LTT Video Error Handling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

[joedf]

Fantastic! Love the transparency <3

[28JR]

@LinusTech one thing that is missing from what has been announced here in this, and whether it is something that is being kept track of internally that is reasonable, but the methodology laid out is very much reactive to when an error is found so LMG isn't failing the community, but it doesn't seem to address whether LMG is failing it's staff, or if the staff is failing LMG. I know; as it is part of my current job, that being able to report on where errors are coming from helps prevent them in the future, and am curious if you've considered the audit trail for errors 

 

For example, Person A writes a video about Topic Z, an error due to a mis-understanding of something about Topic Z. In how you've explained it, that error for that video will undergo a QA process and will get fixed. If this is just down to human error, that's might be all that is needed. However if someone genuinely doesn't have the right understanding, due to a lack of knowledge or believing that they know, when they're incorrect will you at LMG have anyway of drawing those trends out? 

 

Just having the MI to be able to draw this sort of thing out is useful longer term as it does allow managers to put plans and support in place for staff, as it can be seen, rather than it getting lost in the churn. Meaning that both sides have responsibility and a degree of accountability, as if LMG doesn't offer the support to the staff then ultimately LMG is failing the people involved, but if they then don't act on support and don't improve they are failing LMG. 

[Skipple]

2 hours ago, 28JR said:

one thing that is missing from what has been announced here in this, and whether it is something that is being kept track of internally that is reasonable, but the methodology laid out is very much reactive to when an error is found so LMG isn't failing the community, but it doesn't seem to address whether LMG is failing it's staff, or if the staff is failing LMG. I know; as it is part of my current job, that being able to report on where errors are coming from helps prevent them in the future, and am curious if you've considered the audit trail for errors 

 

For example, Person A writes a video about Topic Z, an error due to a mis-understanding of something about Topic Z. In how you've explained it, that error for that video will undergo a QA process and will get fixed. If this is just down to human error, that's might be all that is needed. However if someone genuinely doesn't have the right understanding, due to a lack of knowledge or believing that they know, when they're incorrect will you at LMG have anyway of drawing those trends out? 

 

You seem to be asking how LMG tracks and judges human mistakes / lack of understanding or knowledge on a topic. I can't image any reason why their internal processes for tracking or their response to such issues would be public.

 

The only thing the community should care about are the mistakes that make it to production. Anything else is an internal LMG issue. I'm not sure why they would be inclined to discuss their procedures at all. 

[28JR]

8 hours ago, Skipple said:

You seem to be asking how LMG tracks and judges human mistakes / lack of understanding or knowledge on a topic. I can't image any reason why their internal processes for tracking or their response to such issues would be public.

10 hours ago, 28JR said:

one thing that is missing from what has been announced here in this, and whether it is something that is being kept track of internally that is reasonable,

 

I did say in my initial post that it's reasonable if it is kept internal, but it would be nice to know, if this is being kept track of internally. Which I would also add does impact the community as if LMG can't track where issues are coming from it doesn't actually solve the underlying problem, as QA steps listed doesn't help stop the errors to begin with just mitigate the risk of them impacting on LMG's reputation.

[mtrantalainen]

On 8/26/2023 at 1:11 AM, LinusTech said:

Action: Pinned comment

Seems pretty reasonable but you should always put corrections in both pinned comment and in the video description. Some devices prefer to display one or the another by default and having corrections in both maximizes the probability of getting the message to the viewer. And channel author can modify both after the fact as needed, unlike the video replacement that requires special action by YouTube.

[Tock]

So after I saw the latest video on the xTool D1 Pro Laser I was interested in the fire suppression system.

 

1) Why is there no release thread for ShortCircuit videos?

2) Tynan only installed 2 of 4 CO2 canisters even though the manufacturer recommends 4 for enclosures between 0.065 m³ and 0.13 m³ and the shown enclosure being 0.118 m³

3) The manufacturer also says you can install only 2 gas bottles in a diagonal pattern BUT you also have to install 2 empty ones on the other diagonal.

 

It is important that safety related errors get caught and handled before people repeat those mistakes.

[speedingcheetah]

Is this the right thread to report error in vids?  (posted in the thread for the vid, this form has no delete post option??)

 

What this a on purpose thing, or an error that was not caught by your fancy new error checking process.

The on screen text is mirrored and not readable. 

8:33 in the Temu video.

[swimtome]

19 hours ago, speedingcheetah said:

Is this the right thread to report error in vids?  (posted in the thread for the vid, this form has no delete post option??)

 

What this a on purpose thing, or an error that was not caught by your fancy new error checking process.

