• 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.