• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Roux is just clickbait?

Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,080
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
I don't know why I haven't noticed this until recently but I noticed the other day as I was scrolling through my subscription feed on youtube that I saw someone have a video of them getting a good single but after the time in the video name it had the classic (Roux method). I kind of started thinking about this, I noticed that even though a majority of the cubing community uses CFOP a very low percentage have video titles that say things like "6.25 official single (CFOP)" whereas a very low percentage of the cubing community uses Roux and tons of them have videos saying "4.20 Unofficial single (ROUX)". I also notice this with ZZ users but it's not as scaled up as Roux. I just want to hear your thoughts on this and explain why you think Roux users do this. I feel like it's clickbait in a way (good way) to help them get attention on their videos.

Here are some examples of videos titled like this:

BTW don't get mad at me and say I just hate Roux because I don't
#MethodEquality :p
 
Last edited:

GuRoux

Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,714
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2014TANG03
YouTube
franktangtartharakul
yeah, i never really thought about it, it just seemed natural to do. there is a large group of people who care that the solves are using the roux method, namely, those who use roux. or perhaps cfop user who are interested in the roux method. but yeah, saying the solve is "roux method" does increase the amount of people who will click on the video i think. it's "click bait" but surely not deceiving the viewer in any way; i don't think it should be viewed as anything bad.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,618
Saying that a solve uses CFOP adds almost zero information, because something like 80% of people use CFOP. On the other hand, saying that a solve is with Roux, or with ZZ, or with Petrus, or with Heise, or with some super obscure method etc.—that does add a significant amount of information!

If you assume that the distribution is 80% CFOP, 10% Roux and 10% ZZ (I pulled these numbers out of my bottom; I don't know how accurate they are), then saying that a solve uses CFOP adds less than a third of a bit of information, whereas saying that a solve uses Roux or that it uses ZZ would add 3 bits of information.
 

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,076
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