Flickr vs. YouTube User Manners Disparity

nathanm · « **on:** 6 Jan 2009, 01:18 am »

Both of these sites share a fundamental similarity: they display a small rectangle with an image in it posted by a certain user and below the image other users comment on it. YouTube does moving images and Flickr does stills. However, there are dramatic fundamental differences in the commentary in my experience:

YouTube comments are generally crude, nasty, mean-spirited, stupid, childish, horribly written and filled with senseless arguments between commenters often about issues outside of the subject of the video itself. No matter WHAT the video is about, if it has comments at all odds are good that they will be crude and moronic. The overriding impression I get from reading YouTube comments is that humanity is a vulgar assembly of idiots and the sooner the human race is wiped out the better.

Flickr comments are almost entirely positive, filled with gushing praise about the photograph, slightly better spelling\grammar and users are constantly heaping praise, respect and admiration and "awards" upon one another. On Flickr one even feels uncomfortable about offering any kind of criticism whatsoever of a photo, even if it is not negative. The overall impression is one of good cheer and mutual respect.

Nothing on YouTube is safe from an outright ad hominem attack for no good reason. People feel entirely comfortable telling you your video sucks, that you're a stupid faggot or use whatever manner of nasty insults they feel like posting. Nobody bothers to capitalize their sentences, use punctuation of any kind and most of the words are loaded with annoying text message acronyms.

What could possibly account for this discrepancy? Why is YouTube such a magnet for the worst in human behavior and Flickr is the opposite? My theory has been that people will behave more graciously towards one another when the communication is not solely text-based. Text-only allows people to hide behind a mask of anonymity so there is less pressure to not act like a jackass. I thought that if you knew what a person looked like from a still photo you would be nicer, and then I thought for sure if you posted a VIDEO of yourself then for sure people would be nicer since that's even closer of a representation of a real person. But apparently this theory doesn't hold on YouTube.

Anyone else notice this or am I crackers?

thunderbrick · « **Reply #1 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 01:57 am »

Whether you are crackers or not is a subject for another thread.

There is a very simple explanation. Still photographers (except paparazzi) are simply a higher order of hominids than videoheads. After all, how many videos do you hang on your wall and appreciate as art? How many videos let you visually crawl around in and better appreciate subtle nuances.
Not many, I suspect. We still shooters mostly recognize the value in each other's work, and probably feel that if a photo is poorly executed the less said the better.

For the record I am on Flickr for work-related PR work, but I have seen some mediocre work on there. And on Flickr it is very difficult to post images that CLEARLY say "We were being really being stupid when we made this."

JohnR · « **Reply #2 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 01:57 am »

1. Photography is an art form, whereas video is an inherently vulgar medium.
2. Yahoo cares about communities; Google cares about traffic.

And if you don't like my theory, you're a... oh wait, I just visualized you, wow, you look great today

thunderbrick · « **Reply #3 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 02:23 am »

Oh, yeah, has anyone else caught the irony that a guy, whose image has someone flashing the finger, is lamenting bad manners?

Nathan, I do have to compliment you for leading the charge against the unwashed masses who use the apostrophe to denote plural. My wife thought I was the only wacko who blew his blood pressure every time I'd see the hated 's. Keep up the good work! I got your back, man!

JerryM · « **Reply #4 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 03:58 am »

Boy, I never actually noticed the disparity, but you're absolutely correct. It's horrible!

This can't stand. As such, I'm off to Flickr right now to tell as many folks as I can that they're stupid faggots and that their photos suck. Then, I'm heading straight over to Youtube to let them all know how truly bitchin' their videos really are.

Here's one for equality in internet art!

Have fun,
Jerry

*Just kidding, of course. I'm thinking is has much to do with the age of the individual frequenting the site. Quite frightening, huh?

nathanm · « **Reply #5 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 03:59 am »

If Flickr's comments have a flaw it's that they are TOO positive and there's too many obnoxious "award" graphics, but it's still a positive gesture. When I do read a genuinely civil exchange on YouTube I have to do a double take because it's so rare. (or is it?) I also wonder if there could be an age discrepancy between the two sites. Hmmm.

I'd love to discuss grammar, but I've gotta stay on topic!

chadh · « **Reply #6 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:17 am »

Quote from: JohnR on 6 Jan 2009, 01:57 am

Photography is an art form, whereas video is an inherently vulgar medium.

