90 replies to this topic

[bunyon]

You Tube seems to come in three flavors:

 

1) Brief, to the point, miraculously helpful when you find the right one.

2) Long, rambling, poorly edited presentation of the obvious

3) Insane

 

Like many, those in category 1 have saved my bacon many times. But I find if it's longer than about five minutes, it's either 2 or 3.

[Phil Cowell]

The effects of the post truth society spread rapidly online.

Worst case the clueless YT convinces the viewer to buy a cheap scope.

There are many good ones on the resent Smart Scopes as a plus side example.

 

Good points... but >>> Not just Amateur Astronomy, but really every presentation or discussion >>> The Catch-22 is that no one is qualified to define "misinformation". It's been tried before, often with disastrous results.    Tom

Edited by Phil Cowell, 31 January 2024 - 01:04 PM.

[Inkie]

The world is replete with people bleating for affirmation, attention, attaboys, adulation, and....of course....money.  We live in an increasingly narcissistic society because that is what it takes to feel good about oneself...or at least that's what many of us conclude, and we act accordingly.  I find that Youtube is a great source of information provided you watch at least three  videos on something DIY in order to get a solid gist of what must be done and how to do it. The rest is just dreck, most often from young and inexperienced people who speak extemporaneously while they walk themselves through a process...almost like they're talking to themselves.  They ramble, repeat, and generally lose my interest within a few seconds.

 

As an ethical duty, I do most often take the time to post a comment about what I see wrong, or what could be improved, and I always finish with it being only my opinion. I think it helps to improve the quality of the milieu generally if people get useful feedback, especially if the information or corrections I provide are veridical and easily understood. It takes time, patience, and skill to craft a comment that won't offend or invite censure.  If it's worth crafting at all because the point is important, or could save someone from a lot of grief, it's worth it for me to do this.  Besides, I am retired and can spend time idly watching whatever the bot feeds me. 

[Rickycardo]

YouTube is entertainment, it should never be taken as more than that. Even the serious channels are, while informative, just entertainment and everything on them should not be taken as fact without verification.

[luxo II]

Watching YouTube is a very slow and inefficient way to learn anything - reading a decent book iis much faster.

[Astroman007]

Watching YouTube is a very slow and inefficient way to learn anything - reading a decent book iis much faster.

I believe a good book is a better source of information on a given topic than any webpage.

 

The thing is, you have to already know something in order to find the truth online. You have to know how to properly search for a credible source. It seems many...most...don't know how to do that. Otherwise, how would clickbait titles work?

[db2005]

Watching YouTube is a very slow and inefficient way to learn anything - reading a decent book iis much faster.

 

Very true.

 

And IME one of the frequently overlooked problems of YT and other web-based information sources is that we end up in information-bubbles where we tend to only get more of the same stuff that we already expressed an interest in.

 

On the other hand, reading a quality textbook encourages us to explore other important aspects of a problem domain that we may have completely overlooked.

 

And, quality textbooks tend to be contain much higher quality information because they went trough the hands of authors, reviewers and editors.

[dnrmilspec]

This issue is far more insidious than we are even allowed to mention on CN. 

 

I recently posted links to a very respected website, in some reviews in the name of a very respected astronomers that were not only wrong, but obviously generated by someone who did not have a clue about their recommendations.  So considering the source is no longer a good way to decide on sources.  The desire to monetize the internet have turned once trustworthy websites into little more than click bait.  Google giveth and Google taketh away. 

 

Then there is the issue of confirmation bias of the most insidious type.  When we make a choice to watch or read something online, we are causing "the algorithm" to push more content of the same type and same point of view to us.  So if we start off wrong we prejudice our search results to that same wrong point of view in future searches. 

 

Why is CN so important?  It is the only site on astronomy, of which I am aware, that gives equal weight to all posts. 

 

To the OPs point.

 

I just searched "best telescope for astrophotography".  It returned in the first and second positions two websites.  They are Chicagotribune.com and bestreviews.com.  The prestigious Chicago Tribune simply reposted the Bestreviews.com article in its entirety lending its credibility to what is utter rubbish.  I will not regale everyone with details but let me just point this out.  This article said that the "Best telescope for experts" is the Orion Spaceprobe 130.  Need I say more?

[gwd]

Before the internet when I wanted to get a telescope someone told me about a guy in the neighborhood who had a scope and was very knowledgeable about Astronomy.  He was glad to meet me at night with his scope and show me the night sky.   He thought highly of his Celestron 90mm Maksutov and recommended I get one.  We went out to a very light polluted field where he was going to show me that we could see M1- the Crab Nebula from the city.   He set his scope up and told me all about the Crab Nebula- super nova remnent etc.   He knew a bunch of facts about the Crab Nebula.   I saw that he was pointing his C-90 toward Orion.  Yes, through the eyepiece I could identify M42.  He didn't kill the hobby for me but I already knew a thing or two.

