Question for the community: Do you like the recent trend to video posts only on DU without the written word.

[surfered]

[Coexist]

1. not really because I usually have to listen to commentary before I get to the part I want to watch

[Greybnk48]

2. No. I prefer to read about things rather than watch a video.

Other people are here and I don't like to blare a video and disturb others.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. No, if it's something worthwhile, tell us what it is.

[Jerry2144]

54. Exactly

Most videos waste too much time to get to what's important. Lots of filler or fluff. Give us a transcription so we can read what's important

[stopdiggin]

69. Yeah. If it isn't worth 20 seconds of YOUR time - to give me a heads up

Explain why it should be worth MY time ....

You're just spamming my inbox. And there are some posters that this is virtually ALL that they do ..
'Clip-World!'

[Mister Ed]

152. Aye. Video may be valuable, but please, please provide a brief summary of the contents. n/t

[k55f5r]

4. No.

I won't click on a link without (at least) a description of its content.

[Trueblue1968]

117. No no no no no no no no .........i never look at videos. Wont play good on my tabley.

I wish video s were only placed in a video thread and not here.

[Ocelot II]

5. No, not at all, but at least they're flagged with a red square

so I know not to bother with them.

[Kittycatkat]

30. Thank you, I didn't know about that.

[LiberalFighter]

151. I did not know about meaning of the red flag. Ty

[enough]

6. No. I rarely watch them.

[RandomNumbers]

7. Not at all, but I'm not sure how recent it is.

That has been going on here for awhile.

Similarly for people to re-post from Xitter without any commentary. Or especially in the case of a news headline, they could EASILY find a reputable and non-paywalled article to post, instead of feeding Musk's click machine.

[Joinfortmill]

8. Either way, I'm good.

[malaise]

82. Ditto

Rec

[sanatanadharma]

9. I learn nothing unless someone else watches and comments

I don't watch and damn few comment.
Total waste of bandwidth.
Reading is faster and can be more concise, wit links to more info.
If the video info is important, it will appear in printed word. I can wait.

[ProfessorGAC]

91. Speaking Of That

As a substitute teacher, some districts require certain kerning modules. Yearly, bi-yearly, every 5 years, and so on.
The system they all use REQUIRES watching the presentation with the voice over. There is no option to just read it, and take the quiz. (Certainly no option to skip it altogether and jump to the quiz.)
I don't need it read to me, and the narrator almost never says more than what is on the screen.
Turns 5 minutes of information into a 23-25 minute waste of time. I could do 4 modules in the time it takes one.
Annoys me to no end.

[Susan Calvin]

122. Amen. nt

[tinrobot]

10. No. Videos are time consuming

Reading is way faster because I can skip to the relevant info fairly quickly.

[Diamond_Dog]

55. My opinion exactly.

Sometimes what you want to hear about isn’t until after 5 minutes of yakking. Reading is much faster.

I also don’t want to blare a video here with others around.

[LizBeth]

11. No it bothers me. I want to read a little to see if interested and I hate being taken

to twitter to see the video and always get out as soon as that happens. I would like a warning won't play but will take me to twitter.

[Timewas]

12. Not in the least

Never watch or listen to them. Actually trash a good portion of them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. NO!!

There should be a short synopsis of what the video is about.

[rurallib]

14. No, I don't have 10 minutes+ to watch a video for a few seconds

of the content I want. Write a description or tell us where the relevant material is in the video.

[mercuryblues]

15. No.

I have hidden a few users because they post videos without a brief description.

I figure if it isn't important enough for them to do the bare minimum, it's not important enough to waste my time to watch it.

[IL Dem]

16. No.

And people who do it repeatedly get put on my ignore list.

[Alpeduez21]

17. No. No I do not

If I see a post that only contains a video or just a link to a video or someplace else with no test I’m out

[dchill]

18. I'd at least like to know why it was notable.

[fargone]

19. Just no

[surfered]

20. I don't either. I can't listen to it in public places or I'll annoy anyone in earshot.

Hope the powers that be will see this post and the response.

[Kaleva]

21. I skip over them

[lamp_shade]

22. Nope... and I skip right by them.

[Autumn]

24. No. If it's just a video and no context and I accidently clicked on it, I exit.

It's just a small group that post videos with no context and I avoid their posts

[Charlie Chapulin]

25. No. I do not like them.

Thanks for asking.