The on screen text is mirrored and not readable. 

8:33 in the Temu video.

This was discussed in the video thread and its a throwaway gag referencing the telemprompter, most people seem to have gotten the joke.

Even if a mistake, this is a 'glitch' not an 'error' 

 

 

 

[Starspark]

Cool! A little bit of feedback:

 

The structure of the severity examples worries me that you may not have the right priorities in making this.

Here's a small philosophy draft + a new framework below, ordered in bullet points, to consider or even replace OP's system.

 

There are a few problems that stand out to me:
1. Every premise/example seems to be solely about how misled customers are and how they are affected. What about Billet-situation?
2. Your examples themselves appear to weigh erroneously depending on "type"-examples, not acknowledging that this shouldn't define how serious something is.

3. A lot of what I'd call "severe issues", you don't seem to immediately fix?

 

For example, the "very low severity" example is actually in opinion, way worse than the Medium severity example.
It is commonly understood that a competitor's "equivalent" will vary in the degrees they vary (AMF vs NVENC), and yes, it is in a way the same kind of thing. Different company = different details.

However, the notion that DP outright beats HDMI is blatant falsehood, and since consumers use variously versioned cables + equipment, there's a large margin for making the wrong choices here. There are standards out there that can legit just simply beat another, which is why this is problematic.

 

Calling a VA monitor great for gaming is not wrong and is an obvious subjective take (You can't measure "great for gaming"), and many gamers may like any given panel. It's an opinion or a recommendation, and I infact was considering VA panels some time back when they were a good value, and I didn't need that many viewing angles.

 

My point isn't to refute the examples; it's to signify how arbitrary they appear. This isn't how you evaluate severity.

 

I would look at 3 categories for mistake severity evaluation:

• Parties affected
  • Mostly about a product or standard like HDMI = Not so bad
  • Reflects on a company's standards = Kinda bad
  • Targets an individual private person = Very bad
• Nature of mistake
  • Misspeak or blunder about product features = People may understand
  • Bad graph data = People won't necessarily know unless other graphs are consistently different but same-ish
  • Targeted claim about a party = Uh oh
• Severity of effect.
  • Makes a product look worse than it is = Not cool
  • So poor that it may reflect badly on a company's overall standards = Yikes
  • Costs a company massive amounts of money, or gets a prviate person hate = OH NOES

 

If the nature of the mistake is grave, the severity of the mistake is grave, or who it affects makes it grave alone.. they all mean the same: full edit.

 

Technical errors (wrong color space, pixel-misaligned graphical elements), notably, typically do not have severe effects. They do, however, in large quantities, reflect on LTT's quality control potentially severely.

 

Any error that may mislead or confuse the consumer, in a manner that does not immediately self-correct, is prone to being more severe than meets the eye.

LTT being a source of news and authority in the space, supposed to educate, means people who knew better will sometimes be gaslit, and have small misunderstandings baked in over time. And for the tech-illiterate that are just learning, they legit have no defenses. So to think that general statements about DP vs HDMI being completely wrong, is okay, is damning imo.

 

"Self-correcting" just means that the consumer can't possibly use or spread the misinformation without it being defunct at the same time; e.g you say "Steve from GamersTexus did a collab with us". There's no possible way that consumers can misuse this info, and if they attempt to google it, they'll find out immediately.

However, if you state "My new iPhone with Android", people may actually think "Oh wow they got Android finally? Well that must be why he specifically specified the combination, as if that wasn't assumed. Interesting.". And that does not necessarily self-correct.

Or, if you say "4060" instead of "4060 Ti" just once in a sentence, while still holding it, it's kinda obvious.

 

Note how my examples don't need to involve consumer purchasing decisions. An attitude to demonize someone else can be just as serious as a mistaken purchase. Or failing to return expensive prototypes, potentially fatally harming a business *cough*.

Even if the only victim is LTT itself, many people work at LTT, whose lives are influenced by the public's perception, and who may receive hate or judgment.

Not to mention consumer trust in LTT is vital to its success.

Lasting misinformation hurts the industry, bad reputation for LTT hurts the industry, and unnecessary drama hurts the industry.

