Talk:List of most-viewed YouTube videos

Alleged copyright violation

I do not believe this article constitutes a copyright violation, as paraphrasing is not possible—names are names, and numbers are numbers. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is factual data, which cannot be copyrighted, so yes, it is NOT a copyright violation. There was no creativity in constructing this list. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Article name change

Clearly, the article title should be changed to "List of most viewed YouTube videos". Stats on YouTube are of course based on "views", not watches. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Entire list is based on unreliable data

This article is really redundant, unencyclopedic and should be deleted. As history has shown, 'views' are easily and regularly artificially inflated. Gangnam Style most viewed? This video had 79 billion views. Here are more sources, some from ED

• How 'Groundhog Day' Became an Overnight YouTube Sensation
• How Avril Lavigne fans used an auto-refresh page to get her video to #1 most viewed wired article how YouTube don't care about it another article on Avrils' fans view spamming
• how the embed code can be changed to autoplay to be spammed on MySpace profiles
• how something shit got so many views by being spammed across MySpace profiles
• GREAT article from an insider of a company which view spams for clients and how they just spam videos across the internets
• Secrets Of Buying Fake Youtube Views: A Seller Speaks

Just recently, youtube took away 2 BILLION views from Universal & Sony. So this entire list relies on completely unreliable data, it is also missing videos that have since been deleted, and lacks any information on what constitutes a ‘view’ or the fact they are manipulated. For this reason, I am adding the neutrality template.--Toddyswag (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You are free to incorporate this information into Social impact of YouTube. As for your deletionist philosophy, Wikipedia does not appear to care much for it: see for instance List of best-selling music artists.

"Lacks any information on what constitutes a 'view'"—is that deliberate comedy? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just shown you using multiple reliable sources that this entire article is based on inaccurate data, yet you completely ignore this and say I have a 'deletionist philosophy' and link me to a list that uses reliable data. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists requires editors to put further explanation about the list, such as what is a 'view'?. I suggest you stop your attacks against me and actually discuss the content, not my "philosophies".--Toddyswag (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You are interpreting criticism as a personal attack for no good reason. Please see WP:DELETIONISM. Thank you for expanding the article. But I wonder: why did you do that, when you previously said it should be deleted? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Technically" note

Hello, I was the IP who removed the shockingly stupid footnote on the Gangman Style entry. Why? Because it is shockingly stupid. It reads: "Technically not the most viewed ever". Now let's take a look at the definition of technically as it relates here: "based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation". So basically, the note says, "using a strict interpretation, it is not the most viewed ever". To clarify even more, this is saying "using a strict interpretation, there is at least one other video with more genuine views". Well I looked through the "sources", all of them. And it turns out, that NONE of them say that, or even give the impression of that being the case. The first source says the exact opposite: "The number is obviously fake". This would imply that Gangnam Style them IS "technically the most viewed ever", because the views of the other video are FAKE. The second source in Romanian says "Twista ft. Do Or Die-do you, care avea 79.441.058.538 de vizualizări false", or, "Twista ft. Do Or Die-do you, which had 79.441.058.538 false views." The third source says "According to reports, the video’s 79,441,058,538 views were the result of someone hacking into LadyMC311’s YouTube account." And the [fourth source] says "The video’s 79,441,058,538 views were the result of someone hacking into LadyMC311′s YouTube account, according to reports". So all of the sources say the views are fake, i.e. not real. Which means of course that the claim "Technically not the most viewed ever" is, technically, the most incorrect assessment anyone could make from the sources.

Here would be an example of a good note to make in this situation: "Technically, there once was a guy who found hack on YouTube which made a very large number appear next to the word "views" to some video on YouTube, which has nothing to do with actual views, and shouldn't be mentioned even in a footnote in this article because of just how insiginificant, trivial, and pointless it is, especially since the video has since been removed from YouTube." Anyone in favor of the change? Trinitresque (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say makes sense. I have to admit that I never looked into the sources, only at their names. I would appreciate a comment from User:Toddyswag before the contested material is dealt with in one way or another, but comments from others may suffice. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddyswag hasn't made an edit in over two months. Trinitresque (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but he was the one who added that note into the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's now how Wikipedia editing works. If he's not going to be back here for another two months, then we can't keep something blatantly wrong on Wikipedia for two months just to wait for him. What if he's dead, and we don't know it? Will we wait forever? Trinitresque (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No need for that lecture; "I would appreciate ... but comments from others may suffice" is clear enough. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I slightly misread your statement and thought you wanted a comment from Toddyswag before making any change, and that additional comments from others would be ok. In either case, feel free to ask for more input from the Wikipedia:Help desk. But I seriously don't think it's necessary. It seems that we both agree that the footnote should be removed, and, well, being bold is an official Wikipedia editing guideline. I can wait a day or two though if you'd like to ask for outside input. Trinitresque (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well as I said again, it seems like we're both in agreement that the footnote should be removed, and you haven't sought out any other input, so I'm removing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinitresque (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Indicate the YouTube member who uploaded the "best-seller" video

