New Youtube method?? - this is insane

[sothisisnightlife]

In what part of the video did he ask you to watch it more than once? Sure, some people will replay it. But look at all of his other short videos. No greater amount of people are replaying the others than the one I linked. If the trick was to have users watch the video more than once, then why are all his other short videos not insanely viral?

He didn't ask you to watch more than once. Thats the whole point, ofcourse he didn't want to give that away.
How do you think these shorts get so many views? Its because the retention is like 200% or more.

 

[u2u2u2]

watching at 0.25 speed does nothing for the algo. this video is clickbait which is why its performing well, no other reason. no where in the api is the watch speed reported back to youtube. requests aren't timed. its bullshit and you are falling for it.

Are you sure YouTube doesn't reports back watch speed ? YouTube knows everything.

 

[ExpertOption]

Of course, youtube knows about speed and these are basic things that cannot be hidden.

 

[GenesisOne]

Worth a test
thanks for sharing op

 

[bladee4r]

He didn't ask you to watch more than once. Thats the whole point, ofcourse he didn't want to give that away.
How do you think these shorts get so many views? Its because the retention is like 200% or more.

Please the text that you quoted. Again, if you were right, then all of his vids would be almost 2 mil vids. But they aren't.
So, either the method works, or it is just getting recommended to people more. But it is definitely not rewatching that is happening.

Are you sure YouTube doesn't reports back watch speed ? YouTube knows everything.

Of course, youtube knows about speed and these are basic things that cannot be hidden.

Actually I'm pretty sure it does, I don't know why I said it doesn't. I think I meant to say the watch speed itself doesn't inherently impact the watch retention variables, however I'm proposing (and so is he) that the longer duration of watch due to the slower watch speed, impacts watch retention.
And yeah you're right YouTube knows everything. I'm sure they have thought of this, but just not many people do it on a practical scale where they would have to put some concern on it.
The only thing they would be concerned about is whole movies being uploaded at slow motion, but I think their copyright AI is advanced enough by now to detect this, because I don't see this method much anymore.

 

[Instantsmmpanel]

100% clickbait.

 

[lax37]

Please the text that you quoted. Again, if you were right, then all of his vids would be almost 2 mil vids. But they aren't.
So, either the method works, or it is just getting recommended to people more. But it is definitely not rewatching that is happening.


Actually I'm pretty sure it does, I don't know why I said it doesn't. I think I meant to say the watch speed itself doesn't inherently impact the watch retention variables, however I'm proposing (and so is he) that the longer duration of watch due to the slower watch speed, impacts watch retention.
And yeah you're right YouTube knows everything. I'm sure they have thought of this, but just not many people do it on a practical scale where they would have to put some concern on it.
The only thing they would be concerned about is whole movies being uploaded at slow motion, but I think their copyright AI is advanced enough by now to detect this, because I don't see this method much anymore.

Mate you have no idea what you're talking about. Watch time is how much of the video the user has sat through. They report skips but watch speed doesn't make a difference to the reported watch time, nor is YouTube told about the watch speed when reporting watch time. They could still detect it server side but there's 0 reason why they would do that. Atop talking about something you have no idea about.

 

[awesomewebsites]

Crazy stuff right there. Will surely be patched soon.

Already done.

 

[bladee4r]

Mate you have no idea what you're talking about. Watch time is how much of the video the user has sat through. They report skips but watch speed doesn't make a difference to the reported watch time, nor is YouTube told about the watch speed when reporting watch time. They could still detect it server side but there's 0 reason why they would do that. Atop talking about something you have no idea about.

The method might not be working, but that doesn't mean I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm suggesting it to test out for people who are using YouTube regularly.
The skip I was suggesting was just my explanation for my thought process: I think 0.25 speed results in an elongated video, which might mean that this method is working. That's what I meant.

