I would love to be able to hide Shorts for good instead of having to do it every 30 days. I wonder what technical issue is preventing them to accomplish such task.
If you use Chrome, YouTube Shorts Block [1] is a good extension for that, and removes (mostly) Shorts videos. Not perfect, still leaves some traces (e.g. empty spaces, channel titles in subscriptions), but it helps to declutter your user experience.
And while we're talking about extensions to customize your YT experience, here's three more that I really enjoy:
- Clickbait Remover [2], to remove the usually clickbait-ish video thumbnails
- Unhook [3], to remove the recommended videos entirely. This extension helped me reduce the time spent on YT. I now browse recommendations on my phone much more quickly, add what I want to check out to Watch Later queue, so on desktop I only search, check subscriptions, or consume my WL queue
- Video Speed Controller [4]. This one is super popular, so probably you already have it installed.
I personally do not use it though as I do not have a problem with advertising in general. As long as there is no data collection and targeted ads, I am good to sponsor with my time.
(*) "Firefox 103+ and layout.css.has-selector.enabled set to True - Experimental CSS feature not fully working on Firefox, some rendering issues may occur"
Fantastic list, thank you. I didn't know about most of these.
What's the benefit of the video speed controller over the playback speed controls provided by YouTube?
The thread model is that maintainers of popular extensions get offers of several thousand $ all the time to pass over ownership. And there have been several incidents in which the new owners added trackers to the extension itself, tracking the user across all domains.
These extensions usually have full access to the DOM, so they can do everything they want to.
So their question is very much warrented: installing as new extension should always be well considered.
I mean... I don't really have a response to this. This is security modeling 101. To different threat models, this is a varying degree of a threat - anywhere from "not a threat" to "unacceptable threat".
You cannot universally answer the question "how much of a threat are chrome extensions".
I understand that this is a pet peeve of yours. But what exactly stops you from learning what kind of data chrome extensions have access to (they can see everything on any page you visit and send it to perpetrators) and assuming the worst?
oooo..... are you talking about chrome store that has adware filled garbage duplicates of good quality extensions?
firefox addon store is very much better in that regard. Anyway, this makes me feel like you don't know about gorhill and UBO? that is actually recommended for sane internet browsing on any browsers.
As i often say, surfing the internet in a browser without UBO feels like having unprotected sex. Fun but dangerous.
it's a business decision that makes sense. Short form entertainment is a huge market that TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat have been cashing in on. It may be annoying to users but to those that adopt, YouTube stands to gain a lot from it
Shorts is a growing format on YouTube. The inventory of videos is increasing over time. If someone clicks the X button indicating the recommended shorts are not relevant after 30 days there will be many more new videos. Potentially some of these new videos will now be relevant enough to show the user. Additionally the X button is not labelled unless you o haver over it after which it says "Not interested." If it were permanent people may accidently click this button and then they will never be recommended shorts even if they enjoy them. People's opinions about shorts way change over time. After a month they may actually want to engage with the format. Having to go search through some menu buried somewhere to enable shorts on the home page again is not user friendly.
Being able to do exploration is an important part of recommendation systems. Allowing a user to do just exploitation is going to lead to a worse experience in them long term.
How many times users has to click "don't recommend shorts" before youtube decides it is not for them? By that logic, no user setting should be permanent.
Growing format
Hard for it not to considering youtube tries its best to mark videos as short. Some of my older videos are now shorts and I can't convert them
Tiktok makes big money and is a direct competitor to YouTube, so YouTube is pushing the format to capture that audience back. It’s a far more engaging pattern that what existed before. Remember when YouTube forced autoplay on everyone? Doesn’t make for a better experience, but if users are more engaged that’s all that counts for execs at YouTube
Personally, I think it is primarily a way to sneak a Tiktok-esque experience to further addict the children that use YouTube, without their parents realizing their kids are watching neurodegenerative content.