[gopiscrap]

26. absolutely not

[Kittycatkat]

27. Hate it. I skip them. I find it very annoying.

[DavidDvorkin]

28. No

I almost never watch videos.

[flor-de-jasmim]

29. No.

[NewHendoLib]

31. No. I hate it. I avoid them all.

[SCantiGOP]

32. Absolutely NO

I have just started skipping all the videos. I’m not going to watch somebody drone on for 15 minutes just to see the embedded 20
second video that I was interested in.

[dobleremolque]

33. No. n/t

[Gimble]

34. I don't like it

If the poster wants me to spend my time watching a video, they should be willing to take the time to write a few sentences about the video so I can decide if it interests me or not.

No description, no watch.

[Daigan]

35. No

Frequently the videos rehash events that are two or three days old and they take five or ten minutes to restate the obvious.

[area51]

171. Welcome to DU.

[frogstar0]

36. They suck! And I seldom click on them.

I hate the click bait headlines and if the do not have a at least a few sentences explaining what they are talking about I move on.

[overleft]

37. NO!!!

[happy feet]

38. No

I prefer posting with a quick summary of the point of the video to determine whether I want to spend time listening, especially for long videos. I do appreciate those who give you a hint of where you can forward to to hear the main msg.

[Golden Raisin]

39. No.

[rockbluff botanist]

40. I hate them

Most are a waste of time. Click bait. Mostly never open them.

[montanacowboy]

41. No

And no

[Alsteen]

42. Video Posts

No. I much prefer reading.

[pandr32]

43. No.

I often am in a situation where I have no sound on and cannot watch videos except in silence, and of course that is often useless. The other problem I find is that the videos sometimes only play at a second site. I don't like to open another site.

[central scrutinizer]

44. "But first...". Arrggh!

Too often I’ve been suckered by a sensational title or picture, then the narrator repeats the sensational headline followed by “but first…” and I know I’ve fallen for it again. Click bait.

[virgdem]

45. NO

[Sane1]

46. No, I don't.

Like some of the commentors I just want a brief synopsis in text form and not a 20 minute video.

[flvegan]

47. It depends. Does the OP

Somehow explain what I'll be clicking? Example: "Kamala's speech at..." with nothing but a video link? Fine.

Does it have some bullshit clickbait headline like "OMG YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS!!1!" with nothing but a video link to some obviously monetized account? No. I assume that poster is little more than a rec-chasing troll. Especially if the video link is Twitter/X, cuz yeah, thanks for giving nazi shitbag Elon another couple validity clicks just so you can chase clout.

[stopdiggin]

72. thank you for pointing to the 'monitized' aspect here

too much of this is simple 'promotion' - for some 'content provider' - that I (and an army of others) have absolutely no interest in subsidizing.

[WhiteTara]

94. you said that much better than me.

That stuff annoys me so much, I have blocked that kind of poster.

[ms liberty]

48. Mostly no.

[ananda]

49. No, I hate it.

I'd like some text describing what's in it first.

[FarPoint]

50. Nope..m

I prefer discussion....

[karynnj]

51. No especially when the op is linking to their own stuff

[Mme. Defarge]

52. Non!

Absolument pas.

[brush]

53. Hate it. How lazy can you get? Just a couple of graphs pls to let us know...

if it's worth our time to go to the link.

[marble falls]

56. I hate 80% of the videos, period. But written comment would help.

[dslyahoo]

57. No

No. No. No. no.

[KPN]

58. Nope.

I'd rather they appeared in their own separate section as they did in the previous DU forma (or at least that's how they appeared on my screen). I rarely watch them.

[Faux pas]

59. No

I don't want listen to or watch any videos, especially if the link is going to take me off of DU.

[arkielib]

60. I do not!

When I am reading DU posts I am rarely where I want, or can, listen to a video. I just skip video only posts. Some look interesting though. I would read a transcript or summary if there was one.

[Srkdqltr]

61. The clips never live up to the title. I pass red squares and most blue ones too.

[Retrograde]

62. NO! I find it lazy and rude

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2024, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Lazy, because the poster can't be bothered to write a precis of what the clip is about. Rude, because people who read on their phones don't like to be blasted with sudden blaring noises - especially when they're in a public place and others get to share in the experience.

[Nictuku]

63. No! It changes the algorithyms

If you watch a video (that you don't like), don't worry, you will get more of them now because you watched it.