It happens that some music videos are uploaded from user accounts outside VEVO and they have most views that videos that are uploaded from that "official site". It would be wise, therefore, to add one more column to the table indicating the user name of the video in question.--190.173.60.53 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have now added the Youtube Channel that each video in the top 30 was uploaded to. F1lover22 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not necessary; it doesn't matter who the uploader is for purpose of ranking, just what the video is. Suggestions like these need discussion before they are implemented. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BB and WP:BRD are both relevant here. Myself, I don't like the idea. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think suggestions like these need discussion before they are implemented, but I agree that channel info is unnecessary and should be removed. --Wtfsvi (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do need discussion. And the discussion, if there is one, has to happen BEFORE implementation. If there's no objection or no discussion then it can be implemented. --Loginnigol (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Scusi, where is the link to the video? As a reader interested in this subject this is important information missing. Although the link to the top ranked video's article served this purpose (with an indirection), the other links don't. They just link to articles about songs, which may contain some or many video links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.187.25 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Party Rock Anthem

Party Rock Anthem has been deleted from Youtube. I think this entry should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.125.2 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The list was made from data at a fixed point in time, and thus it is completely reasonable to contain deleted videos since that point. Heck, historically, the placement/count of Party Rock Anthem remains high. I suspect if YT publishes such a list again, they may make a note that it's been deleted but still keep it since it still would have been one of the most viewed videos. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What? No it hasn't been.... Alphius (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Videotrine? Is it reliable?

Videotrine's youtube video rank is outdated. For example, Videotrine says Thrift Shop by Macklemore is 20th, Oppa is just My Style is 19th, but Thrift shop is more viewed. Then, we can think that Grenade by Bruno Mars may be 31st or lower in youtube now. Therefore, Videotrine's reliablity is not sufficent for wikipedia.--141.223.13.15 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that we're doing snapshots in time at a specific date of the top videos and viewcounts. I'll note that the list appears to be complied by simply going to youtube, sorting by viewcount, and filling in to keep the list relatively current (it doesn't need to be a daily or weekly update however). This may mean there may be periods that videos are not in the current proper order, but that's okay as long as we say "this is based as of such-and-such a date". --MASEM (t) 13:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you that this list is current and up to date. And also anytime that there is a change in position,it is replicated on this page. F1lover22 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

When to update this article

I would strongly recommend we avoid trying to do daily updates, and at worst, do monthly updates. As long as we are clear what date the viewcounts were picked there's no issue with us being a month or so behind on the count. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I thought weekly updates would be OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one updating the view counts, so your self appointed role is really of no benefit to this page. F1lover22 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Self appointed role[s]" have nothing to do with consensus, which is what this discussion sought to achieve. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that discussion is needed before and changes are made, but not mentioning specific users, this page seems to be dominated by a small group of people. This means that is very hard for any improvement on this article, meaning any discussions made seem to be pointless F1lover22 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of 01Jan14 does not seem to be correct 208.68.62.4 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Links to the videos

Why are there no links to the videos on YouTube in the table? Wouldn't that be natural? --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I object to that. That would reduce the page to a thinly veiled single-corporate linkspam bookmark and violate WP:LINKFARM. -Loginnigol (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

+1 from me. It was quite frustrating for me today try and find the "right" video, for, say, Michel Telo, but *that wiki page* doesn't link to the very popular video in question. I want a list where I can go to to easily find the most popular videos. And I disagree that it's linkspam, it would just make the page more useful IMHO. Rogerdpack (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Likes on You Tube

I hope someone makes a list of likes on you tube. Likes on you tube are just as significant and notable as views. I was not allowed to post such a page, probably because it was my first article. False accusations were made against the page, that it was just a copy of another page. But no such page exists right now for most likes, just as there is no page for most views. Google/Youtube is not posting such a list right now, though it used to do so.Eameece (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)eameece

