Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Google Ranks Videos

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the hello-kate-monster dept.

69

Nirnimesh writes "Google reveals their ranking system for videos on the official blog. The system lists videos according to their country-wide popularity. From the article: 'We use algorithms to identify videos that are suddenly becoming popular, and then rank them based on how popular they are -- and how suddenly they became popular. We've been using this list internally, and now it's ready to share with you, so check it out. Right now this feature highlights videos from close to 40 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand, to name a few.'"

cancel ×

69 comments

No pigeons? (4, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510163)

And I was so sure they were using a team of trained pigeons...

Re:No pigeons? (1)

demongeek (977698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510187)

Well, if monkeys can write Shakespeare, surely a team of highly trained bobbing-head birds [snpp.com] could do it...

Re:No pigeons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15510229)

"official Google-blog" my ass.

Google ownn Blogger, and its official blog is on Blogspot - does that make sense?

Re:No pigeons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15510276)

Google ownn Blogger, and its official blog is on Blogspot - does that make sense?

Why, yes, it does. Blogger was the name of the blog creation program that Google acquired. Blogspot was the name of the blog-hosting site owned by the people that made Blogger. When Google bought that company (forgot the name), they acquired both Blogger and Blogspot.

Re:No pigeons? (3, Interesting)

markild (862998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510192)

And I was so sure they were using a team of trained pigeons...
Nah.. That's just for regular web-pages [google.com] .

That's what makes this so special. They actually had to sit down and make an algorithm.

Re:No pigeons? (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510220)

NO.. it was pigeons who decided that every time someone at Google or Apple took a breath of air that it was newsworthy.


I mean come on... IT ISN'T NEWS!

Re:No pigeons? (1)

EmoryBrighton (934326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510280)

Did you notice the last country in the list is named "Viet Nam" ?

...
<option value="usa">United States</option>
<option value="ven">Venezuela</option>
<option selected value="vnm">Viet Nam</option>

Re:No pigeons? (2, Funny)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510605)

My money was on manatees.

Re:No pigeons? (1)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510776)

No, they were using a team of trained CowBoyNeals. This is why the poor quality of the videos.

How hard could it possibly be to... (1)

demongeek (977698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510167)

How hard could it possibly be to merely take object X's statistics page, and compare the n unique pagehits versus every other one?

Re:How hard could it possibly be to... (4, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510389)

That's not hard. That's also not what they do, apparently. They actually try to detect popular videos before they are popular. That way a current video gets a higher rank than an old fad that got 2 billion downloads over the years. Think measuring acceleration instead of speed. That's probably not very hard, either. But the resulting page [google.com] is still pretty cool.

Re:How hard could it possibly be to... (1)

ickeicke (927264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512345)

That way a current video gets a higher rank than an old fad that got 2 billion downloads over the years.
The why is "The MAC Gamer" [google.com] in 4th place? Because Google does not assess the content of the video. If I re-upload "an old fad that got 2 billion downloads over the years", Google does not know that it's old and if a lot of people see it, Google thinks that it's some hot new video.

Re:How hard could it possibly be to... (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512388)

That's true. Hard to find a way around that. I suppose that a video that really is hot and new will have a different download character - exponential growth, maybe - than an old hot video, which assumedly would have a constant, semi-high number of downloads. Maybe they work it out that way, maybe they don't.

Same old, same old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15510179)

'We use algorithms to identify videos that are suddenly becoming popular, and then rank them based on how popular they are"

That's exactly the same as the search engine: "We use algorithms to determine how popular a page is!". How about just telling us the fricking algorithm instead of giving us this same crap over and over again?

Re:Same old, same old... (1)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510195)

Trade Secret(tm)

Re:Same old, same old... (1)

26199 (577806) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510270)

Pagerank has some pretty good information publically available:

Pagerank Explained [iprcom.com]

That at least covers a big chunk of what Google does.

Barbie Girl (5, Insightful)

rogerramrod (947312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510193)

I don't think the algorithm is quite ready for prime time yet,
seeing that currently the most popular video on Google is of a chubby nerdy tranvestite playbacking a song of Aqua

Re:Barbie Girl (2, Funny)

TadZimas (921646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510249)

You obviously haven't been on the internet long enough.
Chubby nerdy tranvestites ARE the most popular thing on the internet.
Hands down.
Followed with Songs by Aqua at a distant second.

