GIMP 3.0

You know how YouTubers are always talking about how "the algorithm" didn't like this video, or loves that video. Or that "the algorithm" is a huge black block which nobody knows how it works.

Youtube's "the algorithm" will make or break both videos and channels.

But "the algorithm" isn't really a mystery. At a basic level, it just shows a bunch of video recommendations to viewers, and measures if they click it or not (watch time, comments, likes also factor into the algorithm, but none of that matters if they don't click first). The higher the click-through rate, the more the video is pushed in recommendations.

And the only things a viewer sees is the thumbnail, channel name, and video title. They have to decide which video they are going to watch based on just that.

So really, a large chunk of "the algorithm" is just how appealing your thumbnail is to potential views.

Think of it like a book cover. Regardless of a book's title or summary, an attractive (attracting? attention grabbing?) cover will get more people to click it. Also depending on where the thumbnail is displayed, you may not see the full video title, such as the grid after a video finishes playing.

Mr Beast says he designs the thumbnail before making the video, then plans how to make a video to fit it.

Though I haven't seen stats to back it up - I've heard from multiple sources that thumbnails which include a gigantic bobblehead of the author with a particularly exaggerated stupid looking expression on their face induce more people to click through.

Even if it's for the sake of feeding the algorithm, I do my best to skip them.

I also internally prioritize videos which:

- avoid usage of superlatives "TOP X", "BEST OF Y"

- have more than 5k views and less than 250k views.

After a while, my YT recommendations have become mostly solid.

At the end of a video, youtube shows thumbnails for several "suggested next videos".

The thumbnail, video name and channel name are the only bits of information potential viewers see - if your thumbnail isn't good, they aren't even going to _start_ your video, let alone keep watching it.

It's like a headline in visual form. The most attention-grabbing thumbnail gets the clicks.

Because they can. The thumbnails are the first impression of a video, and if it isn't attention-grabbing, the video suffers.

Everyone knows you need the mouth open dumb face or the completely fake AI image for max brain rot which drives views and "engagement" (commenting on the fact that it's nonsense with people then defending the video as an authority as if it isn't stock footage with an AI voice reading a reddit comment).

Krita and GIMP are not in the same category.

One is for digital painting and the other is, as it name says, an image manipulation program.

For photo editing Gimp is way ahead. It also has a lot more plugins. Krita is superior when it comes to drawing or painting.

I don't know if this is an artifact of what I grew up on (paint shop pro), but personally I found Krita vastly more intuitive than GIMP, to the extent that I no longer use GIMP, and instead use Krita even for tasks that are objectively more appropriate for GIMP.

I tried Krita, but as difficult to use as Gimp can be, Gimp is still easier to use for me and has all the image tools I need.

Again with the competitions, haha. But I mean, yeah - in a scenario where you only have one shot to recommend a piece of free software to someone, and are trying to avoid their startled retreat back into the walled garden, I'd also give 'em Krita.

Nevertheless, both are wonderful pieces of software! I'm not a graphics pro but do find myself editing images quite regularly, and I usually reach for GIMP as it's more familiar to me. Krita on the other hand has a great brush engine, so if I feel like drawing something, I go for that.

Also, of course, whichever one has GMIC on that particular day! Some of the stuff in that plugin is absolutely wild. Usually that means Krita again, though iirc at some point it was broken there for some time, but I found it for GIMP...

Btw, anyone know if there's a Rebelle Mixbox-style color mixing feature for either of the two?

I use both and I think they both have areas where they are better than the other

Does it have the same freature set as gimp? Genuine question because I have heard people saying Krita err much more to artistic creation side than photo editing capabilities that gimp does.

I was actually a regular user of GIMP for years before I learned that the word had any other definition. While working at a summer camp as a teenager, I happened to install it on an office computer. One day I'm doing some work in the office, when all of a sudden I hear one of the camp directors in the other room laugh and ask why some perverted program called "gimp" was in the list of applications.

Call it GNU IMP if it bothers you

What would you prefer it do? That "new layer" is how it asks whether you meant to paste the contents of your clipboard into an actual new layer or merge it into an existing one (anchor).

The relevant docs for the temporary floating layer that's created on paste are here: https://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-selection-float.html

C-v C-h