At least that is how I perceive the way that youtube serves up videos to me. I watch one about horses, next thing I know there are tons of horse videos. It is kind of creepy, but when it comes to clicking on videos you know nothing about, is it worth it to click and watch?

The other thing is someone posted the video because they found something interesting about it. If they could just post the text about that, and then if I want to see more, I will click on the video. To click on it just to see if you can figure out why the op person posted it (and then, what, 10,20 or more minutes later) you still can't figure it out. You will never get that time back.

Just my two cents!

[Firestorm49]

64. No. There are enough articles to read between all of the

categories, much less watching videos that go on and on. I don’t watch videos.

[moonscape]

65. No!

[Eugene]

66. Outside of the media forums, I tend to avoid red-flag video posts.

Full disclosure: I do post to the video (or video-welcoming) forums
(Cable News Clips, Liberal YouTubers, Music Appreciation).
I try to include a basic text description for context.

I also sometimes add a video link as a visual aid to a text-based article.

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. I would prefer videos be restricted to video forums, not in GD

One of my pet peeves since the site was updated is that if you want to post a video in a video forum, it takes several additional clicks (and you have to know where to click), so the majority of folks just post videos in GD, cluttering up the feed there compared to before the update.

[intheflow]

68. It drives me nuts.

Most of the titles are clickbait, and not having any context to what I’m in store for in a 25 minute clip beyond the click bait title usually leaves me having to watch 20 minutes of talking heads before they get to anything relating to the title.

OTOH, shout out of appreciation to the folks who post a short one or two sentence synopsis. And especially the folks who give video timestamps to the relevant info.

[allegorical oracle]

70. Keep my audio off, mostly, and prefer to read stuff. nt

[Littlered]

71. No,

Not even a little. I particularly dislike like them when they are cleverly disguised as discussions.

[johnp3907]

73. No. Automatically trashed.

But then, this is me anytime someone sends/posts a video for me.


🤣

[catrose]

74. No, but at least the red squares warn me

There’s just not as much to read, so I go elsewhere. I get impatient with videos.

[BlueInPhilly]

75. No

And while we’re on topic, I don’t like the multiple posts about the same topic either, especially in LBN. Before, the dups were locked almost immediately.

[SheltieLover]

76. No.

[SalviaBlue]

77. No. I don't watch without some kind of summary.

[Emile]

78. Doesn't bother me.

[louslobbs]

79. No

nope

[jbond56]

80. no. i ignore the poster.

[SCantiGOP]

81. No

At least we have the red squares so I know to avoid those posts. Don’t want 15 minutes of some puffed-up pundit just to see 20 seconds of actual content.

[Lulu KC]

83. No

I am a much faster reader than I am a watcher, even with speed of video doubled most of the time. I will not waste my time.

[Niagara]

84. With DU's redesign there is now a red box to the right in the title if it contains a video, to inform the reader

that there is indeed a video posted in the OP.


We recently had a DU'er that attempted to complain about videos, not once but twice, and EarlG shut it down both times.


My recommendation is to avoid OP's with a red box in the title.

[surfered]

86. Thanks, that's what I've been doing.

[Susan Calvin]

124. But the red box does not tell you whether or not a synopsis has been supplied. nt

[Niagara]

128. I haven't seen any of these posts

There's always a potential chance of no descriptions or exaggerated over the top title descriptions with a red square. It just comes with the territory.


I recommended to the OP to avoid the OP's with the red box. Problem solved.

[Susan Calvin]

158. Sometimes they are actually something I want to see,

And sometimes they do include a synopsis so that I can determine that.

However, I do as a general rule avoid the red boxes and the blue boxes. Which doesn't tend to leave much.

[Croney]

85. No. It's nice since I blocked a couple of video-heavy forums.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. No. I Think A Summary Would Be Appropriate

Obviously, the OP knows what it says because I doubt folks are posting videos they haven't watched.

[Bev54]

88. Absolutely NO, nor do I like the recent increase in tweets from X. A few is ok but it seems

that is all some people are doing is mining twitter for posts.

[Polly Hennessey]

89. Never watch or listen to them. So happy we now have

the red square video alert.

One exception, catbytes animal videos.

[mcar]

90. Hate it

Several years ago, people made the reasonable request to copy and post the verbiage along with a Twitter or other social media post.

Like I said, reasonable and easy.

A brief description of the attached video would be common courtesy. I won't click on those links.