 

Guiding principles for staff

• Anything that specifically targets or hits other parties, like say a statement about someone else, or something more personal than a product, is automatically much more sensitive than something more general (as accounted for below).
  • If it affects a corporate entity, it's important to get right.
  • If it this affects a private individual, severity is increased even more.
• Always view problems through the "lowest common denominator" - LTT videos reach tech-illiterate people, and thus the judgement of severity is never based on a best-case scenario, but rather a worst-case scenario. Multitasking audio-only listening for tech illiterates is common, even through YT tabs.
  • When I refer to tech-illiterate people, I'm not making the argument that grandma might think "GPU" is "C3PO", but rather that since you are an authority, and your words are seen as professional, the learning people that are just getting into tech may legit be gaslit easily into thinking there's something they, as opposed to you, aren't understanding. That happens startlingly easily, and so your messaging must be consistent.
• It is always best to waste a little bit more time, than to risk yet another apology video or drama. Have a consistent standard.
  • If you're in doubt, assign it to the higher severity category that you're considering, and view it as procedure.
• Your job isn't to release more videos; it's to release better videos.

 

If you doubt that people can be as stupid as accounted for below, remind yourself of the situations where Linus makes a statement on WAN Show, and proceeds to facepalm over someone in twitch chat completely missing the point or misunderstanding the statement and saying something unhinged. It's that easy to get things wrong.

Set your bar higher than you did so far, as has been needed. Also because, when you set a standard, you will never perform it 100%, so set it higher than you expect to operate on.

 

Also remember that with a lower release schedule (which I really hope you take seriously), you have more time to take down and edit videos. I know it sucks. But here we are.

 

 

First: List of Correction Methods

• Pinned Comment
  • Pinned comments are never sufficient standalone, and are only an additional step for the specific viewers that look for them. Pinned comments and comment sections in general are not instinctively looked at because people don't go looking for corrections.
    The top part of the video description is more important, due to its visibility.
    • However, at times a pinned comment can be helpful as an addition.
  • It has to clearly start with "CORRECTION: "
  • It has to clearly fix the mistake contextually; viewers must understand the mistake made, and what a correct statement or result would be. Timestamps, what was said wrong, what was supposed to be said instead, and any clarifications.
    • "Correction: at 5:25 and 7:24 we meant to say we liked the 4060 Ti. The only other card we tested there was 4070, as we stated at 6:30"
• Description Edit
  • Description is more likely to be seen, pinned or not, and is shown when you enter a video page, and in search results.
  • Description edits need to be at the top of the description field, so it's seen (as again, people aren't looking for mistakes).
    • If we're talking quite a long correction or multiple instances, this edit may be just a single sentence deferring to the Pinned Comment for full info.
• On-Screen Text Correction:
  • Contrasted for easy readability, and is kinda big, so everyone notices, readable on mobile.
  • They generally spell "CORRECTION:" first, ending with an asterisk to mark correction.
  • 1-2 words after "Correction" = 1 second visibility
  • 2-4 words after "Correction"= 2 second visibility
  • Longer = See below for "Black Correction Frames"
  • If you make anything shorter than 1 second, I will deduct 10 points from Gryffindor. You have been warned.
• Black Correction Frames
  • Black frames with "CORRECTION" or "OOPS!" on top in big title font, and then explanation below in smaller font
    • MUST have that headline, otherwise people might think it's a joke or funny insert. Actual jokes/funny inserts must thus obviously look different.
  • Can be 2 seconds despite length of text, because they encourage pausing and make a clear incentive to correct a mistake, so the viewer is prepared.
  • If you or YouTube offer audio-only formats of this content, listeners MUST be able to know the black frame correction is happening.
• Speech Video Clip
  • Where you quickly record someone saying "Eh, here I mean to say X". It could be some other person too, but it's a fast insert.
• Overdub
  • Original video audio is cut at the moment of error, and someone's voice is quickly recorded to speak over it, correcting the word or whole phrase. This MUST include an On-Screen Text Correction, spelling out the exact same phrase correctly and with an asterisk. Don't make me explain why.
• Deferring to Description
  • Often when using On-Screen Text Correction, if an issue that needs a few more words, one may defer to description.
  • It must always be spelled out ON TOP in description, so people see it when clicking in to the video. Yes, that's what you get for making a "medium severity" issue. Minus 15 points to Gryffindor.
• Safety Title Edit
  • Protocolled for consistency; something like, with double parenthesis, "((ERROR <original title>))
    • You gotta make a protocol for what exactly the first word will always be. "Error" or "faulty video" or "mistake" in caps is probably good.
    • Parenthesis demonstrate that despite your "fun" and caps lock and "Oh my god she did what" titles, this looks off enough that it's not intentionally funny and something's wrong.
    • This is important, as not only will this be a safeguard if a video is not correctly privatized, but it will immediately make it obvious to anyone that this specific video was faulty. If there's a new version uploaded, there will be no mistake with which to publish. Thus, if you thought a video was reuploaded but it has this in the title, it will be deleted, because someone else likely caught the issue even if you think this is the good one. Never undo this title change unless multiple independent people reviewed it; you get this wrong once, and the video stays up for full damage.
• Tweet Followup / Apology
  • Oh, you're here? You done goofed.
  • You follow up with a tweet on the appropriate channel's twitter, clarifying the mistake. Since this is a dedicated communication form, you do not make it too short. Be precise, this is your shot. Don't screw this one up. There's a reason you had to make this. Do not write this one fast. YOU HAD ONE JOB.
  • Protocol per severity level. Starts with something like "VIDEO CORRECTION", "IMPORTANT VIDEO CORRECTION", etc.
    • Takes too long to explain? Write the whole thing down first, then post in sub-tweets when finished, using (1/3), etc, so we know whether we missed something. Can also use sub-tweets/replies do that when you dunno what to write yet and need a day to figure out how to not dig a deeper hole. I think Twitter allows you to have your own show above replies, at least in Madison's case?