No there's no reason that would arise from a systems architecture standpoint. This most definitely was an additive thing, that requires more code than less, in order to reactivate after 30 days (not much more code, but it's not some side effect of some system).
The only reason I could think it's like this for a technical reason is if they put the opt-out "ticket" into some high availability cache system that was hard coded to eject old entries after 30 days, but that would make no sense given YouTube has infra for persistent user configuration already.
I doubt it's a technical issue. You will never watch shorts if you hide them for good. But if every 30 days you see shorts maybe one day you'll stop hiding them.
Assuming this is a serious question: it’s a marketing decision not a technical limitation. They want you to watch shorts, hence every month they reappear.
In addition, it would be nice to create a separate RSS feed for the shorts and of course remove them from the original. In the early days it was easy to filter out because of the #short tag, but nowadays it's not mandatory in the title.
Definitely... I built a mobile app for android to block me to go to Shorts and waste hours of doom-scrolling... I will release it on the Play Store if someone need it as well.
Confirmed. Now I'm just curious what the justification was for removing it, because it baffles me.
The option was removed as part of a general UX refresh that moved from a sort drop-down to pill buttons -- this general drop-down -> pill thing seeming to be a general trend on apps and websites now.
But it's hard to imagine why it was removed in the first place. Saving a minuscule amount money by reducing views of less-cached long-tail content doesn't seem important enough. Nor does there seem to be any compelling engagement reason to prioritize newer videos. And I'm not aware of an ad revenue reason, such as older videos being less monetizable.
Maybe it was just a misguided attempt at UX simplification that backfired?
I'm guessing someone (or something) made the argument that forcing people to scroll through every video uploaded to a channel just to get to the oldest ones "increased engagement"
If it's anything like redesign work I'm used to, someone redesigned and just happened to remove it with little reason for it. Then the numbers went up as people had to scroll so they assumed everyone loved the redesign and didn't question why.
I think this hints at a concept I find very hard to articulate about letting metrics guide your design. You set out with metrics that seem plausible, you work to improve them, and if they do improve, you call the design a success. But then it actually turns out the metrics were no good in the first place because they “improve” for scenarios where you’ve most certainly made the user experience worse. Metrics proponents would argue that you should have had better metrics, but then I start to feel that the problem of selecting the right metrics becomes an art form just as subjective and complicated as designing a good UI in the first place, at which point they’re no help.
> selecting the right metrics becomes an art form just as subjective and complicated as designing a good UI in the first place
this is absolutely the truth!
I would say that perhaps what is lacking is a clear vision of the product. Steve jobs didn't use metrics for the initial design of the iphone.
I suspect that as a company grows bigger and bigger, the product loses the initial visionary that created the success in the first place. May be the "founder" (of the product, not necessarily of the actual company) left, or moved on, and what remains is just diluted responsibility between a few different people. Therefore, they resort to metrics, as they have no idea what works, nor have a vision.
Engagement is a nuanced metric for that reason. Am I engaged because I am enjoying the product or is it just taking me longer to achieve things because the UX is bad.
Knowing Google, it was probably a feature that someone didn’t think was important enough in a UI refresh to spend time on and was added now because the team happened to have time (or the interns have started).
I have no doubt that total time spent in the app is a metric they track. Plus
scrolling through all of those videos on the way to the video you're actually looking for means there's a decent chance you'll see a thumbnail or title that catches your interest leading to more time watching videos. Either way, It'd be a shitty move and one that somebody should have caught and corrected a long long time ago.
I think inexperienced developers fall into the trap of implementing whatever they are told to, probably to show that they can. I think it's important that developers think about what they're being requested to do, and suggest alternatives if it makes the software crappier from the user's perspective.
Maybe? Generally bad UX decisions are opposed by more experienced devs, often because of the edge cases that are not considered by designers, while less experienced devs just do it.
based on experience there could be a bunch of pretty innocuous reasons e.g.