"Likes" can be manipulated moreso than views, so it would be improper for us to track them. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not something is "significant and notable" is determined by WP:N. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence that likes are manipulated. You have to be a member of you tube to like a video, and it can't be liked more than once. The notion that you tube is "not notable" is obvious nonsense. Of course it is, it's the most popular way to hear music now, and likes are as important as views in showing popularity. Many people view a video just because it's popular and want to see what it is, not because they like it. I hope someone with some status on wikipedia takes this up someday, or maybe that google restores the list themselves Eameece (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)eameece

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

Ylvis - The Fox (What Does The Fox Say?) youtube count is 381,699,462

Csarsene (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of videos

why only 30? these days there are a lot of good videos being made, so i think the list should be about 50 most watched videos at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.215.17.129 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC) - 98.70.81.154 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

30 is the number that published "Top YT Video" articles have published, so it provided a good line to start with. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014

Miley Cyrus - Wrecking Ball, Published on Sep 9, 2013 Lei777 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done it's #9 Cannolis (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

Danza Kuduro has 559,806,592 views and thus has surpassed "Call Me Maybe" (which has 557,164,104 views). Also, the "as of May 31, 2014" entry on the "Views" column appears to be incorrect as not all of the "views" for each video seems to have been updated (i.e. presumably only "Gangnam Style" was updated...?). 98.70.81.154 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please capture the change you want to make in a 'please change X to Y' format and provide reliable sources for any factual change. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please change (move) "Danza Kuduro" to #12 in "Rank" and "Call Me Maybe" to #13 (i.e. swap positions) as based on YouTube "Views" the former surpassed the latter in "ranking" -- "Danza Kuduro" now has 560,102,818 views (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic) and "Call Me Maybe" currently has 557,377,592 views (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic). Thanks! 98.70.74.43 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire table would have to be updated (all page views and the new placements if any), we can't just move two. For purposes of handling the edit request I will review to the last version before just Gungnam Style was changed. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Another part of this (as I see it) was on 30 May the table "Views" were updated to the correct numbers by Banana1912 ([1]), while a later edit by Neilaldenarmstrong ([2]) changed the "Views" column to read "as of May 31, 2014" without updating any of the "Views" totals other than "Gangnam Style" (thus the entire list was rendered incorrect insofar as number of views based on "as of" date except for the #1 entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.74.43 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I fixed the "as of" date back to May 30th, so the list is "correct" now (eg we're not mixing May 30 and May 31 viewcounts, and yes, this means Danza/Call Me are in the proper positions for the 30th). Yes, this shows Gangnam at under 2B views even though a source next to the entry notes the 2B views, but we now have the right dates that explain that issue. As soon as someone that wants to spend the time to update the views and make the necessary swaps as would be expected for Danza/Camm Me, for the entire table, that won't be an issue. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We had an "edit conflict", as I was posting the following (fairly similar to your reply, Masem): The edit made on the article while I was posting above earlier resolved the aforementioned discrepancy (all "View" counts not updated, only "Gangnam Style", while the "as of" date had been changed making all other entries incorrect for that date - presuming none of the videos on the list had "zero" views between updates? haha!). The original request remains valid and can likely be handled whenever the next "Views" update of the entire list is done (and/or perhaps the two videos that "swapped positions" may have returned to their presently listed "Rank" by then without having to move them up/down). Thanks, Masem! .. 98.70.74.43 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sure, just making clear what I reverted back to, as to assure that the key part of the request (the inconsistency of date) is fixed, and yes, I would assume in the next few days the proper full update will be done. No worries :) --MASEM (t) 01:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

During the "cleanup" by Loginnigol the prior entry by another editor (not me) was seemingly removed inadvertantly ("list order backwards" - "16 and 17 are backwards. You should probably fix that"). I am including it here as an edit request. On the update for June 2, 2014, by MainframeXYZ (i.e. [3]), the updated views for the 16th and 17th on the list indicate those should be reversed in ranking. Based on those figures (number of views), please switch the positions for 16 and 17 -- "Not Afraid" should be moved to 17 from 16 and "Roar" should be moved from 17 to 16 (they are backwards "as of" the last list update). 98.70.73.190 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be another problem that I just noticed when comparing the previously mentioned update of the list with the prior edit, specifically the number of "Views" for positions 12 and 13 ("Danza Kuduro" and "Call Me Maybe") were not changed which likely was an oversight (?). (if those did in fact change, then on the "as of" date - current article - the list is incorrect for those two entries). - 98.70.73.190 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've corrected the ordering. Thanks for pointing that out. You need to discuss any concerns about the accuracy of the update with the editor who made the update. At this point, unless they wrote down the values, there is no way to know what the counts were on the 2nd. Which makes these updates sort of questionable with regards to the verifiability pillar. It would definitely be better to find a reliable source which captures this list and use that as a source rather than collecting the data first hand. Perhaps you could find such a source and make another edit request. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I notified the editor as the most recent update by same also did not include updating views for the aforementioned videos (12 and 13). 98.70.79.27 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request to add "Notes" for "Gentleman"