 

Reactive Protocol (After video is publicly posted):

 

1. Base Severity
   • Actions:
     • No corrections needed
   • Criteria:
     • Will not damage, hurt, offend, miseducate or mislead any targeted or untargeted parties for any reason
     • Does not affect or negate the content's purpose or success in any manner
     • Typically, small mistakes nobody cares about
       • Unless there are LOTS of mistakes, that'll up the severity to Medium severity, as it reflects poorly on LTT
   • Examples:
     • Minor pixel-misalignment in WAN Show onscreen graphical element. Nobody even noticed.
     • Linus spells "graphics card" as "graphics board"
       • If he had said "motherboard", it would make a bigger difference however, as shown in the other categories.
       • Tech-illiterates would still find the products just fine this way, and not hold any meaningful tech misunderstandings.
     • Linus forgets to wear sandals
       • This is grave, but I will allow it. Just don't do it again.
          
2. Slight Severity - Context-awareness but they should still get it
   • Criteria:
     • May in minor capacity affect parties, typically outliers that didn't pay much attention or aren't tech literate but are still real humans
       • Lots of viewers scrub through videos, and LTT is about "tech tips" aka teaching for fools too. Don't overestimate people.
     • Identifiable by frequent or reasonable viewers as a "mistake" in the video
       • Multitasking audio viewers, dense people or grandma might miss it.
   • Actions:
     • Description insert
     • Pinned comment
   • Examples:
     • Called the 4060 Ti just "4060", but video context and most references demonstrate clearly otherwise, and 4060 was never mentioned in any other context.
       • This is thus a non-contextual issue, where context disproves it.
         • If there was real reason to think you might just have mentioned the 4060 there for comparison, your statements change meaning and that's a Medium severity.
     • Accidentally said "GamersTwoCents", when it's clear that you meant either Gamers Nexus or JayzTwoCents.
       • Although that has to obviously be clear, even to casuals that know neither. I mean heck, I don't even know which one you meant right now because I have no context. But since the wrong party isn't implicated clearly here, people will just be confused and look at comments.
         • If there was a negative implication here, that could change opinions of a company, or one name stands out more than the other, it's more severe, see other categories.
   • Reason:
     • Mistakes in this category generally lead to nothing, or almost nothing - repairing them is more about due diligence and respect, as well as for people to just make extra sure they're not getting you wrong while learning this. A comment edit is merely a seconds-long procedure.
     • Also: people read headlines, they forget what you said, they think you mentioned two different products. Even I feel that sometimes, you'd be surprised.
       This is worse when people don't watch the whole video, they scrub. To them, it's plausible you legit meant to make references to a 4060 in there, if they didn't pay close attention the entire way.
     • They also can't know if the title is wrong, or your reference is wrong, or if there were multiple references in the video that were just simply other cards.
       • This is why this is slightly above a "formality".
     • We can justify these rectifications, as usually this should be caught in editing and rectified with onscreen corrections. If it passes this many corrections, you better bend over for that 5-second Description Edit to show that you care.
        
