup.

[William Seger]

42. I vote for banning "This" posts

Copying and pasting something someone else said with just "This" as the title is about as lazy as you can get, and it's especially annoying when the implicit promise of something extraordinary is very rarely kept.

[lagomorph777]

43. You've got my vote!

[hlthe2b]

7. + 1,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

ditto for those who post link only "stories"

When did this refusal to excerpt a short summary or provide at least some description of the video or story become the norm? Granted there is a lot more serious going on in the world to focus on, but it is STILL infuriating.

Come on DUers. We can all do better.

[Wicked Blue]

35. +100 nt

[MuseRider]

8. Same.

I am in a room most of the time with others, I hate to watch videos when others who are always annoyed by it are around.

I also prefer to read. I listen to podcasts when not at my computer but come here to read.

We really do need to read, lots of reading is good for our brains.

[Indykatie]

9. Many of the Video Clips Have Exciting Tags But Don't Measure Up Once You Look at the Video n/t

[marble falls]

11. The videos that claim a clip that's about a minute long in a ball of commentary ...

... the Brian Cohen pieces show the clip first and the comment (and really well), Egberto Willies does a pretty good job, too.

But the rest, especially the super annoying Pakman Show, are aggravating. And misleading.

[Orrex]

34. Number Four Will Drop Your Jaw!

[SWBTATTReg]

12. I agree! Bait clicks is all they seem to be looking for (get paid or compensated somehow for

those hitting their links/etc.)...it's only common courtesy to do so, provide a heads up on what's to come, in the old days, prior to tying up one's computer etc. w/ garbage/etc. videos which were time consuming, one would debate whether it was worth running. Thus, if there is no description or something pretty similar, I don't click on it anymore. It's not worth it, and you'll eventually find out what they (the poorly edited videos) eventually from other sources that one is more inclined to get into.

[Nay]

13. I would rather read as well. It's much faster. I don't ever watch videos that have no

description of what the video is about.

[mopinko]

14. i'd settle for the source of the clip.

there are a lot of shows that i am not interested in. but you have to at least click the link sometimes just to see where it's from.

[Bev54]

15. I agree, I bypass most of the videos if no explanation

Don't have the time to watch and listen to everything. If the explanation provides info I am interested in and gives the time stamp of where the most interesting bit is, I will often watch it.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

16. I'm exactly the same way and agree 100% (nt)

[pwb]

18. It tricks us into watching Fox News crap.

They watch so we don't have to bullshit. They are getting the right wing message to us in disguise. Like did you see what fox said? No I didn't because I don't want to hear or see it. Your right.

[Arazi]

19. I never open them. Same with blind links. Whoever posts those, you're wasting your time

[iemanja]

20. Agreed. And I don't watch the clips.

[Swede]

21. I hate when on a news site, the video of the story keeps popping up over the text,

with no way to close it.

[LeftInTX]

22. The bane of my existance!

[tblue37]

41. +a brazillion! nt

[FakeNoose]

23. I just skip them

Like you Captain Queeg, I prefer to read the news story.

After I've read the story maybe I'll be interested in a video clip, but probably not. I'm willing to google something if I want to do further research.

The video with missing description and no story attached, I take a hard pass.

[NewHendoLib]

24. DU being DU, various quibbles such as this,

careless spellings, 2 word posts, so much twitter, "watch XX now", etc

Still, I love this site.

[TNNurse]

25. Yes, when I go to a newspaper site and they post a video.

It is a newspaper, I want to read not watch a video.

[Scottie Mom]

26. Me, too. I'm hearing impaired and videos with audio are barriers for me.

Few have cc, so I am left out from watching and hearing.

[ChazInAz]

37. Precisely.

I can sort of hear, but not well. Everything I choose to watch has closed captions enabled. Too many videos have poor sound quality or mush-mouthed presenters and are useless to me. Even Rachel Maddow and Farron Cousins, who are very good speakers, have captions turned on.

[tblue37]

40. Same here.

[johnp3907]

27. A lot of people here seem to love rage porn videos.

So I always think “If I click on that am I going to see right wing nut jobs saying and doing things that infuriate me?” Lots of people seem to relish that sort of thing - it’s like a fetish.

[lagomorph777]

31. I think you're right.

Definitely not my cup of tea.

[wryter2000]

29. I hate the misleading titles

Things like "Trump loses his mind on TV," that turns out to be some commentator talking about Trump being an idiot. There might be video of Trump in there somewhere, but I'm not hanging around to see it.

I do appreciate the guy who shows the clip first, but I don't watch his, either.

[Whiskeytide]

30. I saw a video earlier about how much better ...

… it is to read than watch a video, but I can't remember where I saw it.

[CaptainTruth]

32. Agreed. I won't click on a video with no description.

[Ford_Prefect]

33. Sadly "phoning it in" appears to have new meaning. A few clues would help indeed.

Scrolling through video with often dubious and ignorant commentators who pitch to the 3rd grade audience is not my idea of information. News anchors who don't seem to know the background of their topic do not impress me either.

I'm old enough that breaking news was printed above the fold on the early or late edition, and real journalists did not survive an egregious headline so they didn't use them. I like to read the text more than once to make sure I read it right. Context is at least as important as the facts of the event.

[TxGuitar]

36. I wish videos came with transcripts

I can read and ingest the information a lot faster than when someone is saying the same words. A fault of mine, no doubt, but I can't listen to podcasts or audio books, I get completely distracted and would have to rewind constantly.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. I've always found 2 groups of recordings on the internet, audio or video.

There's the ones with useful captions, tags or descriptions and the others, which I ignore.

[tblue37]

39. As a deafie it would mean the world to me, too.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

44. Yeah. I can read the story faster than a video will plod through it.

[Captain Stern]

45. Maybe v/o (video only) in the title, like we put n/t in the title?