While video can obviously be used to produce great art, and isn't inherently any more vulgar than photography, I think it's true that the typical video placed on youtube is almost certainly trying to accomplish something quite different from the typical photograph placed on flickr. Youtube presents an opportunity for a person to grab his five minutes of fame, without first having to establish that he deserves it. Youtube, then, is home to a ridiculous number of trainwrecks of videos, made by self indulgent and talentless narcissists who post their videos simply because they can. For every one part interesting and one part creative, it's five parts freak show, and it attracts many people who like freak shows. Unfortunately, the people who like freak shows are also the people who summon up abuse in streams-of-consciousness.

If teenagers believed for a minute that they could gain world-wide infamy by posting photos at flickr, I guarantee you'd see the audience there change and the commentary nosedive.

Chad

nathanm · « **Reply #7 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:22 am »

Another observation; if you happen to be an attractive woman on YouTube you will receive all manner of pornographic comments no matter what you are talking about. On Flickr you can get real nudity, which you can't get on YouTube. But there even photos of naked women do not illicit vulgar sexual comments like YouTube. Well, then again I haven't seen many nudes of Flickr, I don't usually go there for my daily cheesecake requirements. But the ones I have seen seemed quite civil.

Let's have a look through my faves…ahh, here's an example. Super-attractive girl, makes her own comic book character costumes and takes photos of herself in sexy poses. Good amount of views as you would expect any photo of a cute girl to get, right? It should be fodder for every cretin and deviant to crawl out of the woodwork and say something slimy, right? But look at the comments, they are all relatively polite!

No nudity here, but could be deemed NSFW
http://flickr.com/photos/nstiles42/sets/72157603791935411/

viggen · « **Reply #8 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 06:16 am »

Man I dig those Mini Coopers.

JohnR · « **Reply #9 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 06:25 am »

OK, chadh, I see what you're saying. But having looked over these sites a bit more I've become concerned about Flickr. It's a very nannyist website. Just look at these freedom-of-speech-inhibiting regulations:

Quote

Do play nice.
We're a community of many types of people, who all have the right to feel comfortable and who may not think what you think, believe what you believe or see what you see. So, be polite and respectful in your interactions with other members.

And even worse:

Quote

If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we’ll send you a warning or terminate your account.

It's kind of amazing that people would even use a site that practices such censorship. Undoubtedly the users are only pretending to be positive because they're afraid of what might happen if they said what they really think.

youtube, on the other hand... well, they say:

Quote

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view.

So it's obviously much more of a site intended for grown-ups. More the kind of place where you get insight into what people really are about, and where you're under no obligation to consider whether other users of the site feel "comfortable" (nannyist propaganda word from Flickr) there. More... personality, shall we say, and less of the same boring old crap you get over and over again on Flickr.

nathanm · « **Reply #10 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 08:19 am »

Sure, but almost nobody reads the rules. I certainly never saw those words before. Well maybe I did briefly at some point. I've never had any contact whatsoever with Flickr administrators, it's been totally transparent. I never felt inhibited about posting anything besides the fact that nobody else commenting seemed critical. I have wanted to bring the hammer down on some folks, like seeing an otherwise great photo with all sorts of dust on the scan. Ticks me off. How lazy! But usually I just let it go.

However, I did join one group that exists just for SPITE, the "I Hate HDR" group. But even that is fairly polite as it is just people talking shit about other people's hideous photos in a 'private area' and not commenting directly that the photo is shit. I dunno, we're living in this weird time of self-publishing where there are no gatekeepers, no guards, no editors, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, you can just put your stuff out there for better or worse. It's equal amounts of awesome and annoying all at once.

nathanm · « **Reply #11 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 08:41 am »

Quote

Do play nice. We're a community of many types of people, who all have the right to feel comfortable and who may not think what you think, believe what you believe or see what you see. So, be polite and respectful in your interactions with other members.

That sentence is rather inconsistent. You can't really have a right to "feel comfortable" while at the same time acknowledging the fact that people will disagree. If you had a right to feel comfortable then someone else would have to make sure you never saw anything which made you feel that way. How the hell is that possible? I would strike the world "right" out of there and then the rest is fine. The word "respect" is also kinda sticky.

Cripes, talk about discomfort; do you have any idea how frustrated some people's keyboard ineptitude makes me on THIS site!?

My "right to comfort" is violated almost daily!