 

[ChubbyMedia]

I knew this a long time ago, but great share for the public

 

[cloakedsro]

I did some little testing with this thing today. The way I did was by adding manual views using two mobile phones with 4G residential IPs. The classic switch to airplane then back to mobile data mode.
As you can see in the added screenshot below, I have an average view duration of 3:25 on a 3:03 video. The 12:09 segment is from when I started adding views using the 0.25 speed option.

It looks weird, and nice. The watch time grows by a lot more than it should.
No idea how this will affect the video just yet. The video itself is in a highly competitive niche and I'll let you all know if I ever see it ranked in any way with this thing. I suppose it will take a day or two for the analytics to fully update themselves.
For the moment, I'll keep adding around 20 or so more views.

 

[bladee4r]

I did some little testing with this thing today. The way I did was by adding manual views using two mobile phones with 4G residential IPs. The classic switch to airplane then back to mobile data mode.
As you can see in the added screenshot below, I have an average view duration of 3:25 on a 3:03 video. The 12:09 segment is from when I started adding views using the 0.25 speed option.


View attachment 182036

It looks weird, and nice. The watch time grows by a lot more than it should.
No idea how this will affect the video just yet. The video itself is in a highly competitive niche and I'll let you all know if I ever see it ranked in any way with this thing. I suppose it will take a day or two for the analytics to fully update themselves.
For the moment, I'll keep adding around 20 or so more views.

Yooo, that's great. That graph looks really nice for sure. Good luck

 

[leomeseta]

Interesting observation ... but its implications will surely be temporary

 

[Trueflame]

OK so assuming this trick works as stated...ok you'd get a really high retention rate. But his video is only 30 seconds long so 4x playback speed is 2 minutes. Maintaining viewer interest for the whole of 2 minutes is not that hard. So the video doesn't really prove its own method. My guess is the success of the video is down to its virality rather than any hack. Others who have tried the same trick seem to be getting few views. The important point here is that even IF you take everything the video creator says at face value his implementation of it sucks.

What might work is making a longer video (say 10 minutes) and then doing the .25 trick. Viewer retention at that level probably would make a huge difference, 20 minute + videos with viewer retention will explode. But you'd have to make an interesting video that would have an acceptable view duration in its own right and potentially waste that content on a possibly imaginary exploit. In short I am hoping someone else does this so I can use that information because I can't be arsed.

 

[sagarmalik007]

Check this video out (not mine).
Everything is explained in the video, but to summarize it he tests whether having people watch a video at 0.25% will increase retention rate. And you can obviously tell it does, compare to all of his other videos view counts and reach.

The implications of this in IM could be really big. Wanted to share this with you guys immediately.

I think this is really a new technique to get more renention tate on youtube.
Will try it.
Bookmarking this.
Really helped

 

[CyHead]

IT's definitely based on repeat views - it's a 30 second video - so people will watch the entire video before they can change the settings to slow it down, and then when they watch it the second time Google goes - this must be engaging.

What do we learn from this?
- Create shorter videos
- Depending on your niche, create CTA to get people to repeat watch it - add in instructions, intentionally speed up parts of the video to encourage people to rewind
- Don't expect this to work forever.

 

[bladee4r]

IT's definitely based on repeat views - it's a 30 second video - so people will watch the entire video before they can change the settings to slow it down

It takes you 30 seconds to change a setting? lol

 

[CyHead]

It takes you 30 seconds to change a setting? lol

No, but once you've started playing the video, you're likely to rewind it to the beginning - which gets reported to Youtube as a user restarting the video.

 

[bladee4r]

No, but once you've started playing the video, you're likely to rewind it to the beginning - which gets reported to Youtube as a user restarting the video.

Possibly - that might be something to look into, and maybe something that could be adapted for. The video does give time for the user to slow down the video, so personally I didn't rewind it. But that could definitely be a factor.

 

[Mahbub Rahman]

Don't know if it would rank or not but as the creator says it will increase the retention and it does the thing.