Big channels on youtube are almost always worthless and take away people's attention from good smaller channels

Created 2023-4-27, updated slightly 2023-5-4, and 2023-5-10:

I made some comments about grifter channels and bad channels with some videos not long ago, and there was barely any response to that... The comments and responses to a few comments on a small channel were however in agreement and stated some issues about searching for videos that gave always suggested the same big channels, as if there was less choice than many years ago, which there isn't...

Then I watched a little bit of a video of a guy complaining that another channel had copied his video about his analysis of 'District 9' which made me finally make this video with criticism of various youtube channels, and what it causes, i.e. to take attention away from small channels that are more useful and more interesting, i.e. taking away attention away from other topics and from channels which are not posting for money (which almost all big channels are doing, they make videos for the purpoise of making videos which in turn because of views means their videos get recommended by youtube, i.e. a self-confirming loop of channels that get viewed a lot because they get recommended because they get viewed a lot. Thanks youtube!).

To be good a channel it should put out videos that fullfil one or more of the following:

• 1. Interesting
• 2. Funny
• 3. Useful

Channels that I think are a waste of time (not necessarily bad nor grifters but low effort content that is not useful):

• [ bicycling ] "Berm peak express"/"Berm peak": Gets recommended all the time when viewing on youtube while not logged in. I don't find any of the videos that I (partially) watched interesting or useful or funny. Well, one video about bottle cages from 4 years ago or so, was decent, but nothing else. Recently I saw a recommendation for "Berm peak", so another channel by this same guy.
• [ bicycling ] "Sam Pilgrim": I saw some thumbnails of videos of a bike with the biggest wheels and thought "uninteresting, stupid". Then I saw a thumbnail about a video on crank adjusters, and thought that might be interesting. It turned out they were meant for people with say low mobility to adjust pedal stroke length, instead of say 175 mm to 165 mm which could have been interesting as a test to see what it effects in how fast or easy you ride if doing that on both sides (I remember some tests, I think in a copy of Bicycling magazine, in which the writer stated with larger cranks he could put out more power but that with those cranks he would blow up on longer efforts. I'm not sure if it was about time trials or climbs, as it was long ago). In any case, he didn't test anything just talked about this. Possibly for people who need it it could be a useful pointer to a product they might not know exists, but other than that it was a no-effort video, and a waste of time for most people. I saw a few recent thumbnails about how long to ride a cheap bike until it breaks, a bike with the 'biggest wheels' and other stupid topics. No watch from me.
• [ bicycling ] "Path less pedaled": I find these videos to have a low information content. I.e. on a specific topic there are no in-depth points shown, though they are perhaps good pointers for people on what equipment might suit them. A good example is his video about alternatives to the Brooks B17 saddle, with no proper discussion of the point that non-leather saddles cannot match: Sit bone support after breaking in. The worst was a video sometime late 2022 if I recall correctly, in which he stated he would go back to friction shifting as indexed shifters are so expensive, $200 or so increase compared to older versions. WTF?! In what universe can you buy a new bike of say $1500 or more, but not afford an extra $200? If you buy 10 bikes then $200 for each one could perhaps become an issue for a business that lets bikes, but I would rather go to a lower groupset in such a case than to use friction shifting on a high end group set. This argument is so stupid that I ignore any suggestions about that channel.
• [ bicycling + other topics ] "Tom Stanton", "The Q" (e.g. bicycle made just from nuts, 'high speed bicycle'), "Colin Furze": The thumbnails/topics already make me disinterested in all these channels. I didn't watch any videos, they can't be good with the stupid topics that I saw in them.
• [ bicycling ] GCN (global cycling network): I can't stand one of their presenters and their tests are not thorough enough. It is more entertainment, so perhaps for you it can fall into category 2. For me it doesn't.
• [ Society criticism ] Odin's men: In principle his criticism is good and his comments make sense, but his videos do not do anything useful, there is no change going to come in society from such passive discussions. Action needs to be taken, analysis published to expose the insanity in a structured manner. For a different method see "SC reviews" which makes fun of the same type of situations and in that way is at least somewhat positive in that you can laugh about the crazy and anti-social people in society.
• [ Society criticism ] Worse are 'Styxhexenhammer666', 'Yellow flash 2', Steve Turley: Very low information content per video, no real analysis, no effort to make changes besides just telling people what is bad. The problem here is in particular not giving proper analysis and whatever analysis the first guy did give or talk about, was wrong (as I know from analysing various of these topics myself).

You may like some of these channels, that is fine if you like certain entertainment, for me they do not fulfill any of the 3 criteria above in the actual videos, or from what is indicated by the thumbnails.

