Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
But all my recommendations (which are geared toward indicating general TASing experience) are moot since Nach clarified the purpose of the player points to be an indicator of who's doing the most entertaining of the audience.
I would like to add if you also want to know who is doing the best job recently, Mothrayas put together an excellent leaderboard: Wiki: Mothrayas/Rankings.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
Nach wrote:
If people are rating on a global scale, and counting amount of techniques used in the run and how expertly it was made, then you end up with a score that becomes informative. If people just make up numbers that have no global bearing, then yes, in that case it wouldn't help.
Unfortunately there's no way to know which of these methods raters are using.
Indeed. And some people also rate based on whether the author is their spouse or their ex, and such. It's not perfect.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
If the primary concern is entertainment value, why do we care about perceived technical prowess in the first place?
We have more than an average amount of users who are autistic or have similar issues where they cannot appreciate what typical people finding entertaining. They typically only understand things they can measure in some way. We cater to these people too with a technical rating.
Thankfully, entertainment and technical properties are often linked together, so if you do a good job on one, you usually do a good job on the other as well. This way everyone is included and can understand what is going on, make something that every kind of person can find appealing.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
if amount of work is not a criteria then why is it listed on voting guidelines as such
I don't know who put it there.
feos makes a good point that there's no way a viewer can honestly know this information. Therefore with his good argument, we should remove it from the voting guidelines.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
Here's the thing: I don't find what TASes that "make good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS" useful information to know.
So you want to enforce your own personal opinion of what is useful for you on others?
Memory wrote:
If you want to learn ideas on how to improve your TASing... You should be watching every movie regardless of technical score.
Well, it's important to learn what's not good too in order to avoid it. I wouldn't say everything, just enough of a sampling to get an idea both ways.
Memory wrote:
By your method, a TAS with all of the traditional techniques and stuff would get a high rating.
With my method, any TAS which makes use of several techniques, be they traditional or not get a high rating. Movies which use fewer techniques be they traditional or not get a low rating.
Memory wrote:
A movie without these traditional techniques but with a couple unique ones might get a low score
Score overall is decided by how everyone feels about it, not just my own personal preferences.
Memory wrote:
but still be equally valuable if not even more valuable to watch and learn from. Therefore, the score does not help.
I don't follow this conclusion. If people are rating on a global scale, and counting amount of techniques used in the run and how expertly it was made, then you end up with a score that becomes informative. If people just make up numbers that have no global bearing, then yes, in that case it wouldn't help.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
If you just want to see something entertaining, indeed all you need is entertainment rating. However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
How does this work? I felt like checking which NES runs have the highest tech rating. So I opened all NES movies and after a minute that it took to load I was able to sort by tech, which also took time. Things I saw there were mostly ones that already have the highest entertaining rating (because people simply rate Mega Man two tens)
Mega Man is not simply two tens. Mega Man includes different weapons, routing, health and item manipulation. These movies are among those that make the most use of TASing techniques. They also happen to be entertaining because of mad action.
feos wrote:
Okay. These movies are supposed to be insanely technical it seems. How do I know what's so technical about them? I need to check movie classes. Then I decide which of them I actually want to watch. I watch them. Get insanely bored and drop after a few minutes. Or watch to the end, and rate 3 for entertainment, because it was annoying to sit through.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I said people may want to watch something technical so we have that information. You say you found those movies with low entertainment rating boring, so didn't. What are you trying to prove by having different objectives than the one being discussed?
feos wrote:
Compare this to simply checking the most entertaining movies. The list is about the same, but there's no boring garbage at the top anymore. Are these insanely entertaining movies by any chance less technical than those boring ones I linked? NO WAY.
The list may or may not be the same.
feos wrote:
The question. Why would anyone even want to care about technical top if entertaining top is already all they need to see, and is guaranteed to also be enjoyable?
How is it guaranteed?
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
You're disproving your own point.
You're correct an outsider cannot know how hard it was. Therefore how hard it is is not sensible criteria.
Nope. I'm disproving the point about amount of work, and I explained how similar it is to "hard work", and both are impossible to sensibly evaluate.
Um.. When did I have a point about "amount of work"?
I keep telling you that one of the most important factors is the techniques seen in the movies, and I keep telling you that effort involved should be ignored. Neither amount of difficulty of work should be evaluated.
feos wrote:
Exactly because technical rating is nearly entirely subjective, it's nearly entirely useless.
Why is subjectively informing people what other viewers find entertaining or technical useless?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
This explicitly leaves room for additional factors one feels like considering.
