Talk:BookTube

I find a bit contradictory that the Background section quotes "the BookTube community began around 2010" and in the section BookTube and the publishing industry one can read "Publishers themselves began to break into the Booktube community around 2009." - I suspected the publishing lobby to be powerful but I could never suspect them to be precog or timetravelers. RiemannStar (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

After adding a couple edits, I think I have finished for now. In the future, I might recommend adding more names of relevant BookTubers, standardizing boldings, and citing the traditions. I didn't really do away with any old information, but I think a lot of the sources listed aren't reliable, and if other sources could be found that would be preferable. Excited to see where this article goes! HkateJ (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

3-23-20 Just did what might be considered a major overhaul of the page. I think it still requires sources for the events, and could perhaps include a few more notable names, if they're cited correctly. HkateJ (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Financial Aspects and Diversity Sections
Hi everyone! I have added a couple of sections titled "Financial Aspects" and "Diversity" that I found beneficial to this page. The financial aspects could be moved to be placed under the most subscribed to accounts, as the amount of subscribers has everything to do with BookTube's monetary value, but I placed it closer to the end because it is also a subtopic that should stand on its own in relation to the others already created. As an initial consumer, I thought that the lack of diversity within the section that had the most subscribed to channels was something that would be worth adding in. I believe this is useful for the page because it helps to define the limitations put onto some BookTubers because of YouTube's algorithm.

Cheers -- AC0910 (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources below are scholarly and might be beneficial if someone were to go more in-depth.

This is an intro?
I was given a link to here by my friend Rich Wagner. Here was my response to him. In order to be fair to this community, I figured it was worth copying here.

I find it amazing how people who are too intimate with a subject completely fail to explain it to others who are not familiar with it, as if being unfamiliar is a concept they can't grasp. As an example, this article starts like this:

"BookTube is a book-specific subset of the YouTube community. The BookTube community has, to date, reached hundreds of thousands of viewers worldwide."

Look how little information that conveys to someone who has no clue what BookTube is. It is salesy crapola without saying anything actually useful. How about:

"BookTube is a book-specific subset of the YouTube community dedicated to _________."

I read several paragraphs into the article (which, let's remember, is supposed to be an introduction to BookTube) before I had a clue what goes in that blank. I only gave it several paragraphs because of friendship for Rich Wagner. Otherwise I would have moved on to something else due to my dislike of reading anything written by people who are incompetent at conveying information. 2603:8080:2B0A:99BA:2CB4:AE9F:4FA1:EE7A (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)