YouTube Tests New Homepage That Hides Video Upload Date, View Count

An anonymous reader shares a report: YouTube is reportedly testing a new website layout that removes the date when a video was uploaded and the amount of views it has. [...] On Monday, October 28, VidIQ reported in a post on X that YouTube is testing a new homepage layout that removes view counts and dates.

Bad UI

[memory_register]

Users rely on views and upload dates as a marker of quality. This is anti-pattern UI meant to manipulate users. No surprise from censorship-happy Google though.

Re:Bad UI

[bjoast]

Not to mention the removal of public dislikes.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the degree that publications were affected by publicly revealing public opinion. This degree would trend along with how much the video was, well, a "publication". Something corporate, clinical, lifeless, propagandy/adverty, something PR, PC, sterile. Something expensive, the official mouth of something with expenses.

Those who had the most to lose from public dislikes were also the ones with deep pockets. Those who benefit from transparency were commoners.

With this hindsight? Of course the feature w

Re:

[alvinrod]

The easy solution is to show likes and dislikes but allow content creators to disable them just like comments on videos exist by default, but can be turned off.

Re:

[codebase7]

The whole point is to eliminate information so they can gain the upper hand in "negotiations." Of course, you're not expected to negotiate any more than the slaves of old were expected to read their submission contracts, and just like those slaves you'll be chastised (at best) for doing so.

Beware them, your hopeful masters.

Re:

[Puc Rotte]

Except that doesn't hold up, because the removed info is on the user side, on on the creator's side, who can still see all of it.

Re:

[VanGarrett]

I get that publicly viable Dislike counts were used by some people to assess whether the information in a video providing technical information was accurate, but it's intended use was to communicate approval or disapproval from the viewers to the YouTuber, so they can tailor their content to what their audience responds to. People were using it to harass individual YouTubers, instead of just rationally letting them know that their video didn't appeal to them. People were using it as a vehicle for their hate

Re:

[alvinrod]

They can still do that because creators still see dislikes so hiding this does nothing to stop the problem you suggest exists. Further, YouTube views any form of engagement as positive so disliking a video doesn't prevent it from being presented to other people. Perhaps you may have a point regarding people not viewing videos with high dislike counts, but I don't know if that's true. I have my preferences here to display posts that have been moderated to -1 because often times they do contain relevant views

Re:

[Askmum]

The dislike button is used for what now? There is a creator in my stream that I always downvote when I see a video of his. I still get his videos in my feed.

Re:

[s0nicfreak]

The algorithm is taking that to mean you enjoy engaging with that creator's content. That you engage negatively is irrelevant.

So unless you enjoy the downvoting, when you see the creator in your home feed, you're going to want to select the three dots, then select "Don't recommend channel".

Re:Bad UI

[TigerPlish]

Dates and views are only peripherally connected to quality.

Example: (insert famous pop artist) video from 14 years ago may have 3 million views, while exquisite performance of rarely-heard classical stuff may have.. just hundreds of views. Even though arguably the quality of the music presented is much higher.

Pop sells. I-IV-V sells. Sophistication doesn't, unless you're into Rush or SAGA or something of that ilk.

I still loathe that YouTube is studying hiding this information. It's manipulative and speaks louder than their overt actions.

Re:Bad UI

[i kan reed]

Dates may not be relevant to quality per se, but it's absolutely material to whether I'm interested in watching something.

"Oh a review video about that game that just released an expansion, maybe I'll, oh wait this is from 4 years ago when the game first came out" is not an atypical thought process.

"I might've watched this video before, it seems familiar and YouTube bugs sometimes forget what I've watched, oh wait it came out yesterday" is also a common one.

Reducing information in UIs is transparently an attempt to let YouTube dictate what you watch because they have TikTok envy.

Re:

[TigerPlish]

Dates may not be relevant to quality per se, but it's absolutely material to whether I'm interested in watching something.

Dunno how you do the bulk of your youtubing but mine's 99.5% on the PC and .5% on phone/tablet

On the PC, I see thumbnails with a partial or full red bar at the very bottom of the thumbnail - tha'ts my "tell" that I've seen this before.

Happens a lot with a friend. He'll send a link, i'll look, and see the Red Bar.. "dude, we've seen this before." "Yeah, but it's still worth it"

Re:

[i kan reed]

And I feel like either accidentally or purposefully Youtube will sometimes omit the red bar to try to get me to watch something again.

