The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’: Investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results
Open accessAbstract
Algorithms, as constitutive elements of online platforms, are increasingly shaping everyday sociability. Developing suitable empirical approaches to render them accountable and to study their social power has become a prominent scholarly concern. This article proposes an approach to examine what an algorithm does, not only to move closer to understanding how it works, but also to investigate broader forms of agency involved. To do this, we examine YouTube’s search results ranking over time in the context of seven sociocultural issues. Through a combination of rank visualizations, computational change metrics and qualitative analysis, we study search ranking as the distributed accomplishment of ‘ranking cultures’. First, we identify three forms of ordering over time – stable, ‘newsy’ and mixed rank morphologies. Second, we observe that rankings cannot be easily linked back to popularity metrics, which highlights the role of platform features such as channel subscriptions in processes of visibility distribution. Third, we find that the contents appearing in the top 20 results are heavily influenced by both issue and platform vernaculars. YouTube-native content, which often thrives on controversy and dissent, systematically beats out mainstream actors in terms of exposure. We close by arguing that ranking cultures are embedded in the meshes of mutually constitutive agencies that frustrate our attempts at causal explanation and are better served by strategies of ‘descriptive assemblage’.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Introduction to Information Retrieval
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809071 · Cited by 11,288
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms
Burrell, J. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715622512 · Cited by 3,196 · cited 1×
“When algorithms no longer explicitly specify a decision model, but draw on user feedback to inductively generate such a model, there is a fundamental problem of ‘interpretability’ that persists even when full access to a system is provided (Burrell, 2016).”
Gillespie, T. (2010) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 · Cited by 2,522 · cited 2×
“Social media platforms, in particular, have been singled out as constitutive actors of social exchange (Gillespie, 2010) that often confer to algorithms the task of modulating and curating the flow of contents, ideas and sociability (Bucher, 2012; Gillespie, 2014).”
Birch, J. B., & Tukey, J. W. (1978) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2286300 · Cited by 1,440
Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook
Bucher, T. (2012) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444812440159 · Cited by 1,289
Shifman, L. (2013) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9429.001.0001 · Cited by 1,096
Gillespie, T. (2014) · Media Technologies · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0013 · Cited by 1,016
Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory
Venturini, T. (2010) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662509102694 · Cited by 795
A similarity measure for indefinite rankings
Webber, W., Moffat, A., & Zobel, J. (2010) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/1852102.1852106 · Cited by 781
Cited by
Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip
Bishop, S. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819854731 · Cited by 535
Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits
Bandy, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449148 · Cited by 193
Towards platform observability
Rieder, B., & Hofmann, J. (2020) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2020.4.1535 · Cited by 132
Self-citationWoods, J., & Ludvigsen, J. A. L. (2022) · Sport in Society · doi:10.1080/17430437.2021.1904902 · Cited by 33
Brantner, C., Karlsson, M., & Kuai, J. (2025) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102952 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Rieder, B., Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Coromina, Ò.
- Venue
- Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-01-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-68
- ISSN
- 1354-8565 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-7382
- OpenAlex
- W2783918171
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 53.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’: Investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1354856517736982
- The paper
- Rieder, B., Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Coromina, Ò. (2018). From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’: Investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736982
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.