Uploaders' definition of the networked public on YouTube and their feedback preferences: a multi-method approach

Since its launch in 2005, video-sharing service YouTube has become one of the most popular Web 2.0 platforms with a daily increment of over 150,000 videos. Still, despite the large research body on the platform, it remains unclear for whom ordinary YouTube users upload their videos. A first qualitative study indicates that uploaders distinguish three types within YouTube's networked public. First, videos are uploaded for a select group of people with whom the uploader shares an offline bond (offline-identified public). Second, uploaders define part of their potential viewers as people with whom they are unfamiliar, but with whom they share a similar interest, opinion or practice (online-identified public). Third, uploaders also take into account the YouTube platform as a whole (online-unidentified public). A second, quantitative study of 450 recent uploaders validates these findings and tests the proposed associations with the importance that is attributed to receiving different types of feedback. As hypothesised, the expectancy of an offline-identified public positively predicts both offline and online off-platform feedback, while expecting an online-identified public positively predicts both on- and off-platform online feedback. However, the expectancy of an online-unidentified public yields a negative prediction for on-platform feedback.

[1]  Balachander Krishnamurthy,et al.  Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 , 2008, First Monday.

[2]  Pablo Rodriguez,et al.  I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system , 2007, IMC '07.

[3]  N. Baym Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community , 1999 .

[4]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[5]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  A First Step Towards Understanding Popularity in YouTube , 2010, 2010 INFOCOM IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops.

[6]  Brian Harmer,et al.  YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture , 2010 .

[7]  D. Boyd Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life , 2007 .

[8]  Anders Albrechtslund,et al.  Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance , 2008, First Monday.

[9]  James C. Witte,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Web Surveys , 2009 .

[10]  Kevin Jiang Introduction , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[11]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  The 'WeTube' in YouTube - creating an online community through video sharing , 2010, Int. J. Web Based Communities.

[12]  Uwe Matzat,et al.  A theory of relational signals in online groups , 2009, New Media Soc..

[13]  Thomas A. Schwandt Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook , 1996 .

[14]  Michael Hardey,et al.  The city in the age of web 2.0 a new synergistic relationship between place and people , 2007 .

[15]  James A. Shepperd,et al.  Social Loafing and Expectancy-Value Theory , 1999 .

[16]  Malene Charlotte Larsen Online Social Networking , 2008 .

[17]  Martin Halvey,et al.  Analysis of online video search and sharing , 2007, HT '07.

[18]  Céline Ségur Sonia Livingstone, ed., Audiences and Publics: When cultural Engagement Matters for the public Sphere. Bristol, Intellect Ltd, 2005 , 2009 .

[19]  J. Singer,et al.  Reacting to YouTube Videos : Exploring Differences Among User Groups , 2008 .

[20]  S. Livingstone Audiences and Publics: When Cultural Engagement Matters for the Public Sphere , 2005 .

[21]  S. Gosling,et al.  Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[22]  D. Boyd Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics , 2010 .

[23]  Zongpeng Li,et al.  Characterizing user sessions on YouTube , 2008, Electronic Imaging.

[24]  Paul M. Haridakis,et al.  Social Interaction and Co-Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection , 2009 .

[25]  Jiangchuan Liu,et al.  Understanding the Characteristics of Internet Short Video Sharing: YouTube as a Case Study , 2007, ArXiv.

[26]  John C. Paolillo Structure and Network in the YouTube Core , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[27]  Wolfgang Nejdl,et al.  How useful are your comments?: analyzing and predicting youtube comments and comment ratings , 2010, WWW '10.

[28]  H. Horst,et al.  The Cell Phone: An Anthropology of Communication , 2006 .

[29]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[30]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  C. Silver,et al.  Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide , 2007 .

[32]  Sonia Livingstone,et al.  On the relation between audiences and publics , 2005 .

[33]  Teresa M. Harrison,et al.  Wielding new media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products , 2009, New Media Soc..

[34]  Steven J. Karau,et al.  Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions , 1995 .

[35]  Julie Jones The Me in Media: A functionalist approach to examining motives to produce within the public space of YouTube. , 2010 .

[36]  Virgílio A. F. Almeida,et al.  Understanding video interactions in youtube , 2008, ACM Multimedia.

[37]  Don Tapscott,et al.  Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything , 2006 .

[38]  Frank Nack,et al.  Broadcast yourself on YouTube: really? , 2008, HCC '08.

[39]  Stephanie M. Reich,et al.  Online and Offline Social Networks: Use of Social Networking Sites by Emerging Adults , 2008 .

[40]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes Social Loafing: a Meta-analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[41]  Marika Lüders,et al.  Conceptualizing personal media , 2008, New Media Soc..

[42]  Patricia G. Lange Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[43]  M. Wesch YouTube and You Experiences of Self-Awareness in the Context Collapse of the Recording Webcam , 2009, Explorations in Media Ecology.

[44]  Kerri Gibson,et al.  User-generated video and the online public sphere: Will YouTube facilitate digital freedom of expression in Atlantic Canada? , 2008 .

[45]  Barry Smyth,et al.  Social Information Access for the Rest of Us: An Exploration of Social YouTube , 2008, AH.

[46]  M. Patton Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 1980 .