3. Medium Severity - Clear mistake, proper edit. "Dumb crap you shouldn't do".
   • Criteria:
     • Typically a clear mistake made, and while tech literate people may recognize it, casuals and beginners may not.
       • Video may confuse, affect or mislead viewers, perhaps actually could lead to held wrong beliefs or actions taken wrongly, even if the knowers and smartiepants know better or got the real point.
         • We are no longer talking about contextually solved misunderstandings, but things that tech illiterate people may get confused about.
       • What defines this category is that some viewers will get the wrong impression, as the video is not obvious as to the mistake. This will lead to some portion of misunderstandings that can be excused on the viewers' side, just because of lack of awareness or tech literacy.
       • These mistakes have to matter in some capacity, like mislead about what product the statements applied to, what product performs well, or what company is involved, etc. They thus conflict with the point of a review or informative video.
         • If Linus states he brushed his teeth with the wrong toothbrush, that's okay, unless it's part of the review.
     • Actions:
       • Video Edit required (Must NOT just defer to pinned comment, but may to description for longer explanations)
         • Must be state "CORRECTION: " or something similar
       • Overdub or re-record in original voice is not required if this is a minor short wording mistake where text correction is okay.
         • Otherwise, use either voicedub (same or other voice), or input of short clarification video clip, or clear onscreen text correction if sufficient. And, defer to Description Edit as well. Yes, that's what you get for making a "medium severity" issue.
         • Pinned comment also recommended, because people expect those by now. Up to you. Might as well though. It demonstrates something.
   • Examples:
     • Called the 4060 Ti just "4070" a few times, in other sentences, so some people might actually get the wrong idea. There's a chance that you legit meant to reference another card in there that wasn't otherwise tested. It's not, to everyone, clear if the video title is just wrong, or if you're wrong this or that way.
     • Linus states "This PC ended up a bad value" and points at the wrong PC, without immediately disproving that through pointing at the correct one in the next sentence. People often skip to summaries and buzzwords, don't ever do this.
     • You called GamersNexus "JayzTwoCents" at any point while explaining multiple things, meaning someone could think one of those things was J2C and the rest was GN
     • Linus stated that HDMI is better than DisplayPort, or vice versa. Rest of video does not necessarily prove otherwise unless understood properly or in whole.
       • This may lead to attitudes or understandings to spread that are outright untrue, especially among the less attentive or illiterate. Not everyone gets it, and it's not necessarily obvious that every reference is last-version-specific - if it could just be that HDMI is just better in general, then you messed up. Again, you're educating illiterates. Use your head.
         • If HDMI or DisplayPort had been less of an invisible standard and more of a brand name for products, this could have been High Severity due to company damage (Like saying Pwnage mice are always bad).
     • Didn't see the button/forgot to change RGB color on peripheral and thus didn't cover the feature properly. This lack of due diligence doesn't actually thus review the full product, and shows poor standards for a tech review company.
       • If the review additionally misinforms about, or blames the product, it's High severity, exemplified below.
     • A graph for benchmarking is wrong by more than a frame or two while under reasonable FPS caps/monitor speeds for the game (144 in Cyberpunk?), which is enough to, while not beating or losing to other products, skew the ratio a bit and thus mislead as to its value for the money. See "Note on graphs" section below why this is very sensitive.
       • If it's more than a little bit, let's say it's in a critical FPS region (under 30 or 60 FPS), beats the product above it or the ratio issue is significant, it's a High Severity issue, see below.
          