OMG PONIES!!!!111 (1)

lm1981 (977967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510423)

So I click to see the movers for Czech Republic and at this very moment there are no less than 32 videos (from 37) which have the term "barbie girl" in their title... WTF!?

Re:OMG PONIES!!!!111 (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510926)

Why else do you think all the best strippers are Czechs?

Re:Barbie Girl (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511409)

no kidding, yet another recipe and ranking page built as a feedback loop. people download the top thing on the list to see what the hell other people liked about it. until they can include in their ranking criteria the number of people that stopped the download 20 seconds into the video, it won't really be a list of "things that people liked the most" but instead the "things that people thought they might like the most"

It's filled with dupes, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15512002)

If you browse the listings, past the 10th page or so (yes, I really was bored) of most searches, you get endless dupes that it apparently doesn't recognize as similar... or something.

Sorta like browsing the Slashdot archives :-)

Re:Barbie Girl (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512225)

Not just that, if you look through the pages there are about 20 videos in them that are all people singing this song. WTF?

"Algorithms and ranking system" (2, Insightful)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510198)

We use algorithms to identify videos that are suddenly becoming popular, and then rank them based on how popular they are -- and how suddenly they became popular.

Seriously, this isn't all that cool (one might even say lame) even for news from Google. Even a simple (video_rank = num_video_views where num_video_views >threshold) would work from what I read from the description.

But then, they just posted it on their blog, it's the "blogosphere" that blows/hypes it out of proportion.

Re:"Algorithms and ranking system" (2, Informative)

Temporal (96070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510519)

Actually, it's a whole lot more complicated and interesting than you think. The idea is that videos which have been steadily popular for a long time shouldn't show up, but videos which have become popular recently should. So, you don't see the same old boring videos every day like you do with the top 100 list.

Re:"Algorithms and ranking system" (1)

Shemmie (909181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510653)

Ahhhh, so you times it all by 1/How_long_has_this_been_around ?

Re:"Algorithms and ranking system" (1)

Temporal (96070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510705)

That would not find videos which have been around for a year but just became popular yesterday.

Re:"Algorithms and ranking system" (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512455)

Yes, that's what's really cool, because i've seen my nephew use certain video sites before he just does a quick google search, loads the same video, Every time. he shows it to everyone, and loads it over and over again. just last weekend he loaded the same video 12 times in one day by my count. a couple of the people he showed liked it, but for the most part they were bored of it quickly.

because there are a lot of people who act like that the 'top 100' lists usually become the stagnant tripe that a handful of people who are 'easily amused' and have the free time to constantly reload the same content. having a page rank code that helps prevent that stagnation is very useful for videos, especially.

I wonder how accurate this is. (4, Interesting)

micheas (231635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510213)

If you look at what google publishes about pagerank and compare what they say with the search results returned by google.com you will notice discrepencies.

For example google claims that they do not return urls that contain '&id=' but that is clearly not the case. (Joomla and Mambo sites without seo enabled would have substantially fewer pages returned than they do if this was the case.)

I have come to feel that I can trust google about like I can trust my own contries military. (after independent verifiaction, and I need some reason to believe second source is not compromised.) But there are gems in the statements so I read them and after I am done reading I have more questions than before.

This looks like a small glimps into one component of pagerank. But the article is pretty light on substance.

Nothing like destroying an early beta (5, Interesting)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510227)

So they rank video's by how _suddenly_ they become popular...and we go an put it up for a Slashdotting. Good luck unraveling them stats Googlers.