From main article for position 7 "Gentleman" entry, would someone please add the following or similar under "Notes" column (verbatim from article): "It has set YouTube records for most views in its first 24 hours,^[10] most views in any 24 hours,^[11] fastest music video to reach 100 million views,^[12][13][14] fastest overall video to reach 200 million views,^[12][15] and 300 million views.^[16][17]". (if not obvious, the numbers are references listed on song article) .. Thanks! 98.70.73.190 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

^ Problem with that is you have to be consistent and apply the same principle to all the other vids (which means if "fastest bla bla bla" is an acceptable item on this wikipedia page then that should also apply to Wreaking ball and any other video that was "fastest" once upon a time - you cant' just apply that for your favourite video or the only one you know something about. In other words forget it (TMI - endlessly expanding the notes section will end up cluttering the table). I suggest if you have all the "fastest" related info about all the vids then a good idea would be to open a separate notes section or paragraph about it below. —Loginnigol (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to add per Loginnigol, the "fastest to X" is far too gameable to be a useful or notable metric. The reader can gage from pageview count and upload date the approximate speed (the fact that Gangnam is one of the newest but has the highest views says something). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On the "fastest to x" (or "fastest bla bla bla", etc.), I tend to agree, a perceptive reader can easily tell how rapidly a video has increased in number of "Views" by information provided in the table (overall or average viewcount for entire period of time since upload date). However, I think the fact "Gentleman" is the "Most viewed video online in 24 hours"[4] for "any 24 hours" or particularly "first 24 hours" with 38,409,306 views is sufficiently notable to mention in the "Notes" column (likely far more views in a single day, its first 24 hours, than the vast majority of all videos available on YouTube have received in total per each video).
As the article is a "List of most viewed YouTube videos" including a notation about this seems fairly pertinent and is not easily ascertained nor provided by the information already included in the list (unlike the less relevant or potential for opening a Pandora's box of possible "TMI" as the "fastest to x" request might conceivably cause if included). There can be only one "most viewed" in a day ("24 hours") -- a "world record" -- which should be mentioned on this list (imo). -- 98.70.79.77 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the basis of mentioning that and not mentioning Wreaking Ball's 24 hrs record (most views in the 1st 24 hrs)? And then once that's done someone might say hay what about the "fastest in a week" record by this video, then "fastest in a month" by that video... etc etc. This is what I mean by a potential can of worms that might lead to TMI cluttering the notes section of the table. —Loginnigol (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

("Dude") The basis for not mentioning "Wreaking <sic> Ball's 24 hrs record (most views in the 1st 24 hrs)" is that record is for Vevo not YouTube (and this article relates to YouTube videos)?! Also, as a side-note, the only reason Psy's "Gentleman" video did not surpass (by far) Cyrus' record for Vevo was "Gentleman" was not on Vevo the first day of release (added a few days later) -- "Gentleman" holds the record for most viewed video on YouTube on its first day, for any day, first 24 hours, any 24 hours, etc. (not "Wrecking Ball"). And, besides (again) this is a "List of most viewed YouTube videos" (not Vevo videos) and thus a record (if) for Vevo (only) on this article is irrelevant. "There can be only one 'most viewed' in a day ('24 hours') -- a 'world record'[[5]] -- which should be mentioned on this list (imo)" (by which was/is meant YouTube, not Vevo).
Now, let's consider the hypothesis or conjecture more accurately of "what about the 'fastest in a week'...'fastest in a month...etc" (taken as meaning "most views in a week", "most views in a month"). My "theory" is if a video is the most viewed in a month or a week, then it could (or would in this case) also be the most viewed in a day, first day, first 24 hours, etc. (at least until surpassing the prior or being surpassed by a new record holder) -- the facts do not prove this theory to be inaccurate or incorrect, nor is there any proof someone would decide to include "fastest in a week", "fastest in a month" so forth; and if someone were to do so, then I think the proper time to address such concerns would be then (not now or fairly moot in some regards anyway, as those example records are all held by the same video - presumably "fastest video to reach 100 million views, fastest overall video to reach 200 million views, and 300 million views" equates to "most views in a week", "most views in a month", i.e. the facts are the most viewed in a day, first day, first 24 hours, first week, first month are the same video and thus the "what about the 'fastest in a week'...cluttering the notes" "bla bla bla" is fairly pointless based on current facts). -- 98.70.79.77 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, the "most views in (period of time)" is a slice of data that can be gamed, and if someone's favorite video happens to meet one of those slices, they'll fight to included (eg you prove the point by mentioned when a video is on Vevo but not YT yet). View counts, on the other hand, are impossible to game and why it's a clean metric. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