If you feel factors are important to you great. But don't enforce them on others.
feos wrote:
This is amount of work. And it is how hard it was to achieve.
And the problem with it, it's impossible to understand how much work actually stands behind a run. Less so when we're talking about a game that obviously looks complicated. One doesn't know the game too well, but they notice something that required a lot of work (reportedly). Yet for some crappy simplistic game, with tricks that required also a lot of work, no one will give a damn. Bias.
You're disproving your own point.
You're correct an outsider cannot know how hard it was. Therefore how hard it is is not sensible criteria.
feos wrote:
As I said, it's impossible to enforce any global scale that is supposed to resemble something objective.
We don't enforce it. I already said it's nearly entirely subjective.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
Actually given the description of the technical rating that you described Nach... who is this even useful for?
It's information that can inform a variety of decisions.
Memory wrote:
The audience doesn't need to know technical rating, entertainment rating alone is really all they need to know to decide whether or not to watch it.
If you just want to see something entertaining, indeed all you need is entertainment rating. However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
Memory wrote:
It doesn't seem useful for a TASer considering an improvement either. Who and what does this help? Player points?
Expand your thinking. There's more to making TASs than improvements. And even for improvements, you can go watch technically amazing movies for other games to learn ideas and go obsolete something else. This is also why it's important that people give a tech rating on a global scale.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
The criteria you listed is only a small part of what is listed on the Voting Guidelines. You covered Techniques fairly well, but that is only one of the four criteria listed on the page. The last one, "Amount of work" is especially difficult to ascertain without submission notes.
I did not describe anything exhaustive. I explained some factors of one of the criteria that I saw was being completely glossed over. The others are more obvious to people and does not require reiteration.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Technical rating is not about how hard it is to achieve something.
I disagree.
You cannot disagree. We literally have rules for how to use the technical rating. Wiki: VotingGuidelines.
The rules don't mention it depends solely on how hard it is to achieve, but rather it's several factors. Those factors included things like amassing knowledge or were bots use to optimize parts of it which may be related to difficulty, but it's not about the difficulty.
feos wrote:
The problem is, it's impossible to ensure anyone other than you uses the same well defined scale when deciding on technical rating. As I said, everything adds to bias for majority of the raters. So it just ends up being ephemeral.
People are free to make up whatever scale makes sense to them for what technical qualities they consider important for a TAS. But everyone should use some kind of global scale which is not rewritten for every single game.
feos wrote:
In my opinion, this can be helped if we leave only one rating and let people factor in all the things they tried to divide by tech and entertainment, but unite them into a single integral digit.
I don't see how combining things solves anything.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Knowing the game clearly helps with getting entertained, because I can enjoy what I'm seeing better when I understand how awesome and hard it is.
You may be entertained more by it if you know the game yes. But whatever the case is, you rate entertaining based on how much it entertained you compared to other things that entertain you.
feos wrote:
If I don't know the game, I'll fail to notice most of the precision and management, most of the technicality behind what I'm seeing. If I tased it myself, I know how hard it is to achieve something even with tools, so at the same time I see how technical certain achievement is, and it entertains me even more.
Technical rating is not about how hard it is to achieve something. It's how much technicality you see went into something versus other things that you've seen with technicality in it.
I don't need to know a game to see the player is using their own health to get damage boots, and ends up trading damage boosting for picking up extra health, and also walking around half the time with a single unit of health in their power meter.
When I see the player does stuff like this, they get a point. If it appears to me they're doing this really well, then I can give them two points for technicality. If the run in question doesn't use health like this, then they're not awarded for making use of this technique, and the tech rating suffers appropriately.
feos wrote:
Bottomline. Entertainment rating is supposed to be subjective, and it is. Tech rating is supposed to make some objective sense, and it's absolutely impossible.
Everything is subjective.
There is some objectiveness to tech rating if you grade it on actual relative criteria like I just described. There's nothing impossible about it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
So essentially, a large portion of player points is based on the subjective opinion of others, not on objective factors.
A large portion? More like all of your player points is based on the subjective opinion of others and factors outside your control.
DrD2k9 wrote:
But if we want the player points to be more of an experience system/indicator, the subjective opinions of others shouldn't be included in the calculation.
Experience for what? I've never looked at player points to tell me who is experienced at just making movies. Instead I looked at their submission history in general.
Player points tells you who is doing a good job of keeping the audience satisfied. If you have a very high amount of points, it means you have experience at doing a good job of keeping the audience satisfied.