Re:Nothing like destroying an early beta (1)

tibike77 (611880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510639)

Hey, nothing better in the early "open" beta stages than a massive stress test, if you ask me ;)

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Laurent Van Winckel (981551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510273)

The algorithm doesn't seem to be quite ready, as I'm not really pleased by the rank of some videos. Anyway, the movers top list seem to work fine, I'm seeing many World Cup videos :)

Surpised by Free Software (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15510293)

Eric had been driving through Pennsylvania since dusk and had crossed into Ohio about two hours ago. It was 2 AM and pitch black outside as he approached Columbus. He flicked the ash from his Marlboro Light out his cracked window and mopped a greasy swatch of orange-brown hair back across his forehead. He hadn't stopped to eat, drink, or relieve himself since he'd left Malvern and the strain of the road was getting to him. With a gulp of cold coffee and one last puff from his cigarette he rolled his window up and refocused.

His eyes glanced over the console on their way back up to his dirty windshield, and to Eric's chagrin the gas needle was hovering just above E, shimmying ever so slightly as his Omni wiggled and jammed down the highway. He began scanning the horizon for travel plazas where he could buy gas and freshen up for the next third of his journey. It wasn't long before he saw Exit 122 and soon after a sign for a Flying J Travel Plaza. Eric exited I-70 quickly, anxious for a break.

After pulling up next to a pump, Eric dragged himself out of his car and waited with the gas nozzle in hand, just in case of a backfire, as his Omni usually shuttered for a minute or so after he'd shut it off. Finally jamming the nozzle into the hole, Eric smiled as he envisioned a steamy hot shower. After that he would indulge in the luxury of a late-night truck-stop feast. ESR tapped his foot as he waited for the pump to start. Half a second later, he almost had a heart attack.

Sir, all of our pumps are now prepay and you'll have to come inside to pay before you can pump your gas, an unseen speaker blared at him.

Startled, Eric jumped back, dropped the nozzle on the ground, and bumped the Omni's gas door shut with his ass. His heart beat furiously and he trembled uncontrollably. Heeding the cashier's friendly greeting, Eric picked the nozzle up and shoved it back in its holster and made his way to the store's entrance. He was not pleased with having to prepay, not pleased at all. And he intended to share this with the clerk. He marched up to the front checkout and drew himself up to his whole 5'6 and glared.

Do you know who I am? Eric demanded, his voice like a teapot about to blow its top.

The cashier, a lean young man of about 20 with longish dark hair pulled back in a pony tail with three days of stubble and sky-blue eyes, looked at him and stifled a chuckle. No, he said. I don't.

Well that's your first mistake, Eric said before he paused to look at the clerk's name-tag, Shawn.

Shawn bit his cheeks to keep from smiling and made direct eye contact with Eric -- or tried to, since Eric's eyes were all over the place at this late hour. I'm sorry about that, sir. What can I help you with tonight? he asked.

You can start by putting thirty five dollars in gas on pump thirteen, Eric said. And then I'll take three of these motor oils, five of those bottles of trucker pills, and one of your hot showers in the back, he finished, grabbing and throwing the items on the counter.

Ringing, Shawn watched to make sure Eric didn't pack anything in his pockets during the sale.

Will this be cash or credit? Shawn asked.

Credit, Eric answered with gusto. On my VA Software credit card!

Eric produced a blue credit card with the familiar Tux penguin logo in the right hand corner and gave it to Shawn. He stared at the ground and tapped his foot while the transaction went through. He yawned and looked off into the distance at the showers, where he would soon bathe himself after days of sweaty travail. That last eight hours of driving had really clenched the odor. Eric idly noticed one of the doors had a Linux sticker on it and smiled, bemused. He'd take that room for luck.

Just sign here, Shawn said after handing Eric his card, a receipt, and a cheap pen. Would you like a bag?

No, no, no, no bag tonight, Eric said as he signed the receipt and gathered his purchases up in his arms and began hobbling toward the door.

Sir, wait up! Shawn called after him.

Eric turned and raised his eyebrows. Yes, what is it? he said.

Shawn held out a small, full plastic bag. You forgot your shower bag, sir. he told Eric, who was now standing at the counter again, negotiating a hand free from his motor oil and speed pills.

You can use any of the free stalls, you just have to lock it from the inside, Shawn told Eric as he deftly placed the bag on top of the motor oil. Enjoy your stall, man.

Oh, I will! Eric said as he made his way outside. I will!

