My main beef is that I don’t enjoy watching video form content, but having a summary would be more than sufficient to quickly determine whether or not I would be interested in watching anyway.
It’s a good idea in principle but headlines are often not in the viewer’s interest. The purpose is to get you to watch the video, not to actually tell you what’s in the video.
Unfortunately there’s lots of good videos with Clickbait titles.
There's a lot terrible articles with clickbate titles too.
A lot of the articles I'm interested reading are either clickbate/ragebait or way out of context or just completely false.
Absolutely. That's why it's still good practice to include some kind of comment about the article in the post if the content isn't clearly identified by the headline.
There’s a lot terrible articles with clickbate titles too.
The headline here does not need to be the same as the headline in the article. Other communities have rules not to editorialize headlines, this community does not. "Review of tech gadget X by outlet Y" is a perfectly fine headline here.
The purpose is to get you to watch the video, not to actually tell you what’s in the video.
There is no rule here to copy the video title into the submission headline. The submission here could be titled "PlayStation 5 Pro benchmarks by Digital Foundry", no matter how DF names the video on YouTube. Demanding summaries of videos that can easily be longer than 45 minutes is just not reasonable at all.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect others to do the same.
Yes, it is. For a deep dive video a summary is easily several paragraphs long. Not only takes it time to write the summary, for a deep dive it would include making notes during the video, pausing several times, etc. In such a case of a deep dive, this can be an hour of work. So if you want summaries, you do the work. Don't demand that from others and claim this is somehow a compromise.
Exactly. And with AI tools, getting a transcript and generating a summary shouldn't be all that hard.
All I'm looking for is a handful of bullet points that give me a reason to watch the video. I'm not watching a random video someone posts just based on the headline, I need a bit more reason to invest my time to contribute to the discussion. And if you provide a basic summary, I'll probably do the legwork and find some articles to add to the discussion while I'm watching the video.
I'm not specifically talking about myself, I'm explaining the sentiment I see here. Me personally not contributing to those posts probably won't impact anything, and that's fine. But there's a lot of pushback from people who prefer text.
All I'm saying is to put in a little effort to link a relevant text article or add a few bullet points that the video covers. That's it. The barrier to posting stuff should be a little higher than just sending links to things that seem somewhat interesting.
The sentiment here is that a loud minority cries about a tiny fraction of submissions when they could just not watch the videos in the first place.
All I’m saying is to put in a little effort to link a relevant text article or add a few bullet points that the video covers. That’s it.
Literally nobody is stopping you from doing that for other submissions. Don't task unpaid community members to do work for you, just because you don't like videos.
Lemmy might technically also be that, but it's first and foremost a discussion platform, although it has an ongoing problem with rampant bot-posts and link-dumpers.