One could perhaps (try to) slice the data any way he likes, but the fact is the particular "most viewed" world record suggested as a note is based on view count and is a "clean metric" with reference. The talk about "someone's favorite video" and how "they'll fight to include..." is merely conjecture, the slices and dices on "period of time" to include such notations would require reliable citations (good luck finding one that states such and such video on the list was the most viewed on YouTube for it's 88th day online or whatever "slice" to be able to add a note on a favorite video - I have none on this list if at all, btw). As I do not understand how adding a verifiable note mentioning a world record could potentially cause someone to decide their favorite video should have one too saying the same thing, please provide an example of how such an editor (if one should even exist) might conceivably "game" having a favorite as most viewed video in 24 hours without setting a referenced new world record. Based on the facts, the only video meeting the "most viewed" shorter "slices" for this list is the same video, anything longer duration is already covered in present notes (e.g. such and such video surpassed different video as #1 or similar).
On the "eg you prove the point by mentioned when a video is on Vevo but not YT yet" comment, I do not know what was meant and had actually written the opposite. The question asked by Loginnigol and record he provided ("Wrecking Ball") is or was based on Vevo views (not YouTube views). As Psy's video was initially not on Vevo it was not in the "running" for that record. Besides, and more to the point, this list is of YouTube videos, so a "24 hrs record (most views in the 1st 24 hrs)" for Vevo would be irrelevant insofar as this article is concerned (imo). Insofar as "view counts" being "impossible to game" - at least in the way which was likely meant, i.e. where the intent and purpose of this list is concerned - I tend to agree. But, from a technical perspective, I disagree that "view counts" are "impossible to game" (because "views" are easier to manipulate than "likes" or not too difficult at all on a small scale, yet nothing significant enough to make a difference on the rankings by an individual unless of course two videos happen to have a relatively small range number of views seperation). -- 98.70.79.77 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, the basic problem with adding notes inside that table is that it clutters whole table with something that is non-essential information. That defeats the whole purpose of a table which is to provide a concise and presentable overview of the most important item, in this case, most watched vids. I have nothing per se against the extra tidbits of info so I suggest the only logical solution: the whole "notes" column should be completely removed from the table and the notes themselves put below table in bullet form since it's always awkward to put whole sentences inside tables anyway. I suggest using this ABC method. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnoting details isn't a problem, that's a reasonable step. I'm still worried that "most views in 24hr" is a gameable metric (both by editors, and by other sources). If YT reported that figure directly so we know that everything was compared equally, I'd be more okay with it, since the other data on this table, page views, are alos something generated directly by YT. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't even think of that - so far I was arguing with the assumption that the item was indisputably confirmed legit YT data, not stuff calculated/estimated/claimed by external agencies. —Loginnigol (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What I am talking about on the note requested, i.e. to mention the "world record", is verified and awarded by Guinness World Records (reference link provided earlier above, at least once if not twice), which is most certainly an authority on such matters and afterall "the organization employs official record adjudicators authorised to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records" (quote is from article on reference book at wiklink provided). If preferred, or in addition to the authority already mentioned, one could always cite YouTube as a source (emphasis mine), e.g. "Here is daily viewership data (though, please note that we have cut off the initial "Gentleman" spike, which at a record 38 million views in a single day made this chart hilariously unreadable)"[6]. Questions, comments? ("Respect my authoritah!" - heh, sorry, couldn't resist!) -- 98.70.74.190 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Another reference (also by YouTube -- "indisputably confirmed legit YT data, not stuff calculated/estimated/claimed by external agencies" !) states the following:

PSY already holds the record for the most viewed video of all time -- Gangnam Style now has an incredible 1.5 billion views -- but now he also set the record for the most views ever in a single day with the over 38 million "Gentleman" achieved on April 14th.[PSY's 'Gentleman' Raises the Bar]