Eric sauntered slowly to the shower rooms in the back of the Flying J trucker mall, thinking about how nice a long, steamy shower would feel. He opened the door with the Linux sticker on it and took a towel, wash rag, soap, shampoo, and several small tea lights out of his shower bag and set them on the sink. Humming Ride of the Valkyries, he disrobed and began lighting the candles, thinking of sudsing his sloping shoulders and running soap through his naughty areas. His humming grew more intense.

Standing naked in the candlelight humming, Eric closed his eyes and envisioned summer waterfalls in the Germanic countryside. In Eric's fantasy pure Teutonic waters lapped at his thin, pale chest while Swabian maidens giggled as he spat water at them. His hands reached forward past the shower curtain, turning the faucets, and water began spraying from the shower head. He stepped inside. His humming filled the shower and he was lost in the Black Forest, wild with the secrets of Germany and Open Source.

He ran his thin bar of soap across his limp body as the warm water washed over him. A German maiden stepped under the hidden waterfall with Eric, eyes sparkling in the candlelight. Eric soaped his buttocks and stood ready for her in the warmth and darkness. Wagner thundered in the magic cavern and he extended his hand, full of the magic energy of the motherland -- and soap -- to caress his young valkyrie's face. He reached out, ever so slowly, savoring the moment...

And touched a thick blanket of whiskers.

What the fuck! Eric yelled as he opened his eyes.

Standing at the other end of the shower was none other than Richard Stallman, leader of the Free Software Foundation, in his dripping wet altogether with a look of anticipation on his shaggy face.

I was wondering when you'd realize I was here, he said. His voice was high pitched and monotonic. It rang in Eric's ears.

What, Eric yelled, Are you doing in my shower twenty minutes outside of Columbus?!

Please, Eric, calm yourself, Richard said. I thought we were getting along.

We were, Eric said, Except for that nasty little problem of you always saying that Free Software is better than Open Source.

Richard looked at Eric with puppy dog eyes. Fine enough to have a truck stop rendezvous? he pleaded.

Look - no - not until you tell me how you knew I would be here, Eric said, pointing at Richard. Was it you on Match.com all along?

Match.com? Richard said, looking puzzled. If you're cruising for ass online you should not use Match.com. It is not Free.

Then what are you doing here? Eric said, ignoring Richard's capital F. Columbus is a little out of your territory, don't you think?

I could ask the same thing of you, Richard said. He noted that the shower was still running warm water all over Eric's backside as they spoke. But I am down here speaking to the Central Ohio Linux User's Group about the GPL.

Eric said, I'm on a little road-trip to Kansas City, He dropped his hands to his hips. And I took this room because I saw the Tux sticker on it.

Ah! Richard exclaimed. I knew I should have used a gnu sticker! Any old bum will take a room with a penguin on the door.

Eric noticed the gleam in Richard's dark, beady eyes from the low amber light of the candles. And just then, in the middle of their silence, Flying J's muzak came on. Richard and Eric both looked up, waiting to catch the tune. It began softly but suggested a faster beat. Then, slowly, the sound came into focus -- it was Hung Up, the first single from Madonna's new album. Both Eric and Richard's heads bobbed in sync with the beat and their feet began tapping along. Eric's hips started swaying as well.

Eric was the first to break out of the song. Look, I have a bottle of Jäger in my Omni. There's not much room in there, but-

Don't worry about how much room there is, Richard said, stopping Eric. Let's just enjoy this song first and worry about the rest later.

And that's exactly what Eric and Richard did while Madonna gave way to a string of other muzak hits and the tea lights burned out. Eric had a long night ahead of him before he embarked westward to Kansas City in the morning.

Re:Surpised by Free Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15510326)

I am forced to admit this is all true. How do these trolls find out all the details about my personal life? They must be stalking me!!!!!

Sincerly,

ESR

I'm flabergasted (5, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510310)

You know, maybe it's not Google who hypes this up. Maybe they just posted it in a blog and the community took it up.

Every single little thing Google does, no matter how trivial, is reported to take down Microsoft and take over the world.

