BasharOfTheAges wrote:As I've hinted at before, if the opinion of those running this is along the lines of "we're not targeting anyone" then why not simply choose the videos in a different manner. A random number generator that grabs several vidID values would work fine.
If you worry about not having all that much to talk about, run it so that you get something like 5 videos, and allot 20 minutes to talk about each one. Each reviewer could pick one or more to actually op. Scale it to your liking if this doesn't exactly fit.
The problem with this idea is a LOT of videos are not really gonna generate discussion. I mean honestly, after the third or fourth naturo linkin park video what can you really say except "Fuck this shit, I quit." At a certain point that actually was a real issue and I know of several who dropped review for exactly that reason.
There's also the fact when faced with a subtitled wrong AR macroblocked to hell video the entire discussion will be about technical issues. Personally I preferred when the review was about the video itself and not what filter chain they should have used.
The times I've had to pull a video out of my ass I looked for stuff that didn't have huge glaring tech issues and was decent enough people would at least be somewhat interested (except once, which I did for the drama lulz and freely admitted that at the time. And it didn't seem to cause drama anyway). Which I suppose can come off as picking on popular editors but really it's just having enough standards that people will stick around to discuss the video instead of finding something else to do.
Anyway, point being there are videos that many people would run off to play TF2 or something rather than waste time talking about how horrible the video was. A random generator will pick those types of videos a lot since there's a lot of that type of video on the org. Take a look at the most underrated vids sometime, the reason they're underrated is that there's nothing anyone can really think of to say about them.
