YouTube Insight: Another great way to obsess over meaningless information

YouTube finally got enough data from my Bush raps "Criminal" parody to tell me where the "Hot Spots" are in my video. It took more than 1,000 views to get this information.
Let's obsess:
Clearly, no one likes the intro. Which is unfortunate because that was the first thing I thought of when coming up with the idea for this video and figured it would be the best part.

Then as the song goes along, people seem to stick around...I think. Which may mean that the song is getting better as it goes along. Doubtful though. Here's YouTube's instructions for interpreting this data:

"The ups-and-downs of viewership at each moment in your video, compared to videos of similar length.
The higher the graph, the hotter your video: fewer viewers are leaving your video and they may also be rewinding to watch that point in the video again.
Audience attention score is an overall measure of your video's ability to retain its audience's attention, compared to videos of a similar length."

My audience attention sucks! But then again, according to YouTube's demographic (mis?)calculations, more than 50% of my viewers are between the ages of 13 and 17, so how much attention do they really have to give in the first place?

YouTube also admits:

"The data represented in the graphs is an informational, aggregate representation and the number of actual views may be higher or lower."

So I think what we can conclude here is if people press play, leave their computer to turn off the stove and get out their TV dinner and forget that they pressed play -- then they played the whole darn thing.

       

YouTube: Letting me down one new feature at a time

It seems YouTube is changing the way they let you watch videos in HD, and they are screwing it up. On all the Levy Review videos I've uploaded until my most recent one, there has been a link underneath the video on the YouTube page that says, "Watch in HD." Within the past 24 hours, they removed that link in favor of a button added to the player that says "HD." Click that and you can watch the video in mock-HD (I say mock because it's 720p, not 1080p).

For some odd reason, the video below doesn't have that fancy little HD button on its player yet. What gives, YouTube?

Oliver Stone takes some artisitic liberties again with 'W.'

I think I do a pretty darn good George Bush impression. It took me about 7 years to get decent, but who cares about that.

I finally got around to seeing "W." and the most important thing I got out of it was my impression of the former president is no match for Josh Brolin's impression.

The movie is a kind of humorous look at the latest Bush presidency.
My biggest problem with it is that director Oliver Stone made it seem as if the root of all the problems G.W. faced in his life (including during his presidency) was daddy issues.

Come on, Mr. Stone!

Sure, you are known for stretching the facts. Like turning D.A. Jim Garrison into a hero in your movie "JFK" when really the man mistreated witnesses. You admitted you took artistic license in that movie and I'm sure you would admit you did for "W." as well.

But excusing G.W.'s policies on the fact that his father never liked him as much as he liked Jeb just isn't right.

It almost feels as if you're blaming Bush senior for the whole Bush junior debacle.

I'm afraid future generations will watch your movies and not be able to tell fact from fiction.

Your movie "Nixon"' was dead on though.

That's three movies about three different presidents. That's practically a trilogy. I should add those to my Trilogy Tomatometer.

Back to "W." -- My favorite actor in the movie was Thandie Newton. She pulled off the caricature of Condoleezza Rice exactly as I hoped. I felt bad for her as much as I laughed at her. It was a perfect balance.