And another more recent, this one from June 2, 2014 (in case anyone should say, "uhh, the reference is from 2013, how do we know a different video has not broken the record!?!?"):

Psy’s follow-up to “Gangnam,” another K-Pop banger called “Gentleman,” set the record for the most views ever in a single day (38 million on April 14, 2013). 대~박! (That’s Korean for “holy cow!”)[7]

Interestingly, the last reference includes a link on the page for most viewed videos which sorts search results by view count and apparently is for "all time" except for whatever reason a few of the videos on the article list are missing from the YouTube results -- "On the Floor", "Bad Romance", "Never Say Never", "Super Bass" -- I'm unsure why after briefly glancing and will try to determine an explanation. -- 98.70.79.27 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Loginnigol's earlier post ("basic problem with adding notes inside that table is that it clutters whole table.."): Indeed, I agree with a possibility of having "TMI" in notes cause clutter and concur that removing the "Notes" column from the table and placing notes below the table would be a lot better. Besides concerns expressed, another reason (imo) is having a sortable table with a column which "sorting" serves no purpose is, well, quite silly. -- 98.70.74.190 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK that graph you provided (sourced from youtube.com) looks decent. But like I said I prefer a below-table footnote rather than inserting the info into the current table. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if we can verify that blogspot is a YT-run thing (it appears it is, but let's double check), then that satisfied my concern on who is doing the data calcs. And yes, any such notes should be footnotes instead of cluttering the side. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerning whether the "blogspot" is indeed by YouTube (to "verify that blogspot is a YT-run thing"), to "double check" please see the About YouTube Trends page (under "Links" - lower right hand corner of the navigation menu) or at the direct link which I will go ahead and add to this post, along with quoting in part here (while I have the page loaded):

Created by YouTube, YouTube Trends is a new destination for the latest trending videos and video trends on YouTube and a resource for daily insight into what’s happening in web video.

Along with that, (among other factors) also note YouTube logo used on the blog; copyright notice with "YouTube, LLC", Datenschutzbestimmungen and Nutzungsbedingungen links at bottom of page/s (both of which are at youtube.com); first post on the blog (November 10, 2010, ironically a date with some personal significance), i.e. with the longevity and number of posts made if this was not a blog by YouTube, then surely YouTube would have done something about an "imposter" by now (?), and a link to "YouTube Trends" blog on YouTube Official Blog (at bottom of those blog page/s). Verified! ;-) ("Respect my authoritah!" *grin* - And, now on a more serious note) If either of you would be willing to make the agreed upon changes, it would be appreciated and thanks! -- 98.70.74.244 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous updates

On the June 2 and June 9 updates (most recent) by MainframeXYZ (talk), neither "Danza Kuduro" (12) nor "Call Me Maybe" (13) had number of views updated -- currently the number of views are respectively 563,210,588 and 559,958,137 (this was during the past hour, still June 9 but later than the figures obtained by the editor doing the "update", e.g. 30th on the list, "We Can't Stop", is now at 410,159,006 views rather than 410,027,324). 98.70.79.27 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, at least several or many other updates by same editor have not included adjusting "Views" for those two videos, e.g. May 26, May 19, May 12, May 5, April 28, April 21, April 14, April 7, April 4, March 31, March 24, March 22, March 17, March 10, March 6 (and maybe more?). 98.70.79.27 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

When I suggested you approach the editor who made the change, I meant you should approach them on their talk page and ask them why it was they were not updating these two entries. Now that you have gone back and researched this, I have to admit it looks pretty strange. I assume there is a reasonable explanation, so can someone please explain why these two entries aren't being updated? Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I had done so concurrently with the first post on this new section (and a bit later, mentioning this above[8]), figuring others should be made aware of these errors on the list (subject matter discussed on this page, "reliability"); and, if the editor doing those updates did not see, respond, etc., then perhaps another editor might have an idea as to what could explain the discrepancy. I agree, and thought similarly, on how surely there is a reasonable explanation (e.g. maybe some sort of "script" error which is inadvertently overlooking those two videos). Next, mainly in trying to determine an explanation (well as being a fan of conspiracy theories), I decided to look at earlier edits and see if those provided an indication as to what could explain (or any additional clues). The history, well, like you said and I thought the same, "looks pretty strange", besides resulting in having a list which has been inaccurate for a few months (maybe longer?) on at least those two entries. 98.70.74.244 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)