 

Today, could a neighborhood expert like he was could do that whole performance for a youtube video and become a global astronomy influencer?    One of the CN 'ers here with You Tube skills could make a series of videos with deliberate obvious mistakes like my neighbor's mistake and see if you can gain a positive reputation from them.   The idea that someone with bad astronomical knowledge can gain a reputation as and astronomical expert reminds me of a story James Randi the magician told about picking astrology advice at random and earning a reputation as a good prognosticator.   I'm not sure people who take and interest in astronomy would be as easily mislead as people who take a serious interest in astrology.  

[Astroman007]

Today, could a neighborhood expert like he was could do that whole performance for a youtube video and become a global astronomy influencer?    One of the CN 'ers here with You Tube skills could make a series of videos with deliberate obvious mistakes like my neighbor's mistake and see if you can gain a positive reputation from them.   The idea that someone with bad astronomical knowledge can gain a reputation as and astronomical expert reminds me of a story James Randi the magician told about picking astrology advice at random and earning a reputation as a good prognosticator.   I'm not sure people who take and interest in astronomy would be as easily mislead as people who take a serious interest in astrology.  

An interesting thought experiment but I don't think it should be done. Because it probably will work and contribute to the mess of false info.
 

[freestar8n]

Anything with a click-baity image for the link is immediately garbage.

 

And most people are clicking on click-baity images for guidance.

 

Frank

[TOMDEY]

On the professional side of the fence --- Richard Feynman cautioned his associates and students to personally, independently, differently --- derive/confirm everything that anyone publishes or tells you. A further advantage of this (admittedly, justifiably cynical) approach is that --- you eventually get extremely good at deriving and confirming things! I took that to heart at school and it's made all the difference. Kingslake used to chide me over that propensity --- but actually liked it!   Tom

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[triplemon]

The crux with youtube (and some other social media) is IMO - many there are driven by money. Just say the whole "influencer" thing. In other contexts such would be called "foreign agent".
 
And since making these videos is now with all the modern technology within easy reach for a wide range of folks, and the results may look "professional" to many, there is no more filtering by the barrier of entry. So the motivation and qualification of much of that is VERY different from what it used to be when you read a book on something.
 
IMO the only way out is for folks to re-learn how to qualify all that information. Back in the days we learned the guy with the pointy hat and the the miracle cure wasn't so trustworthy, just by the way he looked. So we turned to considering teachers and others that looked more like you and me and tried to explain things as being the "right" sources of info.
 
Now every influencer there claims to educate folks, looks like you and me (or even a nicer version of that), so that criteria isn't working any more either. So its back again to the hard way - cross-referencing information, see if it truely meshes with others, understand at least the basics, read the whole article, look at the motivation any one given source may have. Expect the MAJORITY of what you see out there might not be so good advice after all.

Edited by triplemon, 01 February 2024 - 12:56 AM.

[luxo II]

On the professional side of the fence ...

Tom I learnt that at school and I was well known for solving things from first principles using the mathematical equivalent of a sledgehammer to crack walnut-sized problems.

 

Later in life as an engineer it often put me in the position of being the only one in the office able to come up with an analytical solution to a novel problem - including being able to independently confirm the validity of computer models and simulations. Across the engineering department I'm known for being able to come up with a definitive proof.

 

This is invaluable when the younger generation - raised on computer models etc - cannot tell whether the result they reached is valid.  Get these things wrong and there can be serious consequences - bridges or buildings falling down, power stations, mines, heavy industry, cars, trains and aircraft designs, for example. 

Edited by luxo II, 31 January 2024 - 05:00 PM.

[areyoukiddingme]

I would think that the net effect of YT would be to increase the size of the hobby. It would have been easier if they kept a good rating system. When they started YT it was a star system (from memory, which is hazy), and you could quickly decide to avoid something that had terrible reviews.

 

Now they have kept the thumbs up button count, but have ditched the thumbs down. Luckily, you can get an extension to revive the thumbs down, which comes in handy.

 

These are of course simple heuristics, and they can frequently go wrong. Tom's point about derivation and always questioning assumptions applies. There are no authorities in science, it all comes down to evidence. 

 

Unfortunately, we seem wired to rely on heuristics like source for credibility, which has surprisingly large effects. So much so, that people educated in science don't see it.