Could be reuploads, I guess.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like that data falls off after a while or is dropped. I notice those same videos popping up without a red bar at the bottom but when I click them I see Ive upvoted the video already (which I typically only do at the end of a video). It also doesn't always register when I do watch it, especially if I watch from my phone (which is logged into the same account). Sometimes on PC I will watch the full video and only the first 10th of the red line is there. Its not very reliable, especially for older vid

Re:

[laxguy]

well i suppose you don't watch enough YT then because i am regularly recommended videos that i have already watched. often times it will still say "New" and show me the full red bar on the bottom. other times i *know* i've watched the video before, no red bar on the thumbnail, click the video and find that ive already thumbs'd up. YT is broken in many ways and if you don't use it enough you won't find it.

Re:

[Etcetera]

Dunno how you do the bulk of your youtubing but mine's 99.5% on the PC and .5% on phone/tablet

Happens a lot with a friend. He'll send a link, i'll look, and see the Red Bar.. "dude, we've seen this before." "Yeah, but it's still worth it"

I watch 95% of my YouTube on a TV, either with the app on a streaming stick and/or game console, or sometimes on the Smart TV's native app. Most of the rest is watched on an iPad rather than using a laptop or PC monitor.

Re:

[Hadlock]

I would guess 95% is TV and 5% is PC
 
We bought youtube premium for the account the TV in the living room uses, and that's largely replaced cable tv (which we don't have) although when my mom is in town we'll subscribe to some kind of live streaming tv thing. The other 5% represents PC usage, typically some lofi music thing in the background for WFH

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

that's ok because we're all well aware of how evil google has become and how useless youtube will soon be, we clearly see the results of classism in the increasing incompetence of corrupt transnational corporations

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Also to watch the videos from someone in proper chronological order.

Re:

[dvice]

Views don't tell about the quality of the video, they tell about the quality of the clickbait thumbnail the video has and at best how entertaining the video is. The difference with entertaining and quality is that for example just making simple lies can be entertaining, but as it gives you false information, it is very low quality. Watching high view count videos makes you stupid.

Re:

[gweihir]

Indeed. This is intentionally anti-user for a little more profit, i.e.greed.

Re:

[sinkskinkshrieks]

Yep. They delete about 60% of my comments. I add informational, relevant bits and they just nuke it. I gave up and just don't comment there anymore.

Awww, twyyying to pwotect fwom slings and arrows?

[TigerPlish]

Awww, trying to protect the sensitive from the slings and arrows of critics?

That's the only reason I can see behind this -- thin-skinned creators who get their buttholes sore when the downvotes come whined, and this is youtube's way of "protecting" them.

I'm sure an extension will come along shortly just like the one to restore the showing of downvotes.

Re:

[pjt33]

I can see another reason: I frequently find that YouTube recommends videos to me that it says I haven't watched before but I know I have. In borderline cases where I think I recognise the title and the thumbnail, the "3 years ago" posting date is the final confirmation. If they hide that then I might watch it a second time.

Re:

[cruff]

I have the same experiences. I keep telling them I'm not interested because I've already watched the video, but they don't take the hint I'm almost never interested in rewatching those videos.

Re:

[laxguy]

YT constantly recommends videos ive already watched and is now recommending things that were either uploaded minutes ago or 16 years ago, most of the time with less then 1000 views, often times in the double digit views. what is wrong with YT these days? answer: most things.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I'm reminded of the story where Target had such good data analytics that they could reliably tell if a customer was pregnant just based on search history. Someone (probably rightfully) decided it would be creepy if they made it obvious that they knew this, so the tailored ads they were sending out would put a lot of unrelated products (e.g. golf clubs next to diapers) along with the targeted stuff so as to avoid arousing suspicion. I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube does something similar. I've also experie

Re:

[caseih]

It's way more cynical than that. YouTube doesn't care one whit about content creators, their quality, or their complaints. They just want to drive up views of any kind to get more ad impressions. And it will definitely work. People in general tend to not watch things with an older date because it's old stuff now. Without the dates listed, YouTube hopes/knows you'll just click on the bait and watch it again.

Courageous

[0xG]

We're doing it to be courageous.
We learnt it from the best. /s

ffs morons

[invisiblefireball]

headline: everyone in the world tests stuff that isn't owned and enshittified by google

why remove the date?

[backslashdot]

That's just for a nefarious profit-making purpose (and ironically potentially short-term -- somebody needs a quick promotion?). Every compelling reason for doing that is nefarious, no amount of corporate spin and sophistry can change that.

Re:

[caseih]

Correct. It's all about getting more ad impressions when you watch mediocre videos a second time.

Without a date time sensitive material is useless

[keyboarderror]

News stories or action items become impossible to track. Did this happen an hour ago or 10 years ago? You'll waste more time finding out. That's the point.

Re:

[iAmWaySmarterThanYou]

Exactly. I came to say something similar. A lot of what I watch is useless if it's more than a week or two old. Without a date on it I would waste time opening useless videos I'm going to close the moment they start talking about old shit.