[WhiteTara]

92. No, and the other thing that I find disturbing is when

someone creates their own title for the post and then adds no personal content, just the video or tweet. I have always thought we posted the title from the original content and then added our personal thoughts in the body of the post. But I've been around so long that the old posting etiquette rules no longer apply. I've blocked some posters because I'm not as interested in their personal take as I am in the information.

I also find links to a tweet without the contents being posted (so that we don't give muskrat any more clicks) annoying as well.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

93. No.

[NBachers]

95. NO. 18 minutes or more of blathering to cover what could be written in a sentence or two in the non-existent description

Also, titles that say every word leading up to the content, but leave the content off so you have to click to even find out what it's about.

Media now HATES Trump after he

There's space to write why media now HATES trump, but you have to click to see what could be included in the title.

Quit wasting my time

[Beartracks]

143. You won't believe #3!

[dlk]

96. I like the written commentary

I don't always view videos without it.

[ZonkerHarris]

97. I trash most of them right away without watching. People looking for clicks. Take the time to give

your fellow members a summary of content.
Everyone cant watch videos
Many are at work or in public when scrolling here.

[PJMcK]

98. No

They’re lazy posts because there’s no context or explanation.

If a poster thinks it’s important enough to share, I’d appreciate some details, please.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

99. No

My time is entirely too valuable to waste on clickbait bs videos that are full of garbage information, debunked news, and absolutely legally inept analysis, especially when it's one titled "X person is DEVASTATED in latest legal filing" and it's 20minute video of opinion and grade school level legal analysis that's heavily dependent on cherry picked sentences from legally irrelevant rulings, only for it all to be about a boring, run of a mill, absolutely routine filing.

99% of these content creators don't know wtf they are talking about, are parroting repeated analysis from MSM, or filling the video with nice sounding fluff just for the monetization.

Pass on all that.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

100. No.

[SharonAnn]

101. NO! I skip them because I don't have time to watch.

I can read much faster than listening or watching.

Maybe I’m missing a lot but I’m not going to change.

[CincyDem]

102. Nope.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

103. My answer

[lakeguy]

104. No

[Silent Type]

105. Prefer to read. And most videos have misleading headlines. But I like that DU has a red box to indicate video.

[orthoclad]

163. Text has high information density,

A few seconds of reading conveys more than 10 minutes of googletube blather.

[Silent Type]

164. Agree completely. Plus, lots of videos have ads, or it's some podcaster that takes 10 minutes

to make a point. Thus, prefer text with a link.

[orthoclad]

165. Yeah. "Hi I'm x, here to tell you about y, but first let me tell you..."

Life's too short.

[Ocelot II]

106. I make an exception for the animal videos. I love them.

Maybe there should be a special colored square for them, like green.

[Conjuay]

107. That's a nope.

[chia]

108. I skip all the red square titles. I'd rather read than listen to talking heads.

[Cirsium]

109. No

It is awful. Plus, it promotes and finances the right wing.

[ravjav]

110. No. nr

[diane in sf]

111. I'd rather read, video is too slow and some are massively tedious.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

112. Can't stand it. I usually ignore those posts.

[Scrivener7]

113. There are two new posters who prolifically provide posts that are a twitter link and a smiley.

At first I clicked to see what the tweets said, but 9 times out of 10, they were not-very-amusing memes or statements of something obvious. I've blocked both posters. Sometimes, half a page is blank because I'm not seeing just those two posters.

With respect to videos, I find Rhiannon to be the best. She always gives a blurb saying what the video is about. I ignore most videos, but I often watch hers.

[moonscape]

126. And the proliferation of

those posts quickly bury substantive, thought-out commentary, questions, input, etc.

[Susan Calvin]

159. Tell me.

Once you've avoided the red boxes and the blue boxes there's not much left.

[Raven123]

114. Nope

[Deuxcents]

115. I like to pick my videos..I have a couple of favorites and am glad they are shared

The animal videos are always a delight but if it goes on n on, I turn to something else. The commentaries from Ukraine are sometimes long but I’m interested, just the same. I’m glad to have the choice

[Scrivener7]

134. Well... true. Tblue37 and catbyte videos are always welcome. And the Ukraine

videos tend to have a good written synopsis in the post.

[CrispyQ]

116. Why can't we put AI to work creating transcripts of every video instead of making pictures of fake birds? -nt

[Delmette2.0]

118. No.

I will exit the post with rec or comment

[northoftheborder]

119. NO!

[rockyland]

120. Keep the written overview

No

[Susan Calvin]

121. No I do not.

As soon as I realize it's one of those, I hit the back button.