[Inkie]

Watching YouTube is a very slow and inefficient way to learn anything - reading a decent book iis much faster.

I disagree almost entirely.  I have watched two or three 1-6 minute videos on how to remove something, or to fix something, and have then gone and done it.  Reading a book would have taken me much longer...IF....I had such a book. 

[luxo II]

Which is why I dont use Facebook, Twitter, Yammer and only very rarely Youtube (for instruction on using Affinity).

Edited by luxo II, 31 January 2024 - 08:37 PM.

[TOMDEY]

Tom I learnt that at school and I was well known for solving things from first principles using the mathematical equivalent of a sledgehammer to crack walnut-sized problems.

 

Later in life as an engineer it often put me in the position of being the only one in the office able to come up with an analytical solution to a novel problem - including being able to independently confirm the validity of computer models and simulations. Across the engineering department I'm known for being able to come up with a definitive proof.

 

This is invaluable when the younger generation - raised on computer models etc - cannot tell whether the result they reached is valid.  Get these things wrong and there can be serious consequences - bridges or buildings falling down, power stations, mines, heavy industry, cars, trains and aircraft designs, for example. 

Yes --- especially the aspect regrading turning the crank using computer modeling and then auto-believing the result. Especially ones involving generalized algorithms... I'd first present ~special case~ challenges (that we already know what the answers should be) and see if it gets those right --- then ever increasing complexity. And I would of course subject my own programs to the same scrutiny --- even more so! Most (especially newer) engineers just turn the crank and believe the answer --- with zero intuition in between. Thankfully... where I worked... (B&L, Kodak, ITT, GE, L3Harris, etc.) --- nearly all of the techs, engineers, scientists... were ~thinkers~.    Tom

[dnrmilspec]

There are some pretty good Youtuber's.  Ed Ting comes to mind. He is very clear about what is opinion and what is fact.  All in all I think he is quite fair and interesting to new and old alike.  I remember 30 years ago reading his text based reviews and learning a great deal from him.  Most notably, when temped to mortgage the farm for the Meade 7" APO to put my money back in my wallet.  And on the positive side, to buy my first yard canon 6" achromat.

 

Astro-Biscuit from England is just hallarious and his site is filled with beneficial but sometimes iconoclastic stuff.  His astrophotography stuff is spot on but with just the right dose of comic relief.  His is a great first stop for new astrophotographers.  Why?  So they don't turn into the super serious pixel peepers who haunt star parties?  Maayybeee. 

 

Then there is the charmer.  Helena from Scotland who hosts "Helena's Astrophotography".  Starting with her first scope at 10 years old she got a Dob when she was around 13 she has documented her journey into astrophotography.  Yes.  She imaged with her Dob (back in the day).  We see the lessons she has learned as she has learned them.  I am old enough to be her grandfather and own telescopes older than her parents but I have learned some stuff from her.  And more importantly I am charmed by her enthusiasm and pure joy in what she is doing.  And at 18 years old said this:

 

As far as a future career goes, my dream would be to work within the astrophotography community, creating content and giving back what they gave me. There are so many places I would love to go and visit, and so many people I want to meet! However, I plan to go to university first and gain a degree in either the arts or physics. I am completely split down the middle at the moment as I love them both so, so much!

 

I wish she would participate here.  Some of us old codgers could use some IV enthusiasm. 

 

Rather than have this whole thread be a dystopian buzz-kill I thought I would post a little of the other side;  there if we choose to seek it out.  

[Wol]

Before the internet when I wanted to get a telescope someone told me about a guy in the neighborhood who had a scope and was very knowledgeable about Astronomy.  He was glad to meet me at night with his scope and show me the night sky.   He thought highly of his Celestron 90mm Maksutov and recommended I get one.  We went out to a very light polluted field where he was going to show me that we could see M1- the Crab Nebula from the city.   He set his scope up and told me all about the Crab Nebula- super nova remnent etc.   He knew a bunch of facts about the Crab Nebula.   I saw that he was pointing his C-90 toward Orion.  Yes, through the eyepiece I could identify M42.  He didn't kill the hobby for me but I already knew a thing or two.

 

Today, could a neighborhood expert like he was could do that whole performance for a youtube video and become a global astronomy influencer?    One of the CN 'ers here with You Tube skills could make a series of videos with deliberate obvious mistakes like my neighbor's mistake and see if you can gain a positive reputation from them.   The idea that someone with bad astronomical knowledge can gain a reputation as and astronomical expert reminds me of a story James Randi the magician told about picking astrology advice at random and earning a reputation as a good prognosticator.   I'm not sure people who take and interest in astronomy would be as easily mislead as people who take a serious interest in astrology.  

