Commenting on YouTube videos: From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang

  • Authors:

  • Mike Thelwall;Pardeep Sud;Farida Vis

  • Affiliations:

  • Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, School of Technology, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, UK;Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, School of Technology, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, UK;Department of Media and Communication, Leicester University, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

  • Venue:
  • Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
  • Year:
  • 2012

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.