But COME ON, is this really worth an article on Slashdot:

[we] rank them based on how popular they are

Shit they better patent it before someone else figures it out!
It's only literally every site with plenty of items that can be sorted based on popularity.

Re:I'm flabergasted (2, Funny)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510400)

But COME ON, is this really worth an article on Slashdot?

We are geeks. We have seen Google come from nothing to the best piece of real estate on the web. Google has changed our vocabulary. A new verb is now in it, called "google". Kinda like the "slashdot effect" and others.

I mean, check out what is "news" to the rest of the world -- http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=paris+h ilton&btnG=Search+News [google.com]

A dumb blond wrecking her car...

Re:I'm flabergasted (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510439)

We are geeks... I mean, check out what is "news" to the rest of the world. A dumb blond wrecking her car...

I find this especially ironic. People care about Paris Hilton's car crash not because car crashes are particularly rare, but because Paris Hilton is really popular.

And you're reasoning that Google ordering items by popularity is very important, not because ordering by popularity is particularly rare, but because Google is really popular.

But you can always find comfort in the idea that we're "the geeks" and "the rest of the world" is just plain dumb and undeserving attention.

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

Colz Grigor (126123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510659)

Does anyone else find it humorous that it was through this article that I learned that Paris Hilton was in a car crash? ::Colz Grigor

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510697)

Who's Paris Hilton?

KFG

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

bobthesloth (981000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511144)

Ah, now this is the correct response.

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

r3m0t (626466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512082)

What's a car crash?

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512541)

Does anyone else find it humorous that it was through this article that I learned that Paris Hilton was in a car crash?

Maybe no since I, and most of us here did too.

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512507)

I find this especially ironic. People care about Paris Hilton's car crash not because car crashes are particularly rare, but because Paris Hilton is really popular.

Its not ironic. All popular people are popular simply because they are popular.

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512544)

Its not ironic. All popular people are popular simply because they are popular.

This is not the thing I'm saying is ironic. Read the whole post.

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512949)

I find this especially ironic. People care about Paris Hilton's car crash not because car crashes are particularly rare, but because Paris Hilton is really popular.
And you're reasoning that Google ordering items by popularity is very important, not because ordering by popularity is particularly rare, but because Google is really popular.


1- Like rain on a wedding day.

2- For crying out loud, WHY is google popular VS why is the dumb blonde popular? THAT is the freaking difference.

Google is popular because it works well, the article is about how it works.
Paris Hilton is popular because she's got money for self promotion. She's a vapid waste of carbon who should be ignored.

P.S. Had not heard of her car trouble before you mentioned her.

Re:I'm flabergasted (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510555)

I guess geeks are not so different from teens - instead of worshipping the newest pop star and everything little thing he/she does, we worship websites and every little thing they do.

But why? I hate to say it, but I almost understand the teens better than I do my fellow geeks.

Is this how Digg works? (1)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510317)

I realize it may be blasphemy to discuss digg on /. but what the hell- it's sat afternoon and I'm already 25% drunk.

Isn't this is exactly how Digg assigns stories to the home page? Not based on number of diggs, but rather, how quickly an item was dugg.

Being a member of both sites.... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510533)

... The answer is "No." To make a very weak analogy, Digg's "Dugg Stories" are much like Slashdot's "Submitted stories." The more it's mentioned, the higher rank it gets, and thus the better chance of it being put on the front page. (Which is what most story posters here on /. are pissy about. We post a story first, it has to have many other people submit it, then the editors decide if it's worthy enough, and when it *IS* posted, the original poster of the story is not even mentioned. But I guess I can't complain - I've only been warning slashdot about stuff for a short time, and they always seem to ignore it (See my submission history/summaries if you wanna-be troll-modders think otherwise,) and of course I'm not a paying member so my 'news' isn't really worth jack shit to them, even though I can *ALMOST* fully comprehend/predict the possible negatives that will affect us, judging by the news of whatever-mentioned story that gets rejected/accepted. That's life on /. get used to it.

Re:Being a member of both sites.... (1)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510570)

I use both sites too (same sn), and I fear you may be mistaken.