Why do I keep coming back!?

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #12 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 12:30 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 6 Jan 2009, 08:41 am

Cripes, talk about discomfort; do you have any idea how frustrated some people's keyboard ineptitude makes me on THIS site!? My "right to comfort" is violated almost daily! Why do I keep coming back!?

Slowly but surely you're teaching us all to use proper grammar and punctuation. I for one like the subtle 'teachings' in your signature.
We'll get there Nathan, we'll get there. Just be patient.

Besides, if you leave out of frustration, who would remain to keep us in line?

Bob

chadh · « **Reply #13 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 02:16 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 6 Jan 2009, 06:25 am

OK, chadh, I see what you're saying. But having looked over these sites a bit more I've become concerned about Flickr. It's a very nannyist website. Just look at these freedom-of-speech-inhibiting regulations:

Quote
Do play nice.
We're a community of many types of people, who all have the right to feel comfortable and who may not think what you think, believe what you believe or see what you see. So, be polite and respectful in your interactions with other members.

And even worse:
Quote
If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we’ll send you a warning or terminate your account.

It's kind of amazing that people would even use a site that practices such censorship. Undoubtedly the users are only pretending to be positive because they're afraid of what might happen if they said what they really think.

youtube, on the other hand... well, they say:
Quote
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view.

So it's obviously much more of a site intended for grown-ups. More the kind of place where you get insight into what people really are about, and where you're under no obligation to consider whether other users of the site feel "comfortable" (nannyist propaganda word from Flickr) there. More... personality, shall we say, and less of the same boring old crap you get over and over again on Flickr.

John,

You're killing me!

Don't let the malcontents get you down.

Chad

chadh · « **Reply #14 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 02:53 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 6 Jan 2009, 08:41 am

Cripes, talk about discomfort; do you have any idea how frustrated some people's keyboard ineptitude makes me on THIS site!? My "right to comfort" is violated almost daily! Why do I keep coming back!?

I heard a interview with Kurt Vonnegut once, in which he was asked what lessons he tried to teach his writing students. He replied that he tells them never to use SEMICOLONS. Here is a quote I found from a book he was writing in 2003:

Quote

“If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don’t have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts. But do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.”

In the interview, Vonnegut went on explain that David Berkowitz (the notorious Son of Sam killer) was identified partly because he insisted on using the semicolon correctly in his rambling letters to the police. Apparently, this revealed to the police that they were dealing with a well educated man, and their search was significantly narrowed. To believe this story we must believe that the police were able to identify that the semicolon was used correctly in these letters, but it may be that they have forensic experts in punctuation.

I hope this provides some food for thought for all of us. Perhaps we'll think twice before flaunting our education by gratuitous use of esoteric punctuation. And before we criticize others' poor grammar or punctuation, we might consider the possibility that they are not nincompoops, but are simply trying to evade police scrutiny for their bloody criminal activities.

Chad

JohnR · « **Reply #15 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:05 pm »

Hah, now you're killing me! ; the truth is revealed,,, stark naked!

I feel that; however inconsistent attention is being paid to the lowly hyphen,,, yes even you chadh

lets get those hyphen's before we get our pedants

nathanm · « **Reply #16 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:15 pm »

Don't worry Bob, it's only like two or three people who are really obnoxious. I'm not talking about fine tooth comb stuff. Even the worst offenders at AC never stoop to YouTube-type commentary, though.

The semicolon isn't exactly an esoteric mark, though. I am sure I misuse it myself, but I wouldn't say it's esoteric. However, using the true elipsis character … instead of three periods ... that's more esoteric. I just learned that was Option-; (on the Mac) I also would say the em dash—is pretty esoteric, but there again I am not certain about how it should be used. Just a few days ago I learned of the "interrobang" ‽ a combination of exclamation point and question mark. Personally I don't like it. It's hard to make out at small screen sizes and !? just looks better. But I'd say it's definitely esoteric. Anything that can't be accessed easily during regular typing is a problem.

ur off track again N8 U dumass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JohnR · « **Reply #17 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:23 pm »

A fine-tooth comb argh

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #18 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:29 pm »

Nathan; "Dumass" is spelled in-correctly. The proper way would be: Dumbass.

Bob

{Hope I got enough punctuation in there 4 ya.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #19 on:** 6 Jan 2009, 04:29 pm »

........Or is it "Dumb-ass"?