Talk:YouTube/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about YouTube. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Youtube seems to have just undergone some significant revision

For example the @xyz thing when you reply to a comment; the lack of the ability to rate a comment; and less significantly the look of the upload progress bar to a prettier more flashy blue scheme. Anything else? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube seems to tweak the interface on a regular basis. For example, a while back they added drop down boxes with small black triangles, which puzzled people who wondered where some of the features had gone. Unless there is independent coverage, changes of this kind are unlikely to be notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of views

Hello, has nobody noticed this?? http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/10/y000000000utube.html Founders announce that 1 billion views per day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.141.66 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The one billion figure is mentioned in the Company history section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}I Please provide URL of YouTube site below image box of YouTube. (k1.saurabh 10:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

The address of YouTube (www.youtube.com) and the list of localized domain names are given in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Search suggestion

What does it take for your name to become a search suggestion when you start to type it in? Because ever since the other day when I brought up the loading bar thing and the @ comment thing; my naem has been a suggestion. Start typing in 1danielchristensen; when you get to the 1dan it's there and by 1dani it's the only one. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen

Section suggestion

I think it would be great to have a section (or at least a small bit of information) about the user-posted comments on the site. They're generally considered to be of the worst quality on the internet as a whole, and I'm sure there are reliable sources that say this. 75.127.214.162 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many people would agree that the comments posted on YouTube videos are often rude, moronic or a combination of both. This problem is not unique to YouTube, and the site has various options including disabling comments altogether. This issue is mentioned in Criticism of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Name suggestion

My name is no longer suggeted; I don't know how that could be... Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Automatic captioning

YouTube introduces automatic captions for deaf viewers, BBC News, 20 November 2009. Is this worth mentioning? --86.147.211.32 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I also saw this in the news this week and wondered if it was worth mentioning. There are many features on the YouTube site (annotations etc) and it is not practical to mention all of them. This could be mentioned, what do other users think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Protocol information

Though this page is already very content-rich, I'm missing information on the way YouTube videos are streamed over the network to the viewer, perhaps depending on the user's platform (e.g. PC vs. iPhone). --193.190.10.145 (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Format comparison table