1. some company wide simplification effort on user options
2. some weird coupling of the UI project to the backend project, where this functionality was an edge case that they could postpone til after launch
The answer is money. It's always money. I absolutely 100% guarantee they ran some kind of analysis and found they made less money when people looked at older content per channel, on average.
I always wonder about YouTube’s storage infrastructure and whether they move old videos to cold storage in a way that is costly to recover, and that maybe that’s why they try to discourage watching older videos… but that is probably a bit oversimplified.
This has always been my suspicion, considering older videos (or just videos with not a lot of views in general) tend to take noticeably longer to load.
My immediate assumption is these videos are not edge cached, so naturally they want their platform to avoid delivering these types of videos. They would rather stick to the well-cached, proven popular videos that are currently circulating.
I suspect that YouTube would much prefer to move away from being considered a video repository, and instead be considered a video feed.
I don't know the figure, but if I had to guess, I would wager that 95% of their views at any given time go to videos produced in the most recent month. Video is incredibly expensive to store, and almost all of what they're storing is basically sitting in a graveyard.
My guess is that it was a feature that was used rarely and only by a tiny proportion of the userbase. That kind of feature is always at a high risk of being cut if it causes even the tiniest problem. In this specific case, if an option that's used 0.01% of the time is making the UI look cramped when the contents of a dropdown get inlined, why not remove it? Nobody's going to care.
Except that sometimes people do care. It's pretty hard to know in advance whether https://xkcd.com/1172/ will apply or not. You can't run any kind of UX study because odds are that the only way you get people to interact with the feature is by making up an artificial scenario that basically forces them to use it. You can't even run an A/B test because every fewer people will actually reduce their YouTube usage over this. They might be unhappy, but their level of happiness doesn't show up in metrics.
You can’t store old content in long term archives with slow access rates if people keep sorting by old just to randomly view things. It’s terrible for caching
The problem with dislike counting is that the customers of Youtube (advertisers) do not want it, because they are spooked to have their ads associated with perceived negativity.
They really need to fix this, because I have lost counting how many times I've got click-baited with a video that contained either violence in it or its content was completely unrelated to its thumbnail...therefore a visible dislike counter would have saved me from giving them views when they should have removed them from the platform as a whole.
If any YouTube developer is reading this, please fix this dangerous behavior by malicious actors that take advantage of the platform's relatively recent changes.
I'm not sure how to say this without being at least a little offensive: If the above request is in earnest, it is incredibly naïve. You don't think they know this is a problem for users, or that legions of other users share this thought, or more charitably, do you think that sharing this thought will make a difference?
Google doesn't want to solve the fact that users spend more time watching clickbait and low quality videos as a result of removing features that they themselves implemented back when they thought they could be anything more than an advertising company. This strategy also explains what happened to Google Search.
I think YouTube cares quite a bit about clickbait. Just looking at its recommendations vs everything else I see online, it seems fairly tame in terms of clickbaitiness. Check out the trash labeled "powered by Outbrain" across the web...
When they removed public dislike counts, I don't think a visible dislike counter has been visible next to the thumbnail. You'd still have gotten clickbaited for the same reasons back then.
This is always the excuse thrown around. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm not on Nike, Coke or mega-corp advertising level, but I do spend a lot with google's advertising apparatus, including on youtube-based adverts - not one time have I cared about how controversial or whatever a video might be. I simply want engagement from in-market potential customers... regardless of what content they're watching.
Who are these people that think a Nike commercial being randomly played before a video has anything to do with some sort of endorsement of the video's content?
Journalists both have an incentive to generate a story, and potentially harm a competitor in the ad selling space. So they find as controversial of a video they can find (possibly with really low view counts), start a screen recorder, then hit refresh until a major brand's ad shows up before the video. Now they can run a headline like "Nike financially supports pro-genocide content on YouTube".
It's not an entirely unfair thing either. That is something that is happening, just in miniscule amounts. So YouTube introduced brand safety options which predict how safe a video is and avoids such potential headlines.
