Manipulating YouTube Videos

EliCash · Post by **EliCash** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:28 pm

As if you people wouldn't have watched it...you weren't manipulated. I don't see the big deal.

So b/c I wasn't manipulated I shouldn't care if others were? Is this really how you think?

EliCash · Post by **EliCash** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:29 pm

I think it's been in character whether they post on Revver (where Bree has even favorited a few of her favorite videos) or YouTube (where Daniel came on in character and explained the different video).

If that's the case, then that means we now have to check every YouTube and Revver video for any possible difference when it comes to the video itself, descriptions, tags, etc.

Kasdeja · Post by **Kasdeja** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:32 pm

EliCash wrote:
As if you people wouldn't have watched it...you weren't manipulated. I don't see the big deal.
So b/c I wasn't manipulated I shouldn't care if others were? Is this really how you think?

Do you always twist words? I don't see how they are manipulating anyone. If others who would never have watched the video are ticked, they sure haven't made it known.

Post by **Broken Kid** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:32 pm

EliCash wrote:
I think it's been in character whether they post on Revver (where Bree has even favorited a few of her favorite videos) or YouTube (where Daniel came on in character and explained the different video).
If that's the case, then that means we now have to check every YouTube and Revver video for any possible difference when it comes to the video itself, descriptions, tags, etc.

That's possible. Some have suspected the YouTube tags as having some hidden meanings, especially the "unusual" ones. The Revver tags haven't always matched, I don't believe. Even if that's the case and there is a secret to be learned by comparing the two, it doesn't mean we're scammed. Just means the Creators are very secretive!

Kasdeja · Post by **Kasdeja** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:33 pm

Yeah, we've been checking (and keeping track) of the video tags from months, now.

EliCash · Post by **EliCash** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:38 pm

Yeah, we've been checking (and keeping track) of the video tags from months, now.

I was aware we were keeping track of YouTube tags, but I wasn't aware we were keeping track of the Revver ones.

So thanks for that. Are there any other videos that have a different description in the YouTube version than the Revver version?

EternalGoddess · Post by **EternalGoddess** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:38 pm

EliCash wrote:
Daniel wrote in there that he did it so people would see Bree and watch it...he did it according to the storyline..not according to the new lets get more hits fad going around youtube. Take it as that.
If this was about "plot," as you're currently claiming, then there wouldn't be two different versions of the video.

Did you not even read my original post?

What if the character of Daniel said that he put in the picture of Paris Hilton "showing off her butt" b/c the video was so important that he figured that would help get more views?

They DIDN'T put a picture of Paris Hilton up they put a picture of BREE up. If they did then I would see your problem, but they didn't. Everyone already knows it's Lonelygirl15, they're not getting trick or scammed.

Post by **wintermute** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:41 pm

EliCash wrote:If that's the case, then that means we now have to check every YouTube and Revver video for any possible difference when it comes to the video itself, descriptions, tags, etc.

Only inasmuch as you *have* to follow the OpA vids to follow along LG15. In other words... Yeah, it helps but isn't required...

Personally, I can live with they way they did this, if it doesn't become the rule instead of the exception. I will, for the moment, suspend disbelief and trust Daniel's explanation. A single frame doesn't make it a completely different video. It's the same video with a frame added to overcome a shortcoming of YouTube.

If it becomes the rule? Then that's a whole different story...

'mute

EliCash · Post by **EliCash** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:42 pm

Everyone already knows it's Lonelygirl15, they're not getting trick or scammed.

Thanks for avoiding the question, which was an important hypothetical... I'll respond anyway.

By your reasoning, this wouldn't lead to more views. But everybody was already in agreement that it would (including the Creators and Daniel). Obviously people are getting tricked into it, or the Creators wouldn't have done this.

EliCash · Post by **EliCash** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:44 pm

Personally, I can live with they way they did this, if it doesn't become the rule instead of the exception. I will, for the moment, suspend disbelief and trust Daniel's explanation. A single frame doesn't make it a completely different video. It's the same video with a frame added to overcome a shortcoming of YouTube.

Yeah, I can live with it, too. I mean, I still loved the video.

Consider this thread a pre-emptive (kind of) move to make sure it doesn't become the rule.

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:46 pm

this trick is pretty unjustified...i really don't understand why they would do it...maybe too much eggnog? of distracted by the vision of jonas in a santas hat and his left sock (*pausing for a brief moment to visualize*) mmmhmmm

but, even though i though i would disagree before i even viewed the video...it is a distraction and a big...piss off (sorry for my language.)
There is absolutely no reason why they did that...AT ALL!

I see the point where its not a big foul on their part, they did put a picture up of Bree...but its distracting and there isn't a need for it.
The only reason it would push up views would be because people would see the picture and wonder why she's in her room again...

I don't know...
i'm not infuriated...but it does annoy me.

EternalGoddess · Post by **EternalGoddess** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:53 pm

EliCash wrote:
Everyone already knows it's Lonelygirl15, they're not getting trick or scammed.
Thanks for avoiding the question, which was an important hypothetical... I'll respond anyway.

By your reasoning, this wouldn't lead to more views. But everybody was already in agreement that it would (including the Creators and Daniel). Obviously people are getting tricked into it, or the Creators wouldn't have done this.

Aren't you avoiding my answer ? You said what if they did use Paris Hilton, I said they didn't so it's not that big of a deal, but if they did I would see your problem. Yes, it may have been meant to get more viewers, but they aren't using other images to get more viewers they are using a picture of Bree crying.

Sure, they shouldn't make a habid of it, but it was only one time. If they did more than once then I would agree with you. Jeez.

Post by **wintermute** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:55 pm

EliCash wrote:Yeah, I can live with it, too. I mean, I still loved the video.

Consider this thread a pre-emptive (kind of) move to make sure it doesn't become the rule.

What I didn't make clear was that yes, I see your point... I just think it's a little premature to assume that it will become the rule. It never hurts to voice a differing opinion, though. And I know all about having a differing opinion

I think most here just don't agree with you. Some are being nicer about it than others

'mute

Post by **Broken Kid** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:03 pm

wintermute wrote:
EliCash wrote:Consider this thread a pre-emptive (kind of) move to make sure it doesn't become the rule.
What I didn't make clear was that yes, I see your point... I just think it's a little premature to assume that it will become the rule. It never hurts to voice a differing opinion, though. And I know all about having a differing opinion I think most here just don't agree with you. Some are being nicer about it than others

I don't disrespect your opinion, EliCash. And I totally understand the danger of changing something... as a former journalist, it was driven into our heads that you don't doctor a photo to change the appearance of real events, and even though this is entertainment, a semblance of that rule should still apply.

I think my concern was the way you approached it... instead of asking if people thought it was a concern and expressing your own concerns, it came across as immediately accusing the Creators of scamming fans and tricking people to improve their own financial outlook. While that's a possibility, the tone is what convinced me to respond with my own opinions to the contrary.

EliCash · Post by **EliCash** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:13 pm

I can see that, BrokenKid. My approach, I think, was overly-confrontational.

Common ground!

Yes, it may have been meant to get more viewers, but they aren't using other images to get more viewers they are using a picture of Bree crying.

It was my interpretation (pure speculation, which is why I didn't mention it originally) that they figured a picture of a "cute girl" would get more click through's on YouTube's "most viewed" page than a picture of one of the guys. Or even of a car chase.

Because obviously they're doing it to get the views of people who don't automatically watch the series and might not even know about it.

And if this is the case, then that's when it becomes intentionally misleading as to the content of the video.

Manipulating YouTube Videos

What do you think?