Your length tolerance for video content

[Leoreth]

Full disclosure so that this isn't taken the wrong way: this thread is inspired by, but not meant to rag on, this thread. I was initially interested in watching the video in the OP, but when I saw the seven something minutes runtime I immediately stopped. If it was below four I probably would have.

Then I realized that when searching content on the internet, including guides and tutorials, I would often be annoyed when the results were a video instead of text.

Am I the only one who cannot be bothered to look at web videos instead of text? How much time would you invest? Am I simply old-fashioned, or is video often mis- or overused on the internet? Or is my problem my limited attention span instead?

Edit: added a poll. "Compelling context" basically means the OP somewhat summarizes the video and gives a specific reason to watch it. Select this option if it influences your answer.

 

[warpus]

If there's a video longer than 4 minutes in the OP and OP hasn't taken the time to summarize it, then OP is a hipster doofus and the thread is a joke.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It pretty much depends on the content. If it's something I've actively searched for, I'll watch a longer video, but if it's a link someone sent me or posted on a forum I probably won't start watching if it's longer than ten minutes, and I'll abort if it can't really catch my interest within the first minute.
When I search for information I prefer videos for detailed step by step tutorials and text if I just want to know something.
Videos for skills, text for knowledge.
Videos for knowledge are acceptable if I can multitask and watch/listen while I'm working out or playing a game in a window.

 

[ummmm........]

If it's something I wasn't looking for but just stumbled on in a post, then thirty seconds is pushing it and it better get pretty interesting in the first ten . . .

I'm with the OP in that I prefer to find text over video when I'm intentionally searching for something, but I consider that a flaw of my advanced years. Assuming both the text and the video are done to the same standard, video is probably a better teacher . . .

 

[Akka]

If there isn't a summary, anything longer than 20-30 seconds is no-go.
If there is a summary, I might go for 1-3 minutes.
In any case, I prefer text.

The only longer video that I watch are the ones I'm actually interested in watching to begin with.

 

[Silurian]

I hardly ever look at video and did not look at the one in that thread.

Some people like them but the posters should realise that many people will just ignore them.

Maybe you should put in a survey so we know how many (of the self selected responders) watch.

 

[warpus]

It's the reason I don't mind reading the news. When you sit down to watch the news you've got to sit there and listen to every single word sequentially. When you've got text in front of you, you can jump straight to the conclusion, if you want. It's a lot more flexible.

 

[Leoreth]

If there's a video longer than 4 minutes in the OP and OP hasn't taken the time to summarize it, then OP is a hipster doofus and the thread is a joke.

Hmm, maybe I should have recorded a video for the OP for extra ironies?

Maybe you should put in a survey so we know how many (of the self selected responders) watch.

Oh yeah, I never consider that.

It's the reason I don't mind reading the news. When you sit down to watch the news you've got to sit there and listen to every single word sequentially. When you've got text in front of you, you can jump straight to the conclusion, if you want. It's a lot more flexible.

Depends on what your second screen is I think. TV news in the background is okay, but I don't think I could watch them as my primary activity.

 

[classical_hero]

I generally do not bother to watch videos in a discussion thread.

 

[Hygro]

Gut feeling, but 75% I watch it, 50-50 I go beyond the quickest skim through to see if it's something I want to care about.

The more I already care about the topic or trust the source with my attention, the longer a video I'm willing to watch. The problem with that video Leoreth linked to was that it was boring. That whole video could have been condensed to 90 seconds and it would have been interesting.

 

[sophie]

If it's embedded and from a poster I like/respect I'll watch for 5 mins if it seems relevant to the discussion. If it's longer I might watch if it sounds interesting and I'm not doing anything else..

If it's a link to an external site I will not click it. Bar none.

 

[civvver]

I hate videos when trying to look up quick info as well. Two recent experiences with this at my new home. I didn't know how to operate the sprinkler system and it's really not obvious. So I googled it and only thing that came up other than the manual was a youtube of a guy going through all the functions. It was like 15 mins! So I searched through to find the relevant part which of course was like 10 seconds to do what I wanted to do. Still, better than going through a 60 page manual online.

Then I had to adjust the hot/cold mix for my bathtub and it's a separate valve under the sink but I didn't know how to take the cap off to access it. Again a youtube video, 1 min in length. That one not so bad. But the introductions are the worst, these guys always send half the time going hello I'm so n so from so n so and today I'm going to teach you x blah blah blah.

 

[warpus]

Depends on what your second screen is I think. TV news in the background is okay, but I don't think I could watch them as my primary activity.

I don't mind it if I have free time and nothing to do, but if I'm actively looking for news, I prefer reading through stories, because it allows me to focus my eyes wherever I want, skip ahead, etc.

I think I've only ever done the "news on in the background" thing when there was a big event, like 9/11 or something, with updates coming in every couple minutes or hours or whenever. But that's just my own personal preference.

That to me is the main difference in video vs text presentation though. If you want an audience to care about what you have to say, and you show them a video, you need to summarize it. If you're just writing a bunch of text, a summary would be nice too, but it's far more accessible than a video.

 

[Akka]

How can you even tolerate TV in the background ? :x
It'd just drives me insane.

 

[Leoreth]

Public TV is okay because the content is at times acceptable and the noise levels are more even. I don't watch it very often though.

 

[Akka]

Watching TV in itself makes me want to rip my eyes out, but that's not really what I'm speaking of. It's having TV in the background, regardless of the content.
I mean, either I'm actually watching the thing, and paying attention, or I'm not and then turns it off. But having this incessant background irritating noise... Ugh, it's like having an itch.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, I always have something in the background. I'm way too stimulus dependent to make do with one screen, especially when reading, writing or modding. For example, I'm watching Star Craft on my TV right now.

 

[Akka]

Urgh... I would get a migraine in less than an hour with this going on...

 

[Hygro]

Watching TV in itself makes me want to rip my eyes out, but that's not really what I'm speaking of. It's having TV in the background, regardless of the content.
I mean, either I'm actually watching the thing, and paying attention, or I'm not and then turns it off. But having this incessant background irritating noise... Ugh, it's like having an itch.

Often I'm like this but

Oh, I always have something in the background. I'm way too stimulus dependent to make do with one screen, especially when reading, writing or modding. For example, I'm watching Star Craft on my TV right now.

Often I'm also like this

 

[Kyriakos]

Surely it depends on whether the poster is interested enough in the subject matter.
But for videos that fall outside of personal interest, i'd say 5 min is right