However since it's just an algorithm, it doesn't understand nuance. So now creators who are making educational content about tough subjects earn less money because they are bucketed as unsafe. Since unsafe content has less advertising biders, it earns less money.
Advertisers have always had ways to block likes and dislikes. The problem was that dislike counts were abused by people driving dislikes on videos for inauthentic reasons (YouTuber supports cause X, we disagree with X, therefore let's all go dislike all of this YouTuber's videos). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_brigading
Removing public dislike counts takes a good amount of wind out of such campaigns
Then they could have a like ratio threshold, below which ads do not get displayed. Arguably this is even better than the status quo: right now ads may display alongside scams and misinformation that would otherwise get disliked.
I don't know what is up with companies wanting to ban the dislike emotion. Spotify used to have a dislike button for that one awful song your favourite musician produced. No longer, I have to skip the same song over and over.
Video replies was a crazy idea in retrospect. Being able to anchor arbitrary videos to any other video at will is insanely ripe for abuse. If the feature existed today you would surely see thousands of spam videos with no relevance to the content they're replying to stuck underneath anything remotely popular. It's a wonder it ever worked as intended at all.
I think it could be a neat idea if you allowed the creator to choose which videos are posted as replies. I know there's so many times where a youtuber mentions something like "if I'm wrong/ignorant post me a link", and the ability to point to a video providing a better method would be invaluable.
OFC, I'm assuming a utopic world here. There's no incentive for neither Youtube nor the creator to do this, as opposed to simply linking more of their own stuff or whatever is ad friendly.
I'm curious if there's a good way to extend this to reply videos that refute the main video. If you lock it to the original authors control then if someone e disagrees with them and is fact checking their BS that reply would never get seen.
Maybe an author's hilight section and then an "other replies" that's more open.
Even when it was available I've only ever seen a few cases of it working well. One prominent one was an educational YouTuber (Veritasium) asking users to post video replies with solutions to a physics puzzle/experiment that he was doing. Besides that, the feature was not used by creators and so spam videos and response girls were rampant in the video replies to most popular YouTubers.
It's astounding that such a simple feature was dropped, firstly, and then got a re-launch mentioned by the CEO himself "after hearing some great feedback"... it's just a sorting order, honestly this should have never been removed. Those big platforms really got to go.
I mean, you say that, but... what is the alternative? YouTube is the host of some of the most valuable content on the internet, in my opinion, and some (some!) of the most valuable content produced by humanity. And it allows anyone to access it for free, with incredible technical specs. This is a non-trivial problem, and incredibly expensive.
Sure, I dislike that they play around with features that I think are valuable. But given everything else I get from YouTube, I'm not exactly complaining, and for sure I wouldn't wish them gone without having some idea of what could replace them (and I don't think that exists).
I don't have a satisfying answer. My bet would be something like a decentralized P2P solution that uses the LBRY protocol.
One specific idea that could see reality some day is a site that hosts proprietary videos on their own servers (for professional and paid creators) but also lists non-commercial creators that store their data in their own cloud platform of choice or indeed in the P2P network. The main point would be to not rely on dark patterns and ads in supporting this business but offload as much storage/bandwidth as possible to other servers.
I said they have to go cause I am slowly having enough of their policies. Sorting by old is a minor inconvenience but having 15-45 (!) minute long ads is just ludicrous (I listen to podcasts to sleep). I've also heard some voices about an anti-adblock campaign being rolled out, I wonder how that goes...
I don't want to speculate baselessly but if you've worked in big companies you'll know seemingly simple features become complicated with scale. This is especially when you are YouTube. It could be that the old feature was causing production problems and had to be removed, while a more efficient re-implementation is underway. I mean just look at what Google's Cloud Spanner says about using timestamps as keys: https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/schema-design Having both sort by latest and sort by oldest in an efficient way could very well be a nontrivial problem.
