Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Fixing stuff that isn't broken (again)

While I was using YouTube last night, a box popped up that told me my channel was about to be updated.

I had the option of keeping my channel name or switching to another.

I opted to keep the channel name -- and was then presented with a Google+ page that was to serve also as my YouTube channel page.

What a stuff-up!

Suddenly, the list of channels I subscribe to was gone -- vanished, disappeared -- and Google+ told me I should add some subscriptions.

WTF?

I never told Google to wipe or replace the list of channels I subscribe to -- I expressly requested to retain the status-quo.

Fortunately, I was able to revert to the previous configuration by disconnecting this new G+ page from my Youtube account, at which time all the channels I subscribe to magically reappeared.

Why the hell did they disappear in the first place?

Well part of the problem may be all the previous "improvements" that Google has made to its services.

I've always been an early adopter and as such, I've ended up with two YouTube accounts, a GMail address and a G+ account which really aren't consolidated into any single unified entity. Whenever Google tries to consolidate them (as with the latest initiative), something breaks, so I'm forced to revert to the prior configuration.

What's more, since Google is a "write only" entity, there's simply no way to contact anyone and have the mess sorted as you might if you were using some other online service.

I can see this latest "improvement" being foisted upon YouTube users turning into an utter disaster, if my experience was anything to go by -- although I suspect that only a few other early adopters will find themselves in the same boat as myself.

Forcing change on people, especially when that change creates chaos by doing the unexpected, is utterly stupid.

I cringe every time I see that the guys at YT/Google have "improved" something because I know that 9 times out of 10, those "improvements" mean lost functionality and another learning curve to surmount.

Another example is that YT recently updated its Flash-based player. Now you can't actually turn off annotations en-masse any more, you have to dismiss each one individually.

What the?

Being able to switch off ALL annotations was a boon for those videos where the uploader has decided to festoon the screen with little coloured boxes containing messages that add nothing to the content.

Also, switching video resolutions is now a lot clunkier. Before there was a simple pull-down/up menu which allowed you to change resolutions with a single mouse click. Now you have to click the little gear-wheel to bring up the resolution change box, then click the resolution item to pop up the list. After selecting the desired resolution you then have to dismiss the box by clicking on the base-bar of the player.

How the hell is that an improvement over the old system when it requires three times as much mouse-punching?

Maybe I'm just getting old and resistant to change (as old people do) but I really do wish that those who are so keen on foisting change on everyone would just stop for a moment and realise that sometimes, change is not a good thing.

For example, Google and Yahoo have both updated their logos recent.

Why?

Well the only reason I can think of is... because they can.

In both cases, the changes are so subtle as to have minimal effect on the brands involved -- so why even bother?

Change for the sake of change is a bad thing. Change that breaks stuff or makes it harder to use, is even worse!

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font