4. High Severity - "Ouches", bad takes; clear mistake that may cause some harm, embarassment or distress for a company
   • Criteria:
     • Typically things in a video that would make some viewers go "Ouch..", or something that may reflect quite poorly on a company/professional party. Things that can cause dramas and conflicts, even over brand reputation.
     • Leads to some misunderstandings that may likely negatively impact someone, in a way that may sway public opinion, trust, sponsorships, perception of their business or personalia, or other that they may find damaging to their business or reputation.
       • This impacts a party, not just the product. It's worse to defame a party lastingly (even indirectly) than to criticize a product feature, unless the critique reflects very poorly on the manufacturer's standards or otherwise 'outs' them noticeably. Aka, stuff that could cause dramas and conflict.
     • Or could perhaps, even if not meant that way, offend or insinuate something about professional parties that, even if it doesn't qualify as defamation or an attack, could clearly not sit right with them.
       • Requires that they are affected in a manner that isn't completely meaningless.
         • Giving the wrong company credit for developing a greedy gatcha game they weren't, could lead to an influx of unwanted attention, blames for monetization schemes, or other emails. Not to mention it undermines the real company.
       • If offended parties are private individuals instead, this mistake is Critical Severity.
         • UNLESS: privates represent themselves as entities and take on that risk willingly, like Philip Defranco or Joe Rogan, where they are ambiguous with their company and thus the reference is not unjustified even if it just mentions them by name. That counts as a company.
     • Alternatively, just a statement or notion or review done so badly that it reflects poorly on either other parties, or LTT. Something that is significant for the portrayal or purpose of a video.
       • See Pwnage example.
     • Basically, this is a "this sucks" situation for someone, rather than "oops my bad but whatever".
   • Actions:
     • Immediate privatization of video, and Safety Title Edit
     • Tweet apology and forum post
     • Video edit required, with complete overdub, speech video or scene reshoot.
       • The original misleading audio must never be left untouched, so that audio-only listeners or multitaskers may be mislead.
     • Damage assessment for at least 5 days, clearing up mistakes, etc.
   • Examples:
     • Pwnage mouse review, where mouse feet tape wasn't actually removed.
       • Reason 1: The mistake colors the whole review - alone a qualifying reason for LTT's responsibility.
       • Reason 2: Lack of integrity/methods - alone a qualifying reason. Never even half-allow that sort of obvious mistake, or it gets common.
       • Reason 3: It directly hurts the perception of that company/product strongly, just due to how they speak of it, to where sales and reputation can suffer. The whole point of correct reviews is to exactly not make this type of mistake.
     • Tim's lab statements (even if true!)
       • Reason 1: Respect-wise, we do not speak for them, and they do not speak for us. We defer to them, we do not represent or make guarantees for our competition, or even friends and rivals. We do not control or offer these factors.
       • Reason 2: Even if you think it's right, maybe GN or HUB changed their methods recently. It's gravely unfair to stick that on them, especially since your video will be up despite their changes happening after the video. It's not a timeless comment, so don't. This is beneath LTT standards, there's no discussion here.
         Even if this case seemed minor, we need to set examples not to let this become the norm.
       • Reason 3: Maybe you said it diffusely which could imply more or less than exactly what's intended. Maybe you misunderstood how they do their testing, and they compensate to make that fact irrelevant. Blabla. Point is, this is how beefs and lawsuits start.
       • Whether the statements are correct or not, or whether LTT just thinks they are, isn't as important.
         • This is harming/degrading a company's reputation, while placing yourself above them/affecting competition.
         • It is rumorspreading about factors you do not control yourself, at other companies' accounts, as if you get to represent them - which is just plain avoided in the competitive space out of respect.
     • Linus makes a negative statement about JayzTwoCents in error, referring to Gamers Nexus (See Tim's lab example).
       While other statements correctly referred to GN, this sentence was separate and could indicate something more happened. Context did not immediately show that this specific reference was impossible, and some users will get that wrong. All of a sudden J2C has to answer for you, which he can't.
       • Statements that may lead to wrong beliefs are potentially more damaging for them in the big picture than you notice.
         • If the statement is significant and negative or highly implicatory in nature, it's Critical Severity (category below).
     • Didn't find the button to change RGB color, so product only had one color, and the video implied/claimed that the product doesn't have that feature (when LTT just missed it).
       • This might matter a ton for people who like RGB and aren't exactly researching other places because guess what, you're the research. Viewer would have actually been better served not watching the review at all, and just assuming it could change color just fine. Or, watch someone else's review. The world would be better off without that video, and since people don't necessarily watch the same review twice, that sucks.
     • Stating that Corsair keyboards are better than LG, without clear limiting context.
     • A benchmark graph is wrong to the point where it legit could change the performance ratios slightly, or matter for a purchase
       • See the "Notes on graphs" section for why this is very strict.
         • No longer steady 60 or 30 FPS, but dips 5 frames randomly and thus stutters and "isn't quite enough"
         • Is now a somewhat better/worse value
         • Beats another card it shouldn't
            
5. Critical Severity - Emergency-tier; can cause clear harm (financial or other) or distress, or targets a private individual
   • Criteria:
     • Anything that can have any more impact than High Severity.
       • Typically damages a company's overall reputation, changes consumer attitude towards a party..
     • Also anything pertaining to defamation, accusations, litigation or crime of any party, even if context would demonstrate it to be an error said in isolation.
     • Also any statement or problem that goes against a private individual and is significantly negative, humiliating or rude.
       • The amount of hate, bullying and mockery people face even from silly jokes or misunderstandings, should make this category of outright negativity an obvious red flag and trigger an immediate response and full apology. People commit suicide due to the sheer amount of hate stemming from larger influencers or corporations targeting them, even if inadvertently.
   • Actions:
     • Immediate Privatization of said video, every second counts here.
     • Immediate Safety Title Edit.
     • Immediate Tweet + Forum post apology
     • Full rectification of video with new takes where possible, or if that's impossible or in bad taste, cancellation of said video. Period.
     • Damage assessment and repair
       • Consider followup apology video or more, depending on the nature of the case.
   • Examples:
     • Claimed that someone is tried for a crime, but got the name wrong.
       • Even if the name is just simply wrong and you don't know that it applies to anyone.
       • Regardless of context, this is extremely grave because of the potential consequences of any, even if stupid, misunderstanding or out-of-context use or clips others make.
       • If this is only contextually a mistake, due to the whole video naming the right person multiple times, it's still High Severity. You don't want any chance of misunderstandings here
     • Outright claimed that GamersNexus doesn't run their own benchmarks (when they do).
       • This would impact their credibility and undermine their channel's value, on top of being highly insulting and unacceptable.
         • Difference here and between the Tim's lab situation (High Severity), is that Tim's lab statements weren't as grave, and were more of a small distinction of methods. If his statements were "GamersNexus aren't so good at testing", it'd be Critical severity.
     • Secret Shopper video blames the wrong company for awful service.
       • Secret shopper is more or less direct advice for avoiding a company regardless of what they sell, damage is high.
       • If context was clear but the company was misnamed, it's still High Severity. This is one of those mistakes you just don't do.
     • Eufy/Anker-style allegations against a company, wrongfully.