Isn't that the type of sorting you basically only need to do once? Or I guess in the rare cases when a video gets taken down, privated or relisted? I know it's not super rare but it would still be a much rarer event than users sorting by old. So they can just keep the list or set of video IDs, no need for expensive db operations right?
(I'm being a complete armchair expert here, since I have no idea of the actual state of the YouTube backend. It might look simple to me but I'm sure it's not in reality . I'm curious to see what would be the best way to optimize a feature like this one!)
"This feature is set to launch in the coming months." It sounds like he wants a round of applause for this big deal release. They can't even admit that it was a mistake to remove it... or maybe he is like a lot of writers/directors for new games and movies in old franchises that were never fans/users of the original materials.
Great. Can we get Amazon to have price sorting work too please? And have it actually accurately show cost per unit across similar products? I have to believe it's deliberately broken in both cases which is fucking annoying.
I tested in Safari with no extensions, and it's showing a $32 and $19 tub of protein powder mixed in the middle of the $12 ones. It then jumps from $15 to sponsored ones that are $50 to $60. It also about 25% items with zero price at all (like key chains that no one likely wants to buy when searching for protein powder) and requires several clicks to see it available from an "Other Seller". This is a total shit experience and Amazon knows it.
Comparing to FF with both those extensions, the items and their order look identical (minus some ads)
Sorting works fine on my side when using uBlock Origin with default settings and default filter lists.
You might have customized uBO beyond default settings/lists, and this is causing your issue. If you think this is a filter issue in uBO, please submit a report using the _chat_ icon in the popup panel[1], this will provide us with all the information we need to start investigating the issue.
That error message and associated scripts have nothing to do with displaying items or sorting them. It is pretty clearly at first glance some JS used to track and provide analytics.
As far as I'm aware, that feature never worked. Who knows why they even keep it. Surely they don't actually think we're that stupid that we won't notice that the price sorting doesn't work.
I can't wait for them to bring back the old related videos list. When is the last time you've heard someone use the term "youtube rabbit hole"? The effect is so lost, people who never experienced it don't even use the term wrongly to describe how things are now.
Having a traversable landscape of content is incredibly valuable. I think "search results as search criteria"/"traversal by adjacency" is the only real feasible way to organize the web, and the fact that we've moved away from that is the reason google search is often now useless. ChatGPT is valuable as a search replacement/amplifier because it reproduces that adjacency in a roundabout way.
If you want to know what kind of quality a given printer produces, good luck finding a picture on google. All you'll see is ad-infested, auto-generated top-n lists.
Applying the old youtube related model, you'd just have to find one picture to be a few degrees of separation from a picture of a print job from any printer ever manufactured.
The idea of objective universal ranking is a wash, and ranking based on N paramaters isn't much better.
The median persons rabbit hole was actually conspiracy theories, racism, and racist conspiracies. Just like TV, there's some amazing content, but there's also reality shows and guess what people watch the most.
1. Whose role is it to make judgements about whether people should be able to find certain kinds of content?
2. Do you think modern recommendation systems are better at keeping people away from that kind of content?
The thing is, as of now, if a recommendation algorithm identifies you as someone that responds to that kind of content, whether negatively or positively, it'll show you so much of it that you think it's the entire world. Even if you want to see something else, you have to have the discipline to "train the algorithm" over days, weeks or months to break free.
I feel that any suggestion things are better now is just impossible to believe.
>1. Whose role is it to make judgements about whether people should be able to find certain kinds of content?
Well for starters, there's the user. Once youtube decides you like a certain type of content that it wants to amplify, there is no "ok enough of this" button. You can't dismiss the categories it makes up for you.
And for enders, well your real question comes down to the question of if sufficiently effective psychological engineering contradicts, at least for some large fraction of people, personal agency. Suppose there was an adversarial patch we discovered that you could hide in a banner ad to make 15% of people read a completely different article than the one that is actually in front of them. That's may not be a highly efficient hack, but its more than the margins on nearly any election. How do we police these newly discovered neural-network hacks?
