zlacker

>>Keaton+(OP)
Good site, but don't you think it's a tad sleazy to use these people's videos without at least letting us click-through to their YouTube channel? I mean it's the absolute least you could do to give them due credit.

>>blakey+Cm
yup the logo is supposed to be clickable but i think i put up a mask while trying to get the new embed api stuff to work, i'll have to check what that was about.

>>wonga+Xm
Well for next time, maybe you could do this thing called "testing" or "QA" before you put a product out there for hundreds of people to use.

EDIT: sorry I know it's negative, but while you're posting stuff about "oh I'm tearing up", what I'm seeing is some guy who wrote a website that steals people's videos without attribution. I realize you didn't "intend" it to do that, but that's what it's doing, and I don't have the psychic powers to know what you "intended" to do with the site.

>>blakey+1n
Oh and he isn't stealing... this would count as a view for them on YouTube and they get the revenue not him... if anything he is driving tonnes of views to them all at once.

Those who rip the video and claim to be the creator on fbook is where you should aim your anger.

>>monkey+pw
Short view times (e.g. opening a video, watching X seconds of it, thinking its going to be boring, and switching away from it) actually count as a negative in terms of youtube's internal rankings

(though this is just what I remember from a pewdiepie video on the topic, I may or may not be remembering correctly)