 

Proactive Protocol (Before the Publish button on YT is pressed)

 

Base Severity

• "The little invisible mistakes"
• Can be ignored
  • (CGI for new sandals is fair).

 

Slight Severity

• Get your ass back in the video editor. Now.
  • On-Screen Text Correction or Overdub, is generally sufficient. Latter preferred where it fits.
    • Most other corrections stem from issues that are grouped as more important anyways.
• But what about audio-listeners?
   

Medium Severity and up

• Get your ass back in the video editor. Now.
  • But here, the solutions differ.
    • Since you're in an editor, a misspeak of "4060" vs "4060 Ti" can easily be fixed with overdub original voice preferred if possible.
    • However, failing to show off a feature requires a reshoot where it's done right.
    • Any mistake in graphs requires that ALL graph data is checked and corrected; if there's evidence of legitimately badly gathered data, a proper troubleshooting process must be done, and data must be retested. Again, see "Note on graphs" section below.
      • This is due to how long repetitive work can easily clud itself up, tired brains making more mistakes over time, and the nature of how important these are to get right.

Additionally, if there are mistakes made that indicate poor standards or attitudes that could lead to published errors in the future or other issues, there has to be some sort of report feature. It's important that if editors feel that someone, or even LTT as a whole, can have things said or done so as to create undue attitudes or consequences, there's a way to report this to not only one person, but others (especially if that one person is the problem).

But you may already have systems for this in place.

 

 

Note on graphs

 

The reason graphs are very sensitive, ties in to the core of what "Linus Tech Tips" is and does for the consumer.

The whole point of watching a review about, say, the RTX 3070, is not to actually know whether it's a better card than the RTX 3060. Everyone and their dog knows that, and manufacturers instill that expectation through giving it a higher number and a usually-reflective price.

 

The point of watching a performance review, is to get the exact details on how that ratio is. That's 90% of the video's purpose; not to have you giggle with it in your hand. A consumer purchase decision is made depending on whether or not a product stacks up just about enough to qualify for a person's use case; sometimes that's because it's barely over 60 FPS average in their specific title, and they don't want a card that keeps randomly dipping below 55 FPS, resulting in perceived stutter. Add a few frames, and you can just framecap.

 

This is why that graph being even slightly off in how much better a GPU is, can not only change a real customer purchase decision, but also defeats the entire concept/purpose of making that review. Because again, the only real information the review really had to offer, that the consumer didn't know, was the exact ratios; exactly how much more powerful the 3070 was, over the 3060, in the titles tested, on that specific hardware, specifically.

The viewer then has to extrapolate that as precisely as possible, and may even buy that specific hardware for that use case, to get the desired result. That's really expensive. And it's the only thing a performance review does, and the biggest part of the video to control for.

 

As consumers go, constant 60 FPS looks great and sufficient, while dips in the 50's-region does not. If a difference is found in a key region here, like 25-30 FPS, or 55-60 FPS, it's a big deal.

 

Whether it's a Medium or High severity mistake, depends on the situation.

113 vs 124 FPS isn't as important as 55 vs 60, and especially not in Minesweeper.

But get any of these wrong in a competitive, high-speed racing or VR game, it's a bigger deal. It may change the value.

 

TL;DR: If your graph is even slightly off, do it again.

 

Other notes

 

If we account for audio-only content, it may be necessary to make sure that there's audiodub in places where there's correction text. Infact, audio viewers are not able to see what's going on or what's being talked about, held or pointed at, and will likely also be multitasking, meaning they are much more likely to be confused by simple mistakes in videos, meaning Slight severity mistakes can significantly delude and spread misinformation.