OT, Ah The Amazing Randi, His book Flim Flam was a good read.  As I recall it is usually scientists who are the most credulous , especially outside the field of relevance , where the relevant field was often magic tricks and their detection.  . I recall the furore over “Carlos” the channel when he came to Australia.

[Kevin Kretsch]

Watching YouTube is a very slow and inefficient way to learn anything - reading a decent book iis much faster.

This is a true of YouTube as it is of any physical paper library. Is there a ton of nonsense out there? yes. But just like any library,  YouTube is also full of well produced and presented content full to the brim of excellent information. And books are not ideal for everybody (hi to all our dyslexic friends) and you often have spend more time with a book to know it's not what you want/need than you do with any video.

[Wheeljack]

One pitfall of the Youtuber is once they start to do it for a living, not as a hobby.

In order to keep the income, they need to keep up with the amount of videos which can often come at the cost of quality.

 

You also run the risk of alienate your own audience. Say you got traction for making beginners guides using simple equipment. Then you become successful and start to upgrade, or get sponsorships, gear for review etc etc.

Slowly, bit by bit your equipment is now suddenly way out of the price-range of the audience you attracted to begin with and you imaging with a Paramount and a Takahashi is no longer relatable.

This loops back to quantity again.

There are people I've followed for a while, whom I no longer watch the content of simply because they moved so far ahead of me in terms of equipment that I no longer find their content relatable or enjoyable.

 

To me, the "best" videos are often from those who do this for fun and just want to genuinely share a cool trick they picked up, as their motivations are usually just that; share the knowledge.

 

 

There is also a lot of old and/or outdated information on the web these days. Much of it posted by people who simply haven't kept up with the new discoveries. When I was growing up and just getting into astronomy as a young lad, Pluto was a planet, Jupiter had only 12 moons, the big bang had become the new "it" theory, and black holes were still only theoretical.

 

Unless people do a lot of reading, or, are professionals, it's extremely difficult to keep up.

 

Being a member of our local club's observatory and outreach committee, I actively encourage people who ask questions to fact check my answers through reliable sources, and to question anything that isn't peer reviewed. I'm not afraid to say I'm not sure, or, I don't know.

I like your attitude. Think I read somewhere that any serious scientist worth their salt uses the phrase "we now believe..." when presenting new theories.

I cannot remember who said this, so forgive me for paraphrasing from memory, but the jist of it was "I highly encourage anyone to try to disprove my theory, as that means that science is going forward and we're learning new things"

 

I may have drifted slightly off-topic. Apologies.

[JohnTMN]

As in the Topic Title, are poorly educated YouTube channels as much a hobby killer as a cheap scope?

Only for those that use those kinds of source for their education.

Don't get me wrong, I review Youtube for several things, but when I do, I watch several and look for a trend of repeated advice or direction.

There's always the fruitcake,,
 

[AstroOlly]

I have a YT Chanel with over 530 subscribers too date, and I do it to share tips, tricks or things I have made or built, and generally just share knowledge, and review items that I have purchased, I can’t be doing with tubers who get all the kit for free and then say the review is not biased, it’s a joke, of course it’s biased, have you ever seen one of these guys do a bad review and take the chance they won’t get anymore free kit…no…

 

I would like to think I am pretty experienced and would certainly not put out any dangerous content, and would not bother monetising either, as that was not the point for me, it’s just about sharing and giving a bit of knowledge back…

 

Another thing I don’t like is when the videos are constantly jumping and skipping all over the place where it’s been cut and stitched, all my videos are done in one take where possible, if I make a mistake I start again, simple, but none of mine are over about 15 mins long…

[havasman]

It is often a simple matter to see when folks come here for advice that they have picked up some sensational, exaggerated and unique knowledge from an inaccurate YT source. I don't really think it's a hobby killer but it doesn't help a newb advance in the hobby. But it's difficult sometimes, and seemingly more often these days, for anyone unfamiliar with a topic to sort out good information about that topic from the deluge of sensational, exaggerated and unique knowledge we receive from all directions.

 

I think it incumbent on us all to parse and inspect the inputs we are subject to for reasonableness and conformation to a logic system both internal to the subject and external to the wider world. Failure here can make any of us look really foolish.

 

I use yt as a source of recipes for dishes I am interested in trying to make. Some of the instructions out there would fail to make the dish in the recipe title. Most commonly an ingredient on the list will never be mentioned in the cooking instructions no matter how critical to the dish it is. And yes, the longer the video is the higher the chances it is not going to be much use.