Commenting on YouTube videos: From guatemalan rock to El Big Bang
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557 · see citing works
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652 · see citing works
Measurement and analysis of online social networks
Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Druschel, P., & Bhattacharjee, B. (2007) · Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement · doi:10.1145/1298306.1298311 · Cited by 3,057 · see citing works
Sentiment strength detection in short informal text
Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G., Cai, D., & Kappas, A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21416 · Cited by 1,449 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Scope of Nonsuicidal Self-Injury on YouTube
Lewis, S. P., Heath, N. L., St Denis, J. M., & Noble, R. (2011) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2010-2317 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Vis, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Thelwall, Mike
- Sud, Pardeep
- Vis, Farida
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-11-14
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 616-629
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W2052809931
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Seventh Framework Programme
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
- Keywords
- YouTube comments, audience engagement, reply behavior, The Big Bang Theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review