This fell by the wayside during the Good Article review process, and there were several reasons for this (see talk page archive here). It has not a single reference to a reliable source, and was too long per WP:NOT#STATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. It was OK when there were only a few formats on YouTube, but it is not practical to publish large scale original research in a Good Article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support adding chart: The chart is accurate from what I can tell. The "fmt" values, audio, video are correct, I don't know about the mobile. I say, that if the chart can be verified by other users, then it should stay. PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although the information can be verified with stream reading tools like MediaInfo [1] this is not a reliable source since original research is required to extract the information. Users were also arguing about whether the table was complete and up to date, which is almost impossible to verify. The table also took up too much space in the article and contained information that would not have interested an average reader.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Deletopedia again?--78.48.73.125 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletionpedia is for an entire article that is to be deleted, not a single table. PopMusicBuff ^talk 23:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The table is interesting, because it contains some useful material. However, by mid-2009 it was too large and completely unsourced, and it was considered to have unfixable WP:V issues. I would have to oppose putting the table back without these issues being fixed first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The table was the only reason I ever visited this page. It would be a shame for good information to just be deleted, but I guess that's what wikipedia likes to do. Deletists rule with an iron fist here. Rolen47 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for preserving the chart I think someone has taken reference to a very rigid level that started to damaged the usefulness of the article. The chart is very helpful, its data is not in dispute, and can be verified easily. The size and frame rates of the video are indisputable, as one can actually count the number pixel and number of frame. Reference is needed only when a piece of info is in dispute, and obviously the data in the table aren't in any. I don't think "reliable reference" here is applicable and I don't think it should be used as an excuse to remove useful and helpful data. Da Vynci (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on a side note, ianmacm seems to take an overly rigid approach to reference, as a result of this, even country's name was messed up in the article. Considering ianmacm's edit summery in the edit he made, apparently in order to follow the reference verbatim, he replaced the more precise term "People's Republic of China" (PRC) with the umbrella term "China". I know that in daily casual speech, China usually refers to PRC, but formally speaking, China could mean two countries: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. As we all know People's Republic of China blocked Youtube, but Republic of China didn't. Hence the precise term was used instead of the China. Ianmacm's rigid obedience to reference in expense of the article accuracy amazed me a bit there. Da Vynci (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it was another user who originally removed the table, arguing that it was incompatible with Good Article status to add this amount of material without referencing in any way. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, the table is back for the time being because it has some support. It was rather naughty for Da Vynci to remove the ^{[citation needed]} tag, because the table was and remains unreferenced. As a general rule, tagging should not be removed without the issue being addressed first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! May I ask which piece of data in the table exactly are we disputing? We don't put reference request tag in just for the seek of it. Reference serves a purpose of support that fact when that fact is being challenged. E.g. Person A think the fmt code produces vid size of 480×360 but person B things it is 482X369. However, form what i saw, you don't seems to be questioning the data. And no one here seems to be challenging those data because everyone who is in doubt of the size can either measure by manually counting the pixel by themselves on the website. What you see is what it is. If your concept of reference apply consistently on the page, we may well start to remove the youtube logo too, coz apparently no document says that red images is the logo (the image is found on the website, but no reference can be found that explicitly say it is the logo) , but we all know it is the logo base on common sense. Using ur concept, we may well also start to remove the orange from the article Orange coz there is no reference says that certify that orange-colour fruit in that particular image is an orange, but the editor used his/her judgement base on his/her common sense. Some reasonable judgement and permission of the use of common sense is what we need here. Da Vynci (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am always in favour of using a common sense approach, and have never said that the information in the table is wildly wrong. The problem is that with over 100 million videos on YouTube, guaranteeing that the information in the table is correct and up to date is an almost impossible task. The last time that the table was in the article, users argued about some of the details, since YouTube could change the system tomorrow without telling anyone. This is what happened when they changed from H.263 video to H.264 some months back. I am opting for a quiet life by having the table in the article, but it does contain WP:OR and there is little point in pretending otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think u r having a confused idea about what exactly the No original research policy is. According to the No OR policy, OR refers to unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Merely counting the pixels and frame rate is not analysis. The video sample are all published in the website, there is no argument in the table, there is no speculation, and the table is not portraying any idea, and it is not serving to advance anyone's position. The table is there only for the convenience and serves a informative purpose. Da Vynci (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

From the "Youtube has 100 million video" argument u made, you are not very good at website and video standard do you? All uploaded videos are re-encoded using a uniform standard, so the number of the videos uploaded is irrelevant . As for your "impossible to update" argument, many of youtube's video's standard has been fairly stable for years, for example, the "standard size" video standard has been unchanged for more than 2 years. It is becoz once videos are encoded, it stays the same. So the need of updating the table isn't really as much an issue as politicians articles having their position changed from time to time. Da Vynci (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

YouTube likes to experiment with new formats from time to time, so don't be surprised if someone turns up on the talk page and has found a format which is not currently in the table. The most important change to YouTube's video encoding since the site was launched in 2005 is the shift from H.263/MP3/FLV to H.264/AAC/FLV, which took place during Autumn 2008/Spring 2009. YouTube did this without announcing it publicly, although the Wikipedia regulars noticed it. The size of the diferent formats in pixels has led to some debate, and I have opted not to get involved in arguments here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research is not the worst problem with the table. It just doesn't cover everything and YouTube changes the specs very frequently. For example, it seems they lowered the bitrate of HQ (?) and HD (1411 kbit/s now) videos a bit sometime this week. Also, you can't embed fmt=35 HQ videos anymore by adding &ap=%2526fmt%3D35 to the link in the code.