Look at digg [digg.com] right now: story #1 has 112 diggs, story #10 has 486 diggs. It must be using something else to rank. I have heard other diggers claim it was based on time, but I haven't actually seen anything to confirm this anywhere.

Re: submission. Don't let it bite yer ass. I'm 0 for 2 myself, and both stories have ended up on here anyway (just with a *ahem* better *idontthinkso* summary).

Ok, ok...no more "grousing". ;-)

Re:Being a member of both sites.... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511361)

Umm... Things get so many "Diggs" because people actively click on it to get it rated. Slashdot does NOT have this type of feature available to the general public on this site, so there is no way in heck you're gonna compare this to digg in this respect.

I've never been so embarrassed in my life. (3, Funny)

born_to_live_forever (228372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510370)

I'm from Denmark, so naturally my first thought was to see which vids were considered most popular in Denmark, according to Google. The results were disheartening, embarrassing, but far from surprising.

Crazy Frog.

Dozens and dozens of crappy variations of a done-to-death meme.

Kill me now, and get it over with.

Re:I've never been so embarrassed in my life. (2, Funny)

lagfest (959022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510432)

Oh it's not that bad, only 44 out of the top 60 vids are Crazy Frog related.
I, for one, welcome our new Crazy Frog overlord.

Re:I've never been so embarrassed in my life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15511930)

What! How can anyone not love the crazy frog? It's so clever and there's the talented voice work and the frog is naked! What else could you ask for?

Loose Change (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15510398)

The most interesting thing about the Google Video top 100 has been Loose Change [google.com] . For weeks it has been the only full length film that isn't short a very short titillation clip (eg Webcam Girls Go Wild) or dubious humour clips (eg funny clips baby fart) that has been in the top 20.

Loose Change is the most popular 9/11 "conspiracy theory" film, no doubt due to its slick graphics, soundtrack and editing -- for an amateur movie it is impressive. However it's not the most accurate movie of its type -- see the discussion on indybay [indybay.org] and the detailed Sifting Through Loose Change The 9-11 Research Companion [wtc7.net] .

Read on for a brief guide to some better 9/11 videos that deserve more attention...

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used to bring down the buildings? (2006)

This is currently, probably, the best 9/11 video that challenges the official conspiracy theory.

9/11 Revisited concentrates on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings and includes news reports from the day and interviews with experts including Steven E Jones [wikipedia.org] , David Ray Griffin [wikipedia.org] and Jeff King. It is available to view online [911revisited.com] and via Google Video [google.com] and the Internet Archive [archive.org] .

9/11 Breaking the Laws of Physics (2006)

This is a lecture from 2006 by BYU Physics Professor Steven E Jones [wikipedia.org] on the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11. It is available from the Internet Archive [archive.org] . The academic paper this presentation is based on is Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? [byu.edu] .

The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)

This is a lecture by David Ray Griffin [wikipedia.org] -- professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. He has written many books including The New Pearl Harbor [indymedia.org] and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions [newpearlharbor.com] on the official 9/11 Report. This lecture is available from theInternet Archive [archive.org] .

9-11 Open Your Eyes the War on Terror is a Lie (2004)

Filmed at the 9/11 International Inquiry (Toronto, May 2004) Open Your Eyes is available on the Internet Archive [archive.org] .

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (2006)

This new film covers the links between the US adminstration, the Republician Party and drugs running and the 9/11 hijackers, it is available on Google Video [google.com] and there are higher quality versions on 911 blogger [911blogger.com] , the official film site is http://www.crisisinamerica.org/ [crisisinamerica.org]

War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (2003)

Politically this is the best video on 9/11.

War and Globalization is a lecture, from 2003 by Michel Chossudovsky [wikipedia.org] , a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa. Michel Chossudovsky is the founder of the Centre for Research on Globalization, the organisation behind Global Research [globalresearch.ca] an extensive website dedicated to exposing the true nature of globalisation. This video is a covers 9/11, oil and war, it is based on his book, America's "War on Terrorism" [globalresearch.ca] . Despite being almost three years old it is especially pertinent today with the looming threat of war with Iran. Links to other texts by Michel Chossudovsky can be found on the Peoples' Global Action web site [nadir.org] .

