Are we rating youtubers now?

I found this

https://equipboard.com/pros/steve-reis/

This guy is a youtuber... some new guy (https://equipboard.com/andrewnelsonforreal) added like to get points and stuff.

If we are going to rate and add youtubers and influencers, ima add a lot of people.

I found this

https://equipboard.com/pros/steve-reis/

This guy is a youtuber... some new guy (https://equipboard.com/andrewnelsonforreal) added like to get points and stuff.

If we are going to rate and add youtubers and influencers, ima add a lot of people.

It's 2024 Yoshi; the "new" community member you saw fit to call out joined in 2020.

More importantly, they didn't do anything wrong by adding a YouTuber. You imply that this YouTuber was only added to get someone some points, and not because anyone actually likes them... but, again, it's 2024; Rick Beato's profile on EB has like 87 followers.

If the YouTubers you want to add exist on the MusicBrainz database, and they are people you are genuinely excited about and think others might be too, AND none of these YouTubers have the same social security # as you, then you're free to add them, as far as I'm concerned.

FWIW, the Admins have added all kinds of social media personalities over the past few years.

I'd say that in this case, Steve Reis of Does It Doom? has enough public awareness to merit an Equipboard page. In fact, I just added one of his company's pedals to the site the other day.

YouTubers are fine to add as long as they meet the usual notability guidelines; the same goes for anyone submitted to Equipboard under the role "Podcasters & Streamers". In fact, one of the gauges in those guidelines is "The artist is an influencer in a specialized channel (e.g. a YouTube personality with followers in the 5-7 figure range)." As of writing (July 3, 2024), Does It Doom? has over 85.4K subscribers, so he passes that gauge.

Now, not every prominent YouTuber is going to apply. Under the gauge "The artist has amassed a large social media following", there is an important note: "This by itself does not constitute notability, since a sizable social media following can easily be faked." Furthermore, generally speaking, musicians are prioritized for the site, so I wouldn't go adding many let's-players, makeup tutors, or video essayists. Do also consider whether or not the YouTuber has any obvious equipment or sufficient sources about his/her equipment. Otherwise, he/she is likely not going to get much mileage on the site, rendering the submission moot. For example, an animated "VTuber" will probably not get much mileage.

About the "new" guy, I didn't mean new, temporarily speaking. but discard that, its dosent mean anything in this conversation.

About Artist and Influencer. I understand what you're saying, but I think the word "Artist" is misused in the context of the guidelines: An Artist is not an Influencer and viceversa.

An Artist is not somebody who grabs his guitar and record videos about what they think abut certain kind of music or certain kind of gear. This is taking away value from what it means to be an Artist.

On the point of the guidelines, by what you saying, its like calling Kim Kardashian an "Artist" cause she have notability? Or calling a Chef somebody who cooks on instagram and have notability. Portraying any guy as an Artist is like putting him in the same category as Tony Iommi or Idk, Page or May or whatever.

This misuse of the word is taking away the real value from what it means to be an Artist. Honestly if we are considering this, you guys should stop using the word.

This misuse of the word is taking away the real value from what it means to be an Artist. Honestly if we are considering this, you guys should stop using the word.

When you say "you guys" you realize that Eyesee and I are non-employee volunteers, right? We don't get to decide such things.

It's a fair point though. Lots of industries are going through this right now. In sports like running, running influencers who can barely finish a race are often getting way bigger contracts from Nike and Adidas than dedicated, talented athletes who consistently finish top 5... dedicating yourself to your sport doesn't leave much time for building a lucrative and engaged audience on Instagram.

It's a fair point though. Lots of industries are going through this right now. In sports like running, running influencers who can barely finish a race are often getting way bigger contracts from Nike and Adidas than dedicated, talented athletes who consistently finish top 5... dedicating yourself to your sport doesn't leave much time for building a lucrative and engaged audience on Instagram.

Huzzah

On the point of the guidelines, by what you saying, its like calling Kim Kardashian an "Artist" cause she have notability? Or calling a Chef somebody who cooks on instagram and have notability. Portraying any guy as an Artist is like putting him in the same category as Tony Iommi or Idk, Page or May or whatever.

Equipboard actually used to have this broader scope. Any celebrity or item was covered, regardless of industry. You can still find some of those early items floating around on the site, like two of Kendrick Lamar's shirts (here and here). Eventually, however, Michael and Guilio Chiarenza (Equipboard's co-founders) decided it would be more conducive to focus just on music equipment. Here is an old interview of Michael from back when Equipboard was still in that prior incarnation. At this other link we have an early pitch of the musical Equipboard for investors (which, ironically, has a picture of Kim Kardashian in one of the infographics).

This misuse of the word is taking away the real value from what it means to be an Artist.

I feel similarly about "content creators". "Content" is so nebulously vague.

Vaguery devalues actual art. The scheme has been in motion for so long that it's too late. A cat grooming video has the same cultural value as a good song or a solid student film... it could be more lucrative too. If labels like Factory or SubPop pioneered hyping their labels over their acts, ir MTV was cooler than the sum of its video catalogue in my youth, platforms like youtube have gone further. I haven't had enough coffee to make more sense, but you can see what went on here between my teen years and now... it's been a scary intersection of corporate branding, art, post-Warhol "celebrity" and commerce. Some very smart tech industry guys, marketing execs and MBAs have really exploited existing trends through technology to create a cluttered cultural landscape that looks like a desert from a distance. There's nothing anyone can do about it, not even the people who created the situation.

Equipboard actually used to have this broader scope. Any celebrity or item was covered, regardless of industry. You can still find some of those early items floating around on the site, like two of Kendrick Lamar's shirts (here and here). Eventually, however, Michael and Guilio Chiarenza (Equipboard's co-founders) decided it would be more conducive to focus just on music equipment. Here is an old interview of Michael from back when Equipboard was still in that prior incarnation. At this other link we have an early pitch of the musical Equipboard for investors (which, ironically, has a picture of Kim Kardashian in one of the infographics).

Found the thread I learned this from!

podcasters + streamers category

I'm actually good with this. A separate category kinda warns you that you're dealing with a mixed bag of seriousness and should also alert you to the fact that the artist you're looking at may get some gear for free or even be paid to use certain pieces of gear in their videos.