[Xavier Breath]

123. I believe it's fair to say that we've reached a consensus.

And that would be a 'no' from me, too.

[EarnestPutz]

127. My thoughts exactly. No from me too.

[mucholderthandirt]

125. No, I don't like drop and run. Tell me details, give me context. Same for social media posts and MSM articles.

Why waste my time with stuff I have no idea about why I'd even consider looking at it. Especially articles that end up being behind a paywall, or a site I won't click on.

And, isn't this against the rules?

[surfered]

129. Thank you everyone ❤️

[SheltieLover]

130. No & I especially detest those with click bait titles & no written information.

[HUAJIAO]

131. NO ¡!!!!!!!!!!

[Cha]

132. No TY

[h2ebits]

133. No. Thanks for asking.

[Mossfern]

135. With the exception of ***Randy Rainbow *** videos

I prefer a synopsis.
I don't always have the time to watch a long video and, as others have mentioned, there may be others in the room who don't care to hear it.

[JohnnyLib2]

136. No.

[Doodles]

137. Video posts--no!

I usually skip those!

[birdographer]

138. No

I don't watch the videos, I quit since the OP doesn't typically at least give a summary of the key points, or something like that. If the red square is there, I scroll on past. Don't even look at the right side of the home page. I prefer to read posts rather than having some stranger yammer on. (However, on Instagram I watch Trae Crowder any time I see one of his posts, so there's that.)

[Blue Dawn]

139. No.

I find them annoying.

[marked50]

140. No

[Zoomie1986]

141. Not a video fan

The volume is often wonky, and most of the time the content simply isn't all that interesting. Takes longer to get through it than to read a transcript, although a written summation is even better.

[FullySupportDems]

142. No, I can't always watch them at the time

Sometimes I can't play the video where I'm at, or I'm listening to music on my phone, and I don't necessarily remember to watch them later.

[DBoon]

144. NO

If the poster doesn't want to go through the effort of summarizing the video, I won't go through the effort of watching it

[philly_bob]

145. No. I just skip them./nt

[JoseBalow]

146. Cancer

[WarGamer]

147. some people are paid to post links to YT videos online

Because content creators make $$ from clicks.

IMHO, DU has several paid link posters.

[chillfactor]

148. I skip video only posts

Being hard of hearing they are a waste of my time.

[vishnura]

149. Videos

Place them in their own group. We readers hardly ever open them

[yonder]

150. Looks like the nays have it, including myself.

And a BIG thanks to EarlG and Elad for adding the red and blue filtering symbols in our newest DU.

[Picaro]

153. No

[Hekate]

154. No. Posting on the internet is a quiet activity for me as I share space with my work at home hubby

Occasionally at night I visit You Tube for audio, as one might watch TV.

Please, DUers, tell us what the post is about in your own words and don’t subject us to many minutes of someone else’s editorializing. If you tell me it’s Joe or Kamala saying something important — that’s what I want. If you tell me upfront it’s TYT I’ll expect that (and skip it) . On the other hand, every time I see Beau of the 5th Column I know exactly what that is and if I have a moment to myself I can choose to listen.

[Basso8vb]

155. No

[EastBayGuy]

156. NO!!! For us hearing impaired it can be a nightmare when there's no CC

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

167. Yep, I'm there myself

[bullimiami]

157. No.

[Mz Pip]

160. I don't open them

unless there’s some commentary on what they are about.

“This is amazing!” isn’t enough, though.

[Tree Lady]

161. No

I like to know what something is about first.

[orthoclad]

162. Video posts are a waste of my time,

very low signal-to-noise ratio.

If the OP can't trouble to type or copy a few lines, I can't be bothered with googletube.

Occasionally a video might be appropriate, but without text to describe it, I'm not wasting time or bandwidth.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

166. No, often videos are not captioned, and without a summary from the poster, I'm not clicking to find out

I have to have captions for the Deaf.

[Raine]

168. NO, absolutely not. I never look at them! nt

[JustAnotherGen]

169. No

Now that there is red box next to those threads, I just delete to keep my feed clean.

[FoxNewsSucks]

170. no.

[Martin Eden]

172. No, for 2 reasons:

1. It's often a waste of my time.

2. I often read DU while watching TV with my wife. To hear the video I have to raise the volume. My wife doesn't like that, and the dogs bark because they think a stranger just entered the room.