This video is available on Google Video [google.com] and on DVD from Snowshoe Films [snowshoefilms.com] .

Re:Loose Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15511061)

You forgot to mention "Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-649546276 1605341661 [google.com]
Perhaps the most powerful 911 documentary to date.

Re:Loose Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15511558)

The most interesting thing about the Google Video top 100 has been Loose Change [google.com]. For weeks it has been the only full length film that isn't short a very short titillation clip (eg Webcam Girls Go Wild) or dubious humour clips (eg funny clips baby fart) that has been in the top 20.
"Depressing" is the word I'd use. Loose Change has been thoroughly debunked [ccdominoes.com] , and yet people are still spamming the Google video link on every forum they can.

self-fulfilling prophecy (2, Interesting)

robinesque (977170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510409)

It would seem to me the most popular videos will continue to become more popular...because everyone is going to click on the #1 ranked video, including all of these slashdotters.

This doesnt work (2, Insightful)

HaMMeReD3 (891549) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510448)

There needs to be some form of user feedback, clickthroughs do not define good, just popular. People accidently watch all kinds of crap, they also should completely discount any random videos people pick.

There should be some form of rating on the videos as well so the people subjected to them can say if they suck or not, cause most of them suck.

Re:This doesnt work (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510518)

A really simple method might be to count the play after the video is done playing. I know they wouldn't have counted my Barbie Girl click if that was the case.

Now even non-Subscribers can beat the rush...! (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510510)

.. and check out the upcoming artices on Slashdot in the next few days:

How Google Makes Thumbnails: by scaling the images down

How Google Displays Links: by using the anchor tag

How Google News Finds News: by scanning news sites

How Does Google Make You Feel Lucky: by showing you the first match

How about the videos google deletes? (1)

deacon (40533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510513)

This is timely, since I was discussing on another board the videos that google will promptly delete because they threaten the google mindset. One good example is from the TV Series: "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" (Season 3, Episode 9) Gun Control.

Put this video up, and watch it be pulled down for "violence" or "copyright infringement", never mind that the show is not about violence, but about your rights under the Second Amendment, and never mind that Google is full of videos which are "copyright infringing".

Googles capitulation in China, and their increasing "BIG Brotherness" (but it's all for your conveniance) is sad to see. It reveals a mindset which harvests your info for marketing and "social" purposes, and also decides what you are going to be able to search for or see in an attempt to do social engineering (The google "news" discrimination for example). Winston Smith would recognize google in a dark alley.

what "algorithms" (1)

learn fast (824724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510788)

The article says they use "algorithms" to tell when a video is becoming popular. Anyone have any guesses as to what these algorithms might be?

I'm serious, I would really like to be able to use algorithms like that

Re:what "algorithms" (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510827)

Daily views? Hourly views? Hourly views added up but weighted less the further back they go?

Re:what "algorithms" (1)

learn fast (824724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511036)

I'm sure it uses that information, but what's the actual math? I really doubt google would do something so pedestrian as to pick simple threshold values. It has to involve entropy or logarithmic scoring or something interesting.

Soccer (1)

Hobobo (231526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511073)

Notice how all the Soccer/Football videos are popular in the US. That's because everyone else in the entire world has seen those clips a million times already!

Re:Soccer (1)

part15guy (724057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511764)

Yeah, its embarrassing - especially with Arena bowl XX going on this weekend. Real football clips would get better rankings if the algorithms were correct.

chaos! (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511316)

Wow... Talk about a chaotic feedback system. Google makes videos popular by measuring how popular they are...

The PSP gurlzzz strike First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15513188)

Just taking a look at that list of videos, you have to realize their ranking algorithm is so incredibly broken... I mean there is no way in heck those videos, of all the google videos, can be the most watched... not because they are so incredibly bad, but because they are so incredibly lame...

Just looking at them, I was like, gawd, with that broken situation, anyone can make the top 100 with any kind of lamer video...

So I made a horrendously low trailer park video of the PSPgurlz last night to test it out... is ranking function really that bad on google?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9178168377 458997459 [google.com]

Einstein
http://rootpassword.com/ [rootpassword.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...