Channels that I think are bad/grifters

• [ Criticism of insanity in society ] "The quartering": This guy was when I watched some videos in 2020 always whining about 'earning your trust to subscribe' despite a million or so followers. What does that mean? He likely makes $100k per month... (you can deduce it is likely that amount from the guy from Odin's men who stated he was 'owed' 23k$ for February by youtube with far less subscribers). The gall to whine about people not subscribing when making so much money is unbelievable. All this whining also meant you could skip the first few minutes of any of his videos. He is on my boycott list.
• [ computer stuff ] "Linus tech tips"/"LMG clips" and I think there is another channel by him: I never watched a video by him but I can't stand the face of that guy (which means I don't like his personality which shows in the face, especially the facial expressions tell me: a-hole), and he is from comments that I read in many places, providing low effort information to steer buyers. Not surprising. I won't watch anything from/with this guy.
• [ Documentaries about WW2 mostly ] "Dark seas"/"Dark docs"/"Dark tech", well, "Dark"-anything. I watched a few videos partially. I can't stand his way of talking and it's not researched well enough.
• [ Various about society ] Of course all propaganda: "Hindustan times", a scummy liar channel, just like "Military summary" which is a Belarusian pro-ruzzian propagandist, and all pro-russian channels such as "The dive with Jackson Hinkle", "Redacted"/"Red pilled TV", "iEarlGray", TrueinFo and many more. "Firstpost" (another Indian channel) could also fall under this, judging from 1 video I watched.
• [ Documentaries ] "Into the shadows" and various other channels such as "Mega projects"/"Side projects"/"Today I found out" with some bald guy with a beard, usually open mouth in the thumbnail, which is a manipulative technique. I think I watched 1 video, perhaps 2, but didn't find it compelling to watch and I won't watch any videos from channels using such manipulative thumbnails.
• [ crap ] "Mr Beast": Thumbnails with open mouth (= manipulation), and stupid uninteresting video topics means I never watched anything by him, nor will I. He takes away views to other smaller channels.
• [ athletics ] "Total running productions"/"TRP": I watched one video long ago. Annoying style of talking/background music, titles are always manipulative "This will never happen again", "the biggest world record of 2022", using arrows and attention grabbing words in the thumbnails, etc.
• [ military stuff, WW2 mostly ] People who are incompetent: 'Military history visualized' / 'Military history not visualized' / 'Military aviation history': A know-it-all, i.e. a person who thinks he knows it all but knows almost nothing, which implies an anti-social personality which implies he is incompetent. I showed this on a separate page on my site and as part of one of my videos on youtube. See Youtube comments: PzH2000/militaryhistory visualized.
• [ military stuff ] People who are incompetent: 'RedEffect': I watched perhaps 2 videos which I found were to be of low value content (low information density, i.e. little information per video), and the final straw was one in which he claimed that it was unusual that there were tank on tank battle only late in 2022, as both sides lost a lot of tanks. I can't take this seriously. If you only superficially follow reporting on the war instigated by Russia, then you should know that all the tank donations by Russia because of retreating while being incompetent, and by esp. donations by eastern European countries, mean that Ukraine actuially had at any time more tanks than at the start of the war. For a monetised channel with lots of subscribers, this shows a huge incompetence.
• [ I only saw thumbnails about Russia-Ukraine war , not sure if he does other videos ] People who are incompetent: 'William Spaniel': I partially watched one video and gave up on that video and on that channel. This guy is a moron, he cannot reason. The video was about why Ukraine hadn't attacked the Kerch bridge. One of the arguments was that if you attacked already you couldn't use the threat 'if you do that we will attack the Kerch bridge', and that they could leverage that threat to make the Russians leave Crimea. This is such an unbelievably stupid argument, I have to wonder if there is a brain in his head. That bridge has no value except as a connection from the rest of Russia to Crimea. If they don't have Crimea, then that bridge is pointless, and thus has no value to the Russians!
• [ society criticism, criticises 'the right' ]: The majority report with Sam Seder: This guy is a complete moron.
• [ various stuff ]: Penguinz0: Very low effort content, not useful to anyone, wastes every watcher's time.

These channels are not really a guy making videos, but businesses making videos, usually consisting of multiple people. They take away views from good and from small channels.

Channels that are bad in some other way

• [ anti-scamming ] Scammer payback: Derogatory about others doing similar things, expressionless face (which indicates an anti-social personality). I watched part of one live stream by him and what was most remarkable was his expressionless face. I don't care if he's good at anti-scamming, I just can't stand him.
• [ cycling ] Hambini: An anti-social person who claimed to be an 'autistic engineer' in earlier videos, which he isn't as he swears all the time in his videos and/or titles, which is what autists don't do. I watched I think just 1 video but I can't stand him. An anti-social personality means he cannot be good at reasoning/analysis so I'm not interested in his videos.

What channels are good

This is a list that is true currently and may change with some channels over time, you will know when you see it.

• [ bicycling ] "RJ the bike guy": Bike repairs, excellent videos, not monetised, really useful if you need to repair something. Unlikely to change.
• [ film criticism and jokes ] "Space Ice": Very funny reviews of films.

Note about changes in channels

An example of something I don't like in how channels change is bauforum24, which is a good german channel about tools. I watched it quite a bit when doing house renovations but I hate that he started using manipulative thumbnails the last year or so, and his recent sidekick is a waste of time. which together made me not watch any more.

What I ignore on youtube and elsewhere

• Any videos with manipulative thumbnails (such as: open mouth, partially nude woman, arrows with attention grabbing words).
• Any videos with in the name of the video title, or in the name of the channel, anything like 'top' (top 5, top 10 etc.), 'you must have', 'You must see', 'viral', 'investing', 'You are doing/using it wrong', etc.

Last modified: 2023-5-4