This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Media Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Technology Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Internet Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Google Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

I've seen a lot of criticism of Vevo by different sources, on issues such as it pushing home user videos out of the spotlight (I saw a TON of this when "Bad Romance" hit more total views than "Charlie Bit My Finger") and its publishing of only censored versions of videos. It seems to have a lot of critics of its recent influence on YouTube. Many of the highest rated user comments on several videos are statements like "FUCK VEVO" as well. I've heard people claim that Vevo is likely inflating the view counts on its videos in one way or another too. I feel like someone should maybe compile a section covering this type of information.Josh (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate criticism sections are not usually good writing style, as they can become magnets for soapboxing and WP:COATRACK edits. Vevo has picked up a fair amount of criticism from regular YouTube users, but criticism needs to be reliably sourced rather than unsourced personal opinion. The charts on Vevo are a puzzle, because it seems odd that some of the videos on Vevo have managed to achieve more views in a few months than Charlie Bit My Finger or Evolution of Dance did in several years. However, it is hard to comment on the ratings system without proper sourcing. Vevo has also been criticized for showing censored versions of videos, but even in the days of YouTube, Avril Lavigne was blanked in Girlfriend when she sang "I'm the mother****ing princess". Some pop videos have NSFW content, and they tend to be toned down for Vevo. There are a lot of comments on Vevo videos criticizing the service, but they are not a reliable source that could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/12/how_vevo_makes_google_more_lik.html> Critique of Vevo appearing in the Harvard Business Review. 06:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree there should be a criticism section added because vevo has received a lot criticism from youtube users.

I second that, Vevo is the target of a lot of criticism from the Youtube community, this should be mentioned. Some reasons include removal of other user's videos, often lyrics videos, on copyright ground, the message of the video not being available in "your country," and the ads. The lack of national availability is the source of a lot of hate towards Vevo, I know I was personally irked that the video for Piano Man, by Billy Joel, is not available to me for this reason despite residency in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Not talking about the heavy criticism (found on all of their videos on YouTube) means ignoring an important fact.--Athaba (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I see an incredible number of "*$#%@ VEVO" comments on YT - and came here wondering why everyone seems to hate it. They do censor some content apparently - but so do lots of other media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.128 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add a criticism section twice but the User: ianmacm keeps removing them because he for claims they are "Unsourced" like ian mate if you don't believe vevo is criticized by youtube users check out the vevo videos on youtube there are always many criticizing comments on them everyday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:SPS. I'm not disputing that there are numerous critical comments about Vevo posted on the videos, but since people can say whatever they like on message boards, they are not considered to be a reliable source. This is an ongoing problem, because it would be useful to have some criticism of Vevo in the article, but an anonymous message board posting would not be suitable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps someone could make a request to VEVO that they "respond to criticism of their service"? If only for the SOLE purpose of generating a "reliable reference" (a statement from the company would I suppose technically be a press release, but I don't know what else WOULD be a reliable source.. That says something like, "people have criticized the VEVO service for its alleged censorship of some small bits (like individual single words) content, alleged questions as to whether we can count, as well as <whatever else people seem to hate about it.." I don't know what that is - that's why I typed "Vevo wikipedia" into Google in the first place.. 216.9.142.231 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Jim[reply]

I myself have many criticism for vevo and have to object to the censorship you yourself are creating here Ian... I have to ask you if you can offer proof of these complaints being solely based on 'message boards'

you sir are making post without reliable sourcing... Also sir no where in your articles or responses have you listed a link to define reliable sources...

Please provide those sources otherwise you are doing exactly what you are claiming others here are doing....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.144.232 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works: The burden of proof is on you.--Matija (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is also on Ian to prove everything else that is written about Vevo on here. Herm... I don't seem to see too many citations for any of this stuff... Oh... is Vevo's website a reliable source? Is Vevo's website more reliable than a personal blog? Just as biased! It is a fact that on nearly every Vevo video the highest rated comment is "Vevo Sucks." I have a feeling that if I was to do a study and select 100 random Vevo videos and determine the number of them that has a Vevo sucks comment on them - and then published my study in a respected academic journal - Ian would still end up deleting the addition to this page! Ian probably works for Vevo. He has been hired to defend them on the internet. But, stopping people from including a criticism section on wikipedia is like putting your finger in a dam. It's a losing battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.166.37 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian does not work for Vevo. Wikipedia articles should avoid separate "Criticism/Controversy" sections because they are WP:COATRACKs. Saying "Vevo sucks" is easy, but what the article needs is some reliably sourced criticism. The media has said very little about Vevo as a whole, this is an ongoing problem for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because "the media" does not see things the same way we (the users) do. Professional media sources all all pro-VEVO because they don't understand the whole idea of the criticism. It's a whole conflict-of-interest to rely on these people for information when it comes to the opinions of the users themselves. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{06:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Some of you need to realize that most people on Youtube are saying "Fuck VEVO" because they hate Justin Bieber ads. That's purely personal opinion.