There's no question in my hypothetical on the matter of the victims personal agency in forming opinions and seeking information. I took care of that in the premise. They have no control, its a design flaw in the brain that is being exploited. But, where along the continuum of plausible technology does one draw the line between brains being hacked and people having agency in what they choose to see and believe?
Huh. Recommendation system is based around how much addicted you are. Therefore clickbait videos, or reaction videos will have better recommendation than a normal video.
The second goal is to make you slightly more angry, so that it is more probable that you will engage with the video.
The third is that you will watch more advertisements the more you watch. It is not in the best interest of the algorithm to give you answer right away.
It also does not have to be a bad will of YouTube/Google. After all you train neural networks to have desired outcome. The goal is to capture users attention.
> 1. Whose role is it to make judgements about whether people should be able to find certain kinds of content?
General public pressure that ultimately comes down to money (a.k.a: advertisers) which is controlled by general social pressure. With the previous rabbit hole effect, it's trivial for a reporter or an activist or anyone to record a 5 minute video where you start with a debate on a news channel or some very tame video about [Insert undesirable topic] then through 1 click on the top/next recommended video find yourself in an endless rabbit hole of full [Insert undesirable topic] videos. Then publicly call/shame those advertisers. Advertisers don't want associate their brand with that. If YouTube wants to be a bastion of free speech absolutism, that's their prerogative. Maybe it's good for their brand. We just want to sell Coca-cola or shoes or cars or whatever. To score brownie points with the public, we will pull our ads until YouTube gives us assurances that they are not promoting that [Insert undesirable topic].
Without the big advertisers, YouTube goes bankrupt in few months. Just like any traditional media company YouTube answers to their advertisers.
> 2. Do you think modern recommendation systems are better at keeping people away from that kind of content?
> The thing is, as of now, if a recommendation algorithm identifies you as someone that responds to that kind of content, whether negatively or positively, it'll show you so much of it that you think it's the entire world.
That's a false dichotomy. Recommendation systems are whatever we make them to be. For example, maybe a recommendation system that recommends you content based solely on *your* own preference + the current content you're consuming, is more likely to exhibit rabbit hole effect characteristics. One that takes the subject matter into account and evaluates it equally against some other criteria might have a different characteristics.
Ultimately it's a difficult problem to answer because it's a social problem, not a technical one. Just because you're a video or a social media or generative AI platform built on tech, doesn't absolve you from social responsibility if you're large enough to have wide spread social impact. That was the case with traditional media company. The fact that you're designing and creating algorithms and statistical models to recommend, promote, or generate content means you're on the hook for what those models produce.
Not just that but videos that were related for the wrong reasons, like being interesting to horny people. Recommendation engines get creepy if the “frequently used together” entries suggest inappropriate use.
Making a quick queue from a selection of suggestions should really be YT’s bread and buttery, especially if they’re pivoting to a shorts focus, yet they removed that button (for me at least). I used that button all the time, it made it quick and easy to basically program my own block of television. Hope it comes back or I’ll have to look for an extension.
But at least for me is still appearing, when hovering on each video row > three dots button appear > click on three dots button > Save to Watch Later is on the options list.
Now if only they could add back the ability to pick my own resolution with chromecast YouTube.
Their ability to guess my bandwidth is Bad. It always sticks me on 360p and yet 4K works fine everywhere in my house without question all the time. All other apps chromecast in HD just fine.
But no. Gotta take that feature away. Some obsessive UI/UX people who need to keep looking busy and necessary.
I so wish youtube would have a more powerful search.
Can I have something better then 'longer then 20min'? Like there are tons of things that go up to 3h or more. And often I might want 1h content but the 'longer then 20min' shows tons of stuff that is some 22min video.
I have noticed a pattern by YouTube's algorithm with long videos.
When I play a long video, for example synthwave music to get myself nostalgic with the '80s, I can see the suggested videos on my right are either of the same range or even longer than expected!
