• nadram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They try really hard to test our patience. It never should have been removed 🙄🙄🙄

    • Eribetra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, Youtube never should have removed that sorting option. Such a weird thing to do that only impairs users, without benefit for Youtube or content creators (assuming you can monetize old videos).

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only thing I can imagine is to put older video on slower/cheaper storage and prevent accessing it.

      Additionally, it is usually less “engaging” content so it is not making much money.

      Something like that might have been hypothesis. They are experimenting.

      I was missing sort by oldest.

      • dreadedchalupacabra@forum.fail
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t want you finding content, they want you watching the content they feed you. That’s why you used to be able to just subscribe and see videos, and then you had to ring the bell to see stuff you subscribed to (BECAUSE WHY WOULD YOU SUBSCRIBE TO SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T WANT TO SEE?) and then you only actually GET to see that content if you’re also allowing notifications to spam you about it. The process literally changed to “if you want to always see what you want, instead of what we tell you you want, you have to let us blow up your phone 24/7.” Fuck the modern internet, this is the reason I tend to just hide in my old video games most of the time now.

  • hhj@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have the feeling that the only reason they’re bringing back the feature is because of their push to integrate podcasts within YouTube. It makes sense to be able to sort by oldest to newest in the context of podcast episodes.

    • ToastyWaffle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously, and you know it’s purely the work of the executives and business managers, cause no developer would ever think it makes sense to remove functionality just because.

      This is what happens in capitalist markets, and especially publicly traded companies, when your market share has reached saturation and there is no natural profit growth, you have to start paywalling currently free features/content to continue the quarterly profits.

    • Gecko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They probably saw that it barely got used compared to the other two options (which makes sense) and then probably decided to remove it to free up UI space or some BS.

      Like just because something doesn’t get used a lot, doesn’t mean it’s not valuable/useful in the cases when it is being used…

      • misterundercoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our A/B testing shows that fire extinguishers are used less often and generate less revenue than gumball machines. Therefore, we have removed all fire extinguishers to make room for more gumball machines.

  • Double_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok now they just need to fix the search so it doesn’t show random bullshit after the first 3 results.