For example, I watch a few Ukraine war update channels almost every day. I already saw yesterday's update. I absolutely do not want to see last week's or last year's. Without a date what good are they? Even sorted by chronological order isn't any good because maybe

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

Some ass clown is looking for a promotion and fucking with things they shouldn't be.

Nah - some ass clown is looking for increased ad impressions, and is fucking with something that he knows will deliver that because the average YouTube viewer simply takes what he's given. The promotion just naturally follows.

I'm amazed at the number of people who just put up with all the ads, and all the dicking around with the UI, and keep watching anyway. As it is with politics, so it is with corporate offerings: we don't get what we deserve, we get what our neighbours deserve.

OTOH, other people putting

E-shitified Tube is last resort

[Spamalope]

I look elsewhere 1st now since they've shitified the UI, tripled the ads and moved to destroy Ublock. Even adding ad pre-rolls to Discord... Yeesh
If I must used them, I use Freetube. Now that I've moved my subs to it I find it's much better.

useless for news

[roc97007]

This is bad. Just when Youtube is getting a reputation as a viable alternative to the legacy media, they remove the upload date, which makes the service mostly useless for news. They already present news clips in random order, and you can only tell what's current by the upload date or if the poster happens to include the date in the title.

It's almost like (pops on my foil hat) youtube was threatened or paid off by the legacy media.

#enshittification

[PseudoThink]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

From TFA; Counterpoint

[Rinnon]

It's worth noting that there is no mention of whether the details will be viewable while the video is playing, so you might still be able to check when the video was released and how many likes it has.

As long as the relevant information is still there when I actually clickthrough to the video... I don't really care that much if it's not on the home screen. Counterpoint to all the negativity, this will actually help smaller channels grow. If they have a good title, thumbnail, etc... so if the content appears interesting, they don't have to worry about being ignored due to not already having achieved success. I'm well aware that the decision making apparatus is doing this for profit related reasons, but I'

Watch the ad

[cygnusvis]

Now you have to click it to watch the ad to find out its news from 5 years ago or that it just sucks.,

Re:

[Synonymous Homonym]

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken assumption that YT aims to serve the end user [rfc-editor.org].

Rather than trying to leech those who pay for ad impressions.

We'll Tell You What You Want To Watch

[Stolovaya]

It just feels like they want to remove community interaction and negativity from their platform. I wouldn't be surprised if they simplified the UI to just thumbnails of videos with no further information. Instead of being able to make thoughtful decisions on what you watch, they want to Fisher-Price it so you don't think about it.

Companies like YouTube and Netflix want to tell you what you want to watch. I miss when platforms like these would help you find what you want to watch. It feels like we're going

WHO THE FUCK WAS ASKING FOR THIS?

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Show of hands? Anyone?

They past that point ...

[PPH]

.. when they flipped some configuration flag which now returns a "Your browser can't play this video" page. Well, it could 6 months ago. What did you folks break?

Look. If you folks want to hide all the video meta-data and the videos as well, you should just change the name of your site from YouTube to BlackHoleOfCalcutta. So people will know where you are sending their stuff.

Shirking out of paying customers

[Dark Coder]

So YooTube is trying to yoohoo their customer base of their hard earned yoohoos.

Have to find another site for DIY videos

[nwaack]

SO much of what I use YouTube for is to learn how to do techy stuff on modern software. If I can't tell if the video is for a recent version of the software or for a 10-year-old version, I simply won't use YouTube anymore.

youtube wants to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube wants to be tiktok

So even more eshittification...

[gweihir]

YouTube is already pretty bad interface-wise. Now they want to make it even worse?

You wouldn't notice the difference from TikTok

[thesjaakspoiler]

Why doesn't Google just buy TikTok?

Where's the value?

[Chas]

It's all to avoid having to pay content creators.
That's all.
Secondarily, it stops sane feedback on content.

Money Grab

[Farley1]

I see this as a blatant money grab. It's redesigned for Youtube, not you. The new UI will deliver more ads, and give out less information. Because useful information can be sold, not given away for free.

Fuck off

[sinkskinkshrieks]

They're just trying to enshitify as fast as possible at this point because they have nothing left to try and zillions of jobs to justify. Instead of leaving shit alone, they must change it in absurd ways.

wromg direction, you google brainiacs...

[hAckz0r]

I want to know how many hours/minutes ago it was uploaded. I get tired of seeing news articles that are a week old. Even "newly uploaded" filters don't get rid of this old junk. Now they want to prevent me from even ignoring this old stuff? How are you supposed to know what is current and what is old then? The stupidity of this amazes me.

Election Prep

[equivocal]

For the US election next week so that it will not be possible to distinguish the old conspiracies from the new conspiracies.