• ToastyWaffle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • dreadedchalupacabra@forum.fail
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean devil’s advocate here, what do they do with social media in a socialist market?

        Lemmy and kbin were created in a capitalist market. So was linux and the rest of the foss concept.

    • deafboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought people loved watching part1, part2 and part4, as suggested by youtube. I’m shocked! :D

    • 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.

    • sznio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      To bury old content on old channels.

      Go to Vsauce, sort from oldest and be surprised.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      My money is on one of either

      • sorting made it too easy to skip shit content and YouTube decided they lost engagement
      • it’s too confusing for normies

      This is why we can’t have nice things.

      Damn I’ve gotten so cynical about social media.

  • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Google making a good change on YouTube wasn’t on my bingo card this week. I’m positively surprised.

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

      There are federated video file sharing services. Maybe Google saw how spez fucking up is causing people to search for alternatives - especially federated ones - for all services and went, “Maaaybe we should add some easy to add features that people are wanting, like returning the ability to sort by oldest”?

      • hydra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, must be a coincidence. They always A/B roll user hostile changes and then implement them fully. They know they can get away with it

  • pdavis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now if they would just let me show all the comments on a video, or at least give me an option to search the comments on a video!

  • nadram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

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

    • Eribetra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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).

      • LuckyFeathers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        There may be an argument that not allowing to sort by oldest makes people watch fewer old videos which means they can reduce caching server costs by moving older videos off most of the servers. Not sure how big that impact would be financially, though.

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

  • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m surprised to see it was removed in the first place, as it makes watching series in chronological order a pain (unless the uploader explicitly made a playlist in chronological order, which means extra configuration time and is prone to mistakes from the uploaders)

  • hhj@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years 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.

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

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

  • Niello@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Is it super early April’s Fool? Youtube making positive change for once? I’m having trouble believing.