I did some tests a few weeks ago and it seems that fmt=35 is not possible for videos with a resolution between 640x361 and 640x479. Only an fmt=34 version resized to ???x360 ("360" being the max height of fmt=34 and "???" being the resized width in proportion to the new height) will be created. See here. 640x360 is another special case, in which an fmt=34 640x360 encode is created. See here. This was not always the case, as a video I uploaded in March does have an fmt=35 640x360 encode, while its fmt=34 encode is 320x180.

Bottom line: Until YouTube releases some official format specs on their blog, I'd omit the table since it is not completely accurate. Prime Blue (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that someone agrees that the table is hard to source and keep up to date. You could be bold and remove it, but someone may put it back again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Preserved table here (with a change applied to the max resolution of fmt 34) Prime Blue (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the general consensus. Would be nice for the table to be updated here from time to time for reference, though. Twipley (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG, that's not really preserving the table, this section (including the table) will be wiped out and moved to achieve from time to time. Does anyone apart from me find the table very useful in the article? Da Vynci (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with you. The information in this table is half the reason I check this article.

Think about it this way: The whole purpose of YouTube is the distribution of these media formats. That is what YouTube is FOR. Therefore, to have some kind of organized list of those formats seems reasonable. InternetMeme (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think there needs to be more of a compromise on this. Saying that the data is unverifiable or saying that it needs to be verified for 100 million videos is silly. I think the table should be put back but remove the bitrate and encoding rows from the audio and video sections since some offer up that those are more subject to whimsical changes. Most of the information in the table is already on the YouTube page in the video quality section so if YouTube drastically changes their video formats you will still have to make edits. It makes no sense to offer up the argument that we don't want it there because the contents will change. I think the table makes much more sense for the presentation of this information. InfoPotato (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read through some of you guys's comments, and you have some good ideas. Taking those ideas into consideration, how about we re-introduce the table like this?:

Comparison of current YouTube media types (media uploaded before February 2009 may use other formats)
		Standard	Medium	High	HD	Mobile
"fmt" value, container		34, flv	18, mp4	35, flv	22, mp4	17, 3gp
Video	Encoding	MPEG-4 AVC (H.264)				MPEG-4 Part 2
	Aspect ratio	4:3, 16:9	4:3	16:9		11:9
	Max Resolution	320×240 400×226 640x360	480×360	854×480	1280×720	176×144
Audio	All audio uses AAC encoding with 2 channels at 44.1 kHz.

InternetMeme (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've re-introduced the table, as it is very useful for quickly locating codec information, and is now concise and small enough to not bother most people. InternetMeme (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the old version for comparison:

Comparison of YouTube media types
		Standard	Medium	High	HD	Mobile	Old formats (pre 2009 Feb)
		Standard	Medium	High	HD	Mobile	Standard	High	Mobile
fmt value		34	18	35	22	17	none	6	13
Container		FLV	MP4	FLV	MP4	3GP	FLV		3GP
Video	Encoding	MPEG-4 AVC (H.264)				MPEG-4 Part 2	H.263		H.263/AMR
	Aspect ratio	4:3, 16:9	4:3	16:9		11:9	4:3		4:3
	Max Resolution	320×240 400×226 640x360	480×360	854×480	1280×720	176×144	320×240	480×360	176×144
	Bitrate (kbit/s)	200	512	900	2000	?	200	900	?
Audio	Encoding	AAC					MP3		AMR
	Channels	2					1
	Sampling rate (Hz)	44100					22050	44100	8000
	Bitrate (kbit/s)	?	128		232	?	64	96	?

Proof of how hard it is to keep the table up to date comes with the launch of the 1080p videos. The version of Bohemian Rhapsody by The Muppets [2] has been receiving a good deal of coverage in the tech blogs. The HD button has two options, 720p and 1080p. Currently, the table in the article does not give 1080p and perhaps it should. For the tech buffs, this is how the 1080p Muppets video is encoded:

General Complete name : The Muppets Bohemian Rhapsody 1080.mp4 Format : MPEG-4 Format profile : Base Media / Version 2 Codec ID : mp42 File size : 122 MiB Duration : 4mn 46s Overall bit rate : 3 568 Kbps Encoded date : UTC 2009-11-23 05:24:24 Tagged date : UTC 2009-11-23 05:24:24 gsst : 0 gstd : 286905 gssd : B4A7D04C7