DrD2k9 wrote:
I can use myself as an example: my own points increased recently because EZGames69 rated a few of my publications, then they dropped back down because one of my runs was obsoleted. Neither of these changes happened due to my own actions, yet still affected the score associated with my name.
Exactly as it should be. You satisfied EZGames69, you got points for doing so. And if you fail to keep posting new unobsoleted movies to satisfy the audience, your satisfaction rating (known as player points) goes down.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Nach wrote:
Why was that movie damaged the most?
Because it was published 8 minutes before the re-encode flood started.
I'd like actual proof, not conjecture.
Nach wrote:
In any case, did anyone consider the idea of making the obsolete movies as unlisted on the YT channel? After all, most people are not interested in obsoleted movies, and the few people that are, are usually forced to find them on the main site anyway.
Maybe that's an idea.
Pros? Cons?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Why was that movie damaged the most?
We lost over 100,000 views, which affects many movies. The recently published Contra is also looking a bit low.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
qiskudufo wrote:
Nach wrote:
How long is this password?
Nice try ;)
Not sure what you think is being attempted.
qiskudufo wrote:
Seriously though, it's 40 digits.
Okay, I'll see if we have any limitations below 40.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ViGadeomes wrote:
It's why I never rated a movie because I never played a game, so I'm not able to say what is good or not in the movie. I'll rate movies from games I know but that's it.
That doesn't make any sense. Your rating is how you feel something compared to other things you've seen on our site. You're not rating the movie's use of the game's inherent qualities. You don't need to know about a game to determine how a movie of it makes you feel versus watching other movies.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
It ends up being a clueless guess based on how well the rater knows the game, how entertaining the movie is, how nice their mood is, how tasty their breakfast was, and so on. It is impossible to evaluate the technical value of a run. If you know the game, you have certain bias. If you don't you have different kind of bias. If you TASed it yourself, you have yet another kind of bias. And so on.
That's not the point in tech rating at all. You shouldn't be looking at the game itself.
When you evaluate the entertaining rating, do you need to know everything about the game? Or do you ask yourself how it compares to other movies?
Both entertainment and tech rating are supposed to be relative to everything else on the site.
When you go to rate something technically, you ask yourself compared to other movies, how well is it making use of things like route planning, item conservation, health management, and so on.
My rule of thumb is, Super Metroid offers practically every technical thing imaginable we want to see TASs make use of. The most technical Super Metroid run therefore gets a 10. Every other movie is then measured against that Super Metroid movie to see how comparable it is in routing, items, using techniques like knock back and so on, and then gets a lower score according to how many things it didn't do as well or did not have at all.
Yes, this means some games played perfectly cannot get a perfect 10 technical rating. Just like some games can never get a perfect 10 in entertainment no matter how you play them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
How long is this password?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
There's many factors involved in viewership. New, repeat, or re-encode. Whether it's finals season or not. Whether other sites also advertise it. Length of the movie too.
However here we're talking a loss of 100,000+ views, which affects more than just movies published close to the big drop off days.
I'm not really sure what "amends" can be made to the authors of all the movies that lost views here. Let's learn from this and improve for the future.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Edit: Making this thread public due to some concerns of certain users. Hopefully this will provide some transparency.
----------------------------------------------------
It has been brought to my attention that we lost a significant amount of viewers over the past week.
Now obviously people come and go, however it seems something happened on the 16th that led a number of subscribers to flee, and a bunch of people to stop watching.
I was not around at the time, so I don't have first hand knowledge of anything weird going on with the channel at that point in time, such as possible defacement, strange messages sent out, or something of that nature. However, checking some logs, it appears we've had over 40 re-encodes uploaded that day. I think that's some kind of record for us. While I'm all for breaking records, based on our loss in viewership we should probably avoid flooding the channel with re-encodes.
For the future, let's probably keep the amount of re-encodes uploaded in a day to under 10. Thank you.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
I encourage you to read them carefully because they do not state what you claim.
All I claimed about those two books is that they're primers on statistics. Are they not primers on statistics?
p4wn3r wrote:
In fact, modern science is founded on the rigorous application of statistics.
If this is true in isolation, then the modern science you speak of is junk science.
p4wn3r wrote:
In fact, statistics is so important, that when an experimental paper comes to me and does not include a rigorous analysis, I reject it without reading, explicitly telling this to the editor, which is always very thankful to me pointing this out. There's absolutely no negotiation with respect to this. Without statistical analysis of empirical results, the work is simply storytelling with numbers. Even considering this for publication is degrading the work of many who labor many hours to produce rigorous results.
When did I say statistics are not important?
