On the Video Picker tool, you can’t click yes until you watched 20 seconds of the video. But IMO you shouldn’t be able to click yes until you watch the WHOLE video because some users wait 20 seconds without even watching the video, and then click yes, so crappy videos get published. My idea will help the site’s quality go up, and it will save loads of work for the Quality Guardians. Thoughts?
I love you. Fully support.
As the person who generally ends up patrolling all of these videos when they come up in Recent Changes, I would support anything that requires the contributor to review the video better. However, that being said, you can generally get a good feel of the video within the first minute or two, without actually watching the entire video…assuming that you are paying attention and know the video policies. I would support making users watch 60 or 120 seconds of the video…a person SHOULD know whether a video is good or not in the first few minutes, even if the video is 10 or 15 minutes long.
Good idea. I can see extending it from 20 seconds to something longer. Not the whole video, but even 30 seconds could make a big difference while still keeping the video picker usable. For those on RC patrol… what percentage of the bad videos are coming from video picker as opposed to people embedding them on the article itself w/o using video picker.
Maniac
5
@JackHerrick
- the video picker/addition tool is used for the majority of video additions to articles. Most of the people who manually import and embed the videos are either veteran contributors who are choosing quality videos to add, or commercial advertisers (although I haven’t seen too many of these recently). When I patrol videos I almost always end up deleting half (or more) of the new additions because they do not follow the video curation guidelines. Any thing that we can to do not only increase quality but also decrease the time our patrollers have to take to review and remove bad videos would help us at this point.
system
6
I’m about half yes/no on this. While there’s crappy videos everywhere, there are many contributors whom pull from different sites and create the articles solely around the video themselves. For these people, do they really need to be forced to sit and wait for them to buffer and go through the entire thing again? A very thorough, but straight to the point video, IMHO, is at least 5-7 minutes on average (an impromptu speech is 8 minutes).
I’ll vote on the 120 seconds, only to get a better feeling of the video - some videos out there have long introductions leading up to the “does this video assist/get the main point across?” question(s).
Some videos are 16 seconds long.
Those videos should not be uploaded to wikiHow regardless
Can a person really successfullylearn how to do something in completeness in that amount of time?
Maniac
11
Bumping this back up as I was going to create a new thread for it and realized this one isn’t that old. We really do not have full consensus in here, but it looks like almost everybody supports lengthening the mandatory “watch time” for videos. @Krystle
and @JackHerrick
, could we possibly create a formal vote for this, and/or add it to the engineering to-do list for the future? Also, I noticed that the Video Picker tool ( http://www.wikihow.com/Special:Videoadder
) doesn’t actually instruct users to WATCH the video in the instructions at the top, although it does mention it near the vote buttons. Can we have the instructions at the top modified to make sure users are aware of the Video Curation guidelines, and actually watch the video rather than choosing a random one? Thanks.
system
12
@maniac
Good suggestions! I’ve initiated the time change process, and I also edited the blurb at the top so it now looks like this:
I was thinking the same thing…
@Maniac
@Krystle
I think we actually already increased the video time from 20 seconds to 30 seconds. We did that a few weeks ago, I think. Is it working well? It might be buggy.
Maniac
16
Not sure… I do not do very much video adding, just video patrolling. With the patrol count being so high lately (solely because of outstanding videos) I was looking at the video adder tool to see what we might be able to change to minimize the number of bad videos that are uploaded, which brought me back to this thread. If I have time soon, which is probably unlikely lol, I will try to add a few videos and see how it is.
One of the ideas of minimizing bad videos is to let the user choose what type of article he wants to put video upon.For example if a guy likes educational articles then he can go to settings and click for educational articles and then review the suggested videos for these articles.This makes sure that we get quality because the user wants to enjoy the subject and would never go for a bad video.In other words its all quality.
OK. I’ve been looking into this problem more closely. I’m becoming convinced that having video picker videos run through RC in the first place is not the place we should quality control these videos. I’m going to work on making quality guardian the primary place we do quality control on videos. Already folks like @Genius_knight
are doing a great job removing videos in quality guardian that don’t fit our standards. With a few tweaks that tool can get even better and more efficient at removing poorly matching videos. And by removing video picker videos from RC patrol, it will free up patrollers to focus on the things they do best and enjoy the most. Stay tuned as we start making some tweaks to the features here.