Video ID : 2 Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L4.0 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames Codec ID : avc1 Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding Duration : 4mn 46s Bit rate mode : Variable Bit rate : 3 440 Kbps Maximum bit rate : 11.3 Mbps Width : 1 920 pixels Height : 1 080 pixels Display aspect ratio : 16/9 Frame rate mode : Constant Frame rate : 29.970 fps Resolution : 24 bits Colorimetry : 4:2:0 Scan type : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.055 Stream size : 117 MiB (96%) Title : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007. Encoded date : UTC 2009-11-23 05:24:24 Tagged date : UTC 2009-11-23 05:24:26

Audio ID : 1 Format : AAC Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Format version : Version 4 Format profile : LC Format settings, SBR : No Codec ID : 40 Duration : 4mn 46s Bit rate mode : Variable Bit rate : 125 Kbps Maximum bit rate : 249 Kbps Channel(s) : 2 channels Channel positions : L R Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz Resolution : 16 bits Stream size : 4.27 MiB (4%) Title : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007. Encoded date : UTC 2009-11-23 05:24:24 Tagged date : UTC 2009-11-23 05:24:26 --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ianmacm,

I'd also like to get some references for the formats listed in the table, do you have any good ideas of where to find them? I'll Google some pertinent terms and see what I can find. InternetMeme (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a longstanding problem. YouTube does not publish a comprehensive list of its formats, and sources such as tech forums etc are not a reliable source. The data about the Muppets video above was obtained with MediaInfo [3], a freeware program which gives a full readout of the metadata attached to a video. This is the best tool that I can find, and the information can be verified by anyone who can use MediaInfo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Required plugin download

The following section:

YouTube's video playback technology requires the user to download and install the Adobe Flash Player browser plug-in[56], similar to :other playback technologies such as the Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and RealPlayer browser plug-ins.

should be removed or rephrased. Virtually everyone on the planet, except some strange open-source people, have the flash plugin installed. It's as standard as HTML and JavaScript. It's not comparable to QuickTime. This paragraph seems like one of the random camouflage "EVIL $$$ PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE" bashings to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has had a revamp to reflect current developments. When YouTube was launched in 2005, Flash Video was the new kid on the block, and was by no means commonplace compared to Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and RealPlayer. Today, it is by far the most common format for online videos.

On the issue of HTML5 support, a lot of this is still in the realms of WP:CRYSTAL, since it is highly experimental at the moment. It should also be stressed that the O3D Beach Demo at [4] is not really a video at all, but a demo of 3D modeling in a YouTube video. Internet Explorer does not have a plug-in for O3D at the moment, but Google Chrome does. For anyone who would like to see O3D Beach Demo on a normal browser, it is at [5].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a little confusing - the "O3D Beach Demo" at http://www.youtube.com/html5 really is a demo of the HTML5 video element. It just so happens that the video being displayed there is a video of somebody running a O3D demo app, but that page itself does not use O3D. I've updated the page to clarify that.VoluntarySlave (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

HTML5 support is unlikely to be commonplace in browsers for several years to come, but Google is thinking about the future. In August 2009, it announced its intention to buy On2 Technologies for $106.5 million. As TechCrunch pointed out: "If would be great if Google decides to open-source On2’s VP7 and VP8 video codecs and free them up as the worldwide video codec standards, thus becoming alternatives to the proprietary and licenced H264 codecs. On2 has always claimed VP7 is better quality than H264 at the same bitrate. Also noteworthy: Google could use the VP8 codec for YouTube in HTML5 mode, basically forcing its many users to upgrade to HTML5-compliant browsers instead of using Flash formats."[6]

In the long run, this could save YouTube a lot of $ on licensing fees, since with HTML5 and VP8 it could bypass Flash technology altogether. This is something for the article to follow, but for the moment YouTube is essentially a Flash-based site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)