comments about the site you have been reviewing and the services it offers:
• Trustworthiness (of the site)
• Reputation (of members)
• Ownership (of content)
• Moderation
• Management of content
• User interface and customisation.
Continuing with my review of YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/
The two terms that I am going to apply to YouTube are
Reputation (of members) and Moderation.
The reputation of YouTube members in general is good. The types of members are classed people posting videos and people commenting on the videos. The content that can be posted on YouTube is fairly strict, guild lines of what can be posted can be seen here:
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines. [Accessed 21 August 2011]. These clean content guidelines helps keep the reputation of the sites and its members clean too. Not all of YouTube members stick to these clean guild lines. There are members often classed as trolls or members that deliberately post provocative or insulting comments on videos to try and get a rise or a return negative response from the original video poster.
The moderation that ties in with the YouTube guidelines occurs on a few levels. Posted videos are scanned buy YouTube filters to catch copyrighted video and music. A member is given a three strikes and you out rule if they are caught violating these guild lines then their account is banned. The videos and comments posted on the site are also moderated by the sites members and can be flagged as inappropriate for the videos and inappropriate (also known as spam) for the comments. Overall the system seems to work quite well and I think has helped the popularity of the site.
Below is an example of a video being flagged as inappropriate
No comments:
Post a Comment