Cited by 206Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMedia and Digital CommunicationDigital Marketing and Social Media

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

Thelwall, Mike, Sud, Pardeep, Vis, Farida·2012·Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.21679

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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