ArticleScientific reports2024
Fake views removal and popularity on YouTube.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper analyses how YouTube authenticates engagement metrics and, more specifically, how the platform corrects view counts by removing "fake views" (i.e., views considered artificial or illegitimate by the platform). Working with one and a half years of data extracted from a thousand French YouTube channels, we show the massive extent of the corrections done by YouTube, which concern the large majority of the channels and over 78% of the videos in our corpus. Our analysis shows that corrections are not done continuously as videos collect new views, but instead occur in batches, generally around 5 p.m. every day. More significantly, most corrections occur relatively late in the life of the videos, after they have reached most of their audience, and the delay in correction is not independent of the final popularity of videos: videos corrected later in their life are more popular on average than those corrected earlier. We discuss the probable causes of this phenomenon and its possible negative consequences on content diffusion. By inflating view counts, fake views could make videos appear more popular than they are and unwarrantedly encourage their recommendation, thus potentially altering the public debate on the platform. This could have implications on the spread of online misinformation, but their in-depth exploration requires first-hand information on view corrections, which YouTube does not provide through its API. This paper presents a series of experimental techniques to work around this limitation, offering a practical contribution to the study of online attention cycles (as described in the "Data and methods" section). At the same time, this paper is also a call for greater transparency by YouTube and other online platforms about information with crucial implications for the quality of online debate.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.