 

I don't know how LTT relates to audio-only listeners, so I don't know whether audio-only is separate content with its own corrections, or if Slight mistakes should have voicedub in all such cases, etc.

[ili]

I think this should be classified as 3 not 2

 

[Starspark]

On 8/26/2023 at 12:11 AM, LinusTech said:

 

Reactive (after the video is posted)

• Video Replace: replacing the video with a new version without re-uploading

  • This relies on YouTube and takes some time. There are fairly strict guidelines around the use of this tool and strong justification must be provided for all changes. This is preferred to a re-upload, but there is likely a soft-limit on how often we can use this resource.

• Re-upload the video: Set the original, erroneous video to Private and upload a new version. This will have algorithmic effects, but must be done if replacement is not an option

 

What is that "video replace" feature? I can't find anything about that feature online, it appears not to exist?

Not to mention if it existed, it would quickly be the most abusable feature. Imagine replacing with your own bogus science after people approve of similar but correct data.

 

The best you can do with an uploaded video to my knowledge, is either use the video editor to trim/modify the video slightly, or edit associated data (title, desc, tags..).

 

 

On 8/26/2023 at 12:11 AM, LinusTech said:

 

• AI audio pickup: new voiceover is generated. In the best case this uses a voice model that sounds like the host. However, using a robot voice  can still work.

 

 

If you can replace with AI, that ties in with retakes in my suggestion. AI corrections are fine and this respects audio listeners. If they can be done entirely convincingly, they're better than onscreen corrections where possible. Otherwise, text corrections are preferable.

 

[Alvin853]

What is the procedure for reporting errors?

In the latest GameLinked, James says "Starfield's first update will finally get DLSS support" while showing a post that the first update only includes a couple hotfixes and that DLSS support will be added in a later update. While I don't see the wrong wording as a major issue, I don't see any way to let the team know about the error.

Do we post here? Or make a new thread for each video? Or maybe one thread per channel? The video doesn't have a forum discussion post I could use.

[CoolJosh3k]

Mistake @5:08. “Uncompressed” makes no sense here, since LaserDisc in an analogue format.

There is no digital data stream (unless you count the audio).

I assume this is a reference to how DVDs work, but in that case it is very much an “apples to oranges” comparison. If by “uncompressed” you mean “no quality loss”, then I point out that LaserDisc has the laser rot issue…

 

[ReformattedtoMildness1420]

I don't have much to say, other than the fact that your subtitles needs some sort of ECC

[Skipple]

2 hours ago, ReformattedtoMildness1420 said:

I don't have much to say, other than the fact that your subtitles needs some sort of ECC

Aren't LTT subtitles auto-generated?

[ReformattedtoMildness1420]

On 10/24/2023 at 3:26 PM, Skipple said:

Aren't LTT subtitles auto-generated?

Yeah but the timing does have a problem.

And if it was auto-generated, it wouldn't be organized tbh

[maskmcgee]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:55 PM, ReformattedtoMildness1420 said:

I don't have much to say, other than the fact that your subtitles needs some sort of ECC

 

This is the most worthless thing ever posted. Random screenshots, no explaining what's 'wrong' with them.

[kumicota]

@LinusTechon the video about the mepadv2 on shortcircuit at 6:30, the host cleary do something wrong and according to the comments, the creator said that it's a fault of the batteries having low-charge. This video cleary don't follow the Error Handling Standard, so I wonder if you're gonna follow it

[Lurick]

4 hours ago, kumicota said:

@LinusTechon the video about the mepadv2 on shortcircuit at 6:30, the host cleary do something wrong and according to the comments, the creator said that it's a fault of the batteries having low-charge. This video cleary don't follow the Error Handling Standard, so I wonder if you're gonna follow it

That's a THREE YEAR old video.

The SOP came out a few months ago.

[Gaz 1888]

Didn’t know where to post this but short circuit video error max 7 time stamp 10:39 the download and upload speeds under each phone are incorrect they are reversed so claims upload is the download speed and downloads is the upload speed

[CoolJosh3k]

Have any videos so far had mistakes addressed?

 

I don’t watch enough LTT and I am curious if LTT is actually doing what they said they’d do.

[Guille.R]

First of all i want to say that i love that you are doing this! I want to ask that when you put some text in the video explaining why something is wrong or just saying something, you put it upper on the screen, i know that the normal thing is to put it on the bottom but when i'm using subtitles (often since English is not my native language) the text mixes with subtitles making impossible to read neither subtitles nor your text.

[ToboRobot]

at 2:15ish host voiceover "apple still holding back users with flash memory" referring to 8GB of system memory... which is not flash.