I think that having absolutely no criticism section by citing WP:COATRACK preemptively is an incorrect use of the spirit of this rule and is hindering the WP:NPOV perspective of this article. If the criticism has been reported by a reliable source or by at least a large number of less-than reliable sources, then it should be mentioned here with the appropriate precautions and responses (if citations exist). Let the editors work on the article freely and then discuss how the content should be edited to maintain Wikipedia standards. We must assume good faith WP:AGF. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is in desperate need of a criticism section, VeVo viewers are reliable sources imho 82.41.107.218 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love how it is claimed youtube users original statements does not constitute a good source for what youtube users are saying. Would it really be more reliable to cite a newspaper article that has nothing but hearsay in it? Obviously youtube users statements are the best sources for their statements. 37.191.220.111 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga's Applause needs to be removed from the "Previous Records" List. It has never broke the 24 hour record, it did not even come close to it and the Tweet Figures have also yet to be verified. Thank You

Lady Gaga have now 8 videos with "Paparazzi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.159.240 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be Already done. BryanG (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift should also be in the Artists with most certified videos category. She just got her 6th Vevo Certification for her music video 22 . Source: Official Vevo Twitter Account https://twitter.com/VEVO/status/379747374807019521

Anticore22 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is no longer protected, so anyone may make this change, as long as it is supported by WP:RS. I'm not sure if Twitter is one. RudolfRed (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga has the third record of the fastest vevo certified video with 38 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.234.207.196 (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Direction's "Story of My Life" should be added to "Videos with most views in first 24 hours". They beat themselves with 12.5 million views, putting them at #2 on the list. Source: VEVO Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.171.40 (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be Already done.

fuck you all one direction midnight memories are gonna break the vevo record ya shower of cunts 121.127.207.215 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be Already done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgeforyou101 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

This list needs to be updated. Adore You by Miley Cyrus has broken into the top 8 most views in 24 hours, with I believe 5.8 million, which would set the video in 7th, knocking Stupid Hoe by Nicki Minaj off the list. You can clearly see by looking at the music video's statistics on YouTube that it's views in 24 hours are about 6 million. The dates would be December 26-27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.157.147 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please change

|- |9 |"Wrecking Ball" | Miley Cyrus | 458.132.657 |- |10 |"Not Afraid" | Eminem | 471.980.287 |}

to

|- |9 |"Not Afraid" | Eminem | 472.547.684 |- |10 |"What Makes You Beautiful" | / One Direction | 469.084.199 |}

because as seen on the YouTube pages for the videos, Eminem's "Not Afraid" video has 472,547,684 views, One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful" has 469,084,199 views and Miley Cyrus' "Wrecking Ball" has only 460,703,463 views as of 4th January 2014 which would put Not Afraid in 9th place, What Makes You Beautiful in 10th place and would put Wrecking Ball into 11th.

^[1] Snoildnasregitdnasraeb (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be done, but it does illustrate the problem with WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RECENTISM that this section has. It would be necessary to update the table on an almost daily basis to prevent this sort of thing from happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the play counts are changing constantly and this makes it difficult to keep up to date. I was originally going to report that despite the view count for Not Afraid being higher, it's still listed below Wrecking Ball in the table. I checked the view counts for Wrecking Ball and Not Afraid to see which had more, not necessarily paying attention to the exact count and happened to notice that What Makes You Beautiful also had more than Wrecking Ball. Since Wrecking Ball being listed above Not Afraid is an actual error, it has fewer views, rather than a case of being out of date, surely this could be corrected and at the same time, the fact that Wrecking Ball is listed above What Makes You Beautiful could also be corrected. Also, since What Makes You Beautiful is a much older video than Wrecking Ball, it seems unlikely that it being not on the list is due to the list not being updated frequently and more likely due to an error by someone editing the page. Snoildnasregitdnasraeb (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but are you going off the YouTube videos rather than the actual Vevo videos posted on the actual Vevo website? Because the view counts are quite different in some cases. On Vevo.com What Makes You Beautiful by One Direction has 479.13 million views while Wrecking Ball has 481.63 million views. I think it's much more appropriate to use numbers off the Vevo website than YouTube. 74.51.157.147 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this list exactly? There should be some introductory text explaining it. Unless there is something notable about the videos in this list, it seems like it is a large, ever-growing, and unsourced list of trivia. ;) 173.172.70.38 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as said above, there is a problem with WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RECENTISM here. I am tempted to remove the section, but some people might put it back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely.

The list is a questionable industry metric, and does not provide a significant aid in navigation to the articles listed per Wikipedia:Lists. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vevo Certified music videos.

Thank you, ViperSnake151  Talk  18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said the same thing in the section above. However, it was restored almost as soon as it was deleted. The lists and charts have reached unencyclopedic proportions. This article is about Vevo as a company, not long lists which fail WP:NOTSTATS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoStyles (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Informations aren't real.Numbers are wrong,please let me edit. Thanks,

• It is precisely because of recent irresponsible editing and vandalism, perhaps introducing errors, that this article is currently protected. Please identify any specific issues with the article and/or recommended sources for the correct information below, and one or more confirmed editors will consider making the changes you would recommend. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before; it would take daily editing and checking to ensure that all of the figures were correct. This is one of the reasons why the statistics sections are unsatisfactory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statistics should be restored, at least on a different article. The statistics are the reason I bothered to check this page once in a while, and they were compelling. They provide information concerning the VEVO videos, which is now completely gone.

Please change the statistics back. Coacado (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What matters here is Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RECENTISM. The charts have grown to unnecessary size in relation to the rest of the text in the article, and need constant updating.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree with user:ianmacm, but i want make a question, Are the rankings deleted in vevo portal?. Connie (A.K) (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]