You cannot imagine how many diamonds I have discovered like that, which makes me very happy! ^_^
You know, I've noticed the same thing but I never really "noticed" it, if you follow. It's almost like they bin the videos by length in the suggestion algorithm.
It doesn't show up here with either browsers, probably region factor (I'm not in the US).
I really hate these services (especially the mega ones like YouTube, Twitter) ALWAYS have random feature disparity across client/region for no apparent reason.
I understand they can't be exactly simultaneous for technical reasons, but often times features would be delayed in some regions for days if not months.
I wish you could sort by views within certain time frames. I've written a JS snippet to help do this in the past, but it's crazy to me that this isn't implemented natively.
My use-case is wanting to check out the top videos from a specific time frame. I'll periodically check in on some channels or niche interest, and I just wanna get a sense of their top videos.
For example, I don't watch League of Legends regularly, but I like to check out the occasional VOD, and if I'm gonna watch a random game I'll probably get a good game by picking one with a lot of views within the last 2 or 3 months.
Other times I might go a year or two without listening to an artist and I wanna check out their most popular videos in that time frame.
Does anyone have any self hosted YouTube __playlist__ recommendations? Downloading tends to be the focus and that isn't important to me. I like to save videos for later with my watch later playlist, but it is unmanageable. Not easy to delete or sort or search. YouTube could be so much better in terms of playlist management.
The best suggestion for you would be to use SMplayer and create a new playlist in it with the video links you want to watch later and never fear of messing things up.
It uses either youtube-dl or yt-dlp behind the scenes for playing the videos while downloading them on the fly, so it works flawlessly in cases like yours.
I can search for a specific term and a few scrolls later I'll get videos I previously watched or liked as search results, which never have any relevance to the term I entered.
This is deliberate. It's probably for the same reasons why comments are arbitrarily sorted and why live chat always sorts by "Top" rather than "Newest" (whatever "Top" even means to YouTube, idk)
I think search includes words mentioned within the video and comments. Often prioritising this over a title and description. This leads to bad results finding things.
When will Youtube allow me to set tags (or my mood).
I like watching science and math video's in the morning, and music video's in the evening. Both are very distinct, yet Youtube will keep putting music video suggestions in the morning, and math in the evening.
Please allow a "mood" (or category) setting, so I can click "math and science" and only get those kind of suggestions.
Doesn’t seem to have hit the iPad app yet and I don’t have any updates pending at the moment, but this is still excellent news. Thanks for the heads up!
I use Firefox and more than often I restore last closed tabs (by mistake like you!) with Ctrl+Shift+T.
Of course, there's History and "Restore Previous Session" which saves you from countless nightmares when the next time you boot your computer you want to restore what you last viewed or had opened.
Youtube music will replace the playlist with new suggestions (it makes a new playlist with the first song being the one that was playing or on pause when the tab was closed), so even though the tab gets restored its content doesn't.
Mixes and user playlist are different from suggestion playlists.
So, I found out today (it's a new feature, I still have tabs that are missing it because I haven't refreshed them yet) that they added a white button "+ save" which adds the whole playlist/suggestions to a new playlist AND now click on individual songs "add to playlist" adds to the latest created playlist.
Well, this becomes old fast :). I usually have to click 40 songs and add them to a new playlist. There are some firefox extension that can extract URL and rebuild playlist but they are a bit buggy.
Does anybody know how to play all videos from channel in chronological order (from oldest-to-newest)? There is a trick to play them newest-to-oldest with some viewing page's source magic ('&list=UU...') and it works pretty reliably, but what about oldest-to-newest?
It's great to look back to the beginnings of people and to see the progress they have made. I remember checking out some of the first Nerdwriter videos. He's come a long way! Maybe there's hope for me too ;)
i have sent numerous feedback asking for a sort by length in playlists. that feature doesn't seem to align with their vision of good playlist management somehow.