Also, who said there are numbers? You must have some specific cases in mind where there are numbers but no statistics and this is somehow important. However I'm certainly not speaking about these cases. So I'm sorry that I don't know what you're talking about.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aran Jaeger, the main trap not fall into is assuming that submission polling is only there so the judge can determine tier.
The submission polls provide many different utilities, both to judges and other users. It just happens to be that a judge *may* use it to determine tier, but won't if it's superseded. Suggesting to remove polling because a judge may not use it only admits that one has not considered other uses it may have.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aran Jaeger wrote:
can we please stop this now and get back on the topic ''What is the point in submission polling?"
This was actually already answered back on page one.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
Certainly, you would not mind signing your name under this statement
Here you go:
Statistics doesn't work for explaining anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
-Nach
p4wn3r wrote:
and send it to the committee
Feel free to send my above signed statement to whoever you want.
p4wn3r wrote:
who condemned a guy for misconduct after concluding he faked data after they grew suspicious of many statistical anomalies and ask them to reconsider the verdict. If statistics does not matter at all, there's no problem if the data is fake in the first place.
Anyone involved there should be condemned for relying on statistics to prove anything, if that indeed happened, I'm not familiar with the case, nor am I going to waste my time looking into it.
If someone faked data for something, let them be condemned for that because they're providing false information in whatever context. However, as a rule it should be understood that no conclusions can be drawn from statistics. Statistics do not indicate any sort of truth.
Here's someprimers on the topic. And along with that, here it is again for completeness and to solidify it in your mind:
Statistics don't explain anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
-Nach
Any counter examples you'd like to indicate where statistics proved something, instead probably demonstrates that the conclusion drawn is probably incorrect, no matter how many may believe it's true. Even if whatever it is is objectively true, it's true because it's one of those cases where statistically, the result drawn happened to not be incorrect. Yes, this paragraph is ironic.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Grincevent wrote:
Nach, you've made a claim about posts being ridiculous in the submission topic
Let's first get the context correct:
Nach wrote:
Let me assume you're correct for the sake of this discussion, and there is a problem people are refusing to admit
...
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site
...
This was in response to HappyLee earlier.
So within this context of where I'm looking at things from his angle, I'm seeing some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site.
Grincevent wrote:
but don't want to provide even one sample to demonstrate it.
No I don't, it doesn't fit the context, and is completely unhelpful. If you would read the thread looking at it from his point of view, it would become apparent what looks absurd. Pointing it out would only be insulting to others.
Grincevent wrote:
It's a dead end to the argumentation. Instead you simply talk about psychology and biases in general; that is not useful, except maybe to people that didn't know about some concepts.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Why does there need to be argument? The sooner people stop getting at other people's throats the better. Why do you want there to be an argument without an end?
Talking about psychology is useful, and talking about other points of views is useful. Because once you can appreciate where other people are coming from and try to understand them, there's less fighting. We don't need the fighting.
Grincevent wrote:
What I get from that is a claim that looks like a strawman (I mean when I write it like that): "people made ridiculous posts because psychology".
Without examples, we can't agree or disagree, or even discuss properly.
A strawman is when you're trying to argue some point and demolish a point of view. I'm trying to demolish the argument altogether, I don't care about any particular point of view. You don't have to agree or disagree, or discuss it. If you want to try to investigate what I'm referring to, feel free. If you want to come together as a community in peace and harmony, you'll try to appreciate how others feel and not look to nitpick different things which aren't part of the big picture.
Grincevent wrote:
What if I say that maybe some people went out of their way to suppress some "positive" biases (confirmation bias for example, authority, etc...) to try and provide constructive criticism?
The same post you're trying to bash is the same post which made actually constructive criticism to HappyLee in a way he could appreciate it. I didn't do it to attack him or diminish him or say he's a bad guy. It's clear from my posts that I'm trying to make him feel better and how he can integrate with the rest of the community.
If you want to criticize someone and actually get them to listen to you, it has to be done taking into account their demeanor, personality, feelings, and their point of view. Otherwise you're just insulting them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Now obviously people come and go, however it seems something happened on the 16th that led a number of subscribers to flee, and a bunch of people to stop watching.
I was not around at the time, so I don't have first hand knowledge of anything weird going on with the channel at that point in time, such as possible defacement, strange messages sent out, or something of that nature. However, checking some logs, it appears we've had over 40 re-encodes uploaded that day. I think that's some kind of record for us. While I'm all for breaking records, based on our loss in viewership we should probably avoid flooding the channel with re-encodes.
For the future, let's probably keep the amount of re-encodes uploaded in a day to under 10. Thank you.