The Next Big Streaming Trend? Recommendations From Actual People (vulture.com) 36
Over the past decade, Netflix and its rivals have come to rely heavily on the power of algorithms, those top-secret computer programs designed to connect audiences with the programming they're most likely to enjoy based on what they've previously watched. But as Peak TV gives way to the era of Too Much TV and an even more ridiculous amount of content spreads across a rapidly multiplying number of services, platforms are supplementing that sophisticated software with a more low-tech method of helping subscribers find their next favorite show: human beings. From a report: While computer-generated suggestions aren't going away, companies are increasingly looking for other means to help viewers discover shows and movies they might otherwise have missed in a world where something significant premieres almost every day. The industry calls this "human curation," which is basically a fancy phrase for describing nonautomated ways of hyping specific content. AT&T-owned WarnerMedia's upcoming HBO Max service, for example, plans to expand its sister cable network's "Recommended by Humans" promotional campaign by having the stars and producers of its shows, as well as other celebrities, make short videos to highlight particular projects. Those videos will be embedded directly on the service in the hopes that, say, a testimonial from Zac Efron might prompt a young millennial to watch The Exorcist for the first time.
Meanwhile, Netflix, the platform known for its "Because You Watched ..." algorithmic suggestions, is currently beta testing something called "Collections," which are thematic playlists made by company staffers instead of its computers. Netflix isn't saying yet whether it plans to expand the test beyond a select pool of Apple iOS users or make it a permanent feature. Platforms are turning to human curation because of what they see as the limits of reactive recommendation algorithms: They can predict what you might like based on what you've watched in the past, but they can't forecast how your tastes might change or how you're feeling physically and mentally.
Meanwhile, Netflix, the platform known for its "Because You Watched ..." algorithmic suggestions, is currently beta testing something called "Collections," which are thematic playlists made by company staffers instead of its computers. Netflix isn't saying yet whether it plans to expand the test beyond a select pool of Apple iOS users or make it a permanent feature. Platforms are turning to human curation because of what they see as the limits of reactive recommendation algorithms: They can predict what you might like based on what you've watched in the past, but they can't forecast how your tastes might change or how you're feeling physically and mentally.
Moderated Forums (Score:5, Interesting)
If only there was some sort of technology that let people share information about particular topics over the internet. Maybe a bit more in-depth than just thumbs up or thumbs down. Sure, you would have to read a bit, but you would glean more information about that topic. Maybe someday.
"Moderated". (Score:3)
You mean "with a Gestapo on a power trip and a perverted agenda backed by creepy shadow instigators"?
There is no such thing a a benevolent and fair "moderator" (clique) with absolute power. It always, by definition, devolves into the above at the fastest pace sneakable.
If you want sanity, build a peer-to-peer web of trust. So everyone and nobody is a moderator. Don't take the Wikipedia pills.
Multiple (Score:3)
Maybe there can be more than one of these "forum" things, then. If one goes south, hop to a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just follow a few people whose tastes seem to align with your own on Twitter and YouTube.
Re:Moderated Forums (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the only way to give an experience that's better for the *user*. The problem with vendor-directed curation is that they always, always give in to the temptation to steer the user rather tan serve him.
Why wait for lightning to strike when you can *engineer* a break out hit with your army of social media flying monkeys?
Many years ago I used Napster to explore a lot of music that I probably wouldn't have listened to otherwise (e.g. old time country music). When that collapsed I tried Apple's iTunes store, and it felt like I was constantly fighting the platforms attempts to steer me to popular content. As a result, I pretty much stopped looking for music to listen to. People are pushing music on you no matter where you are anyway -- the gym, the coffee shop. Why seek out a place for the exclusive purpose of having your tastes shaped?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They're still going to tilt things into watching what serves their interests, just with a new coat of paint.
Might as well hear how "Janice, NY" says "my life was 200% better after my doctor prescribed me Striematol".
Yea! With bots that post whatever we want! (Score:2)
Internet advertising has had its heyday--back when companies would simply pay for ads, and didn't (or couldn't) bother with tracking purchases to see how many actually came from the ads they bought.
Online user reviews are the new advertising. People IRL are persuaded by them because they have no way to tell if the reviews are fake or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation is difficult.
Let use Slashdot back when it was an extremely popular service, when it was getting thousands of comments per article a day.
We knew what would be moderated up and what would be moderated down. A lot of these Trolls and Flame Bait moderation wasn't due to actual misconduct, but posting an unpopular opinion. Such as pointing out problems with Open Source, or Giving Microsoft Credit for doing something right.
You can get moderated up, for agreeing with the general trend of the comments
Re: (Score:2)
Too much hassle. Even Amazon shut down IMDB forums after takeover. https://www.engadget.com/2017/... [engadget.com]
Zac Efron Presents? (Score:2)
Really?
Are we really THAT desperate for guidance now? As a society?
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is if I'm watching Metallica's "All Nightmare Long" on YouTube, I don't want to see a recommended video from some heroin using Bille Eilish, no matter who he may be.
If that can't be gotten right, I shudder to think what would happen if I had one of these services and was subjected to what someone else thought I might want to watch based on what I've already watched. "You've watched Futurama, The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings! Why not watch The Mailbox? They both involve the future."
Blame Amy Schumer and SJW's... (Score:1)
Bull-shit! (Score:3)
Unless I personall met somebody, and got to know him enough to judge, a recommendation means nothing what-so-ever!
Hell, unless I met him, even if just via video chat, I cannot even know he exists.
And I don't care one bit if some corporation tells me "It's a real human! i swear!"!
Even less so, if they do it in this super-creepy way, that suggests they (the corporation) are usually not humans.
All that does, is point out how creepy and wrong this whole "anonymous corporation" shit it.
Cross the streams (Score:2)
what about relying on own judgement? (Score:2)
Re:what about relying on own judgement? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about not being able to decide yourself what you like or not, it's about the quantity of material to review. This is why these systems are needed, unless you're okay with never checking out new things.
Wait... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Netflix, the platform known for its "Because You Watched ..." algorithmic suggestions, is currently beta testing something called "Collections," which are thematic playlists made by company staffers
...I thought the headline said "actual people"
From my POV outside NETFUX, there's no way to know if those are human or algorithmic suggestions. What's really wanted is playlists made by viewers, not salesdroids.
Re: (Score:2)
If you let viewers make their own lists, then you're back to square one: instead of having too many contents to review and decide for yourself if you like them or not, you have too many playlists to review and decide for yourself if you like them or not.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the NetFlix propersity to put things you have already seen at the "next to top" of the list, right after the NetFlix created crap, needs to be overhauled. And WTF is "76% match"? match to what?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Create bad content, get told you created bad stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Netflix and Hulu actually did this. Netflix used to have a Stars Rating system where you could rate it and explain your rating (such as writing a review). Hulu used to let you write reviews. I haven't used Hulu in some years now, but last I did use it, there were no more user reviews.
I'm not sure the reasoning Hulu removed their feature like that, but Netflix removed reviews because people were saying bad movies were bad, and why. Then Netflix removed the Stars Ratings because it was used by people to rate things as 1 star when it was bad... which seemed to offend some comedienne at some point. Now it's an arbitrary "like" system that only includes a thumbs up, but not a thumbs' down.
I seriously doubt they will go back to allowing users to rate stuff since it'll only tell the creators of bad content that they create bad content.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, Netflix still had both thumbs-up and thumbs-down rating options.
And on my old 3rd-generation Apple TV, it's still a five-stars rating system.
Streaming? LOL. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
100% free 'streaming service', over-the-air broadcast TV.
Will I have to buy another pickup truck?
Re: (Score:2)
This was my idea! (Score:1)
Content (Score:2)
Recommendations matter than the library. The decent movies and shows have been split apart like a biblical baby. Good movies are protected behind paywalls and diluted with a hundred crap ones. A couple months later the good one is gone and your kid makes you search high and low for it. Let me stream ANY movie for a couple bucks and get out of my way.
Disrupt! (Score:3)
They've reinvented having friends. What'll they think of next?
I have a far superior idea (Score:2)