I have no idea who Keith Appleton is, but AvE is hardly an example of good concise information.
My entire point is that trying to convey too much information via a video is futile! The bulk should be in some random-access medium, and the few key points, insights, experiences, or other stuff that maybe gets lost in the sea in the random-access medium, highlighted in a video.
Putting all the necessary points into a video makes for a bad video. Good videos are stories, logs, key insights, et cetera.
You can't just make an absolute claim that a "good" educational video is blah blah.
I didn't!
A good video can be better than a lecture on the subject. At best, they can be as good as talking one-on-one with an expert on the subject.
Your opamp video is one of these (among the best examples). I have a written post about
the very basics of perspective projection that would work much better as a video, and would only be a minute or two, tops. So I'm definitely not saying that educational videos are blah blah, I'm just saying that videos alone do not suffice for us humans to truly learn. If one relies on videos (or in-person lectures, just as equally), worst case, we get the impression that we do, while we don't.
Let's say that your claim is that videos suffice for learning stuff. If you were right, schools and colleges and universities would be wasting untold amounts of money in books and exercise sessions.
I disagree. I believe the vids could replace the parts where the teachers read from their own notes in front of people, definitely! but not the background information nor the practical exercises. (The best lectures I've sat in, have been where the lecturer makes sure the key concepts are correctly understood, and people have a working intuitive grasp of the matter, and even point out a few typical misunderstandings people can have – and get asked and answers good questions about the topic. So very much like your opamp video, and many other good Youtube lessons.) For Youtube videos, I think we can safely assume people will do the practical stuff on their own. It is the importance of background information and reliable references that I absolutely hate to see being ignored, because it leads to the false sense of "I know this stuff" when you really don't.
If you look at that text of mine about perspective projection, you'll see that most of it is actually references to related key information; I wouldn't include those in the same video. One could make a nice video lecture about unit quaternions (also known as versors), and how they can be used instead of Euler angles or Tait-Bryan angles; and another how you can use them in e.g. space simulation – each thruster would correspond 1:1 to a versor. Interesting stuff! But what about the basic linear algebra needed – matrix-matrix multiplication, matrix-vector multiplication, vector dot product, and vector cross product? Hamilton product? Correspondences between versors and rotation matrices? I guess you could make a series of video lectures from those, too.
But, how would you tie them all together? Would you make a video that tells you what other videos to watch, or leave it for people to discover for themselves? Or would you have playlists for suggested viewing for each topic? You'd soon have more playlists than videos.
Please do not confuse me with those who don't think the videos have educational value; I say they have, just as much as in-person lecturers or poster sessions or similar. And that's definitely not blah-blah.
In the first thread we discussed this, I objected to "go find tutorials about this on Youtube". That doesn't work for two reasons: one is that a newbie cannot tell good videos from the bad – view count or popularity isn't a reliable measure, because most people are stupid and wrong. My main point in that thread was that because people have different knowledge levels, you cannot fully describe the basics of an entire subject – even something as simple as how to 3D print "right", avoiding typical problems – in videos; you need some random-access background or reference information to go base the video on.
(As a counterexample, Myfordboy has a couple of good videos about fixing issues with e.g. Creality Ender 3. But that's not a tutorial, that's a lesson or session or whatchamacallit on fixing issues with the Creality Ender 3 3D printer. The difference may feel like nitpicking, but think of yourself as the newbie on the receiving end: the difference is huge.)
You asked me to do a better video. I can't, because there is nothing wrong in your videos; they're very good, some absolutely excellent. That's never been in question with me. (And as to the topic of this thread, I mentioned AvE and KeithAppleton as "old, cranky scrooges" who make good, useful videos one can learn from – but not something I'd call "tutorials".)
What would work even better,
or suffice for tutorials and deeper learning, would be if something like The Art of Electronics was published on-line, with relevant chapters and sections linking to your videos, and your videos linking back to the text. So, not me making new videos, but you teaming up with Paul and Winfield, or something like that. See?
The weakest point in my argument, I think, is that people should be expected to find that background and reference information on their own. My defense to that is that I see them fail to do that in real life, either from Dunning-Kruger (they not realizing they need to), laziness, or not being able to tell reliable information from hogwash. I've seen first hand at StackOverflow and StackExchange that even in narrow fields, popularity or view count is no measure of reliability or correctness.
I do realize this entire argument is mostly due to my failure to properly express the problem I see occurring. Some may feel it is irrelevant, but I am seeing it creep in in real life. The key "sign" I've noticed is odd use of technical jargon; in electronics, the equivalent would be if somebody says "voltage flows ...". And I know I write too much, but I don't know how to do better. Sorry.
Also, I could be wrong. If you or anybody else know I'm wrong, I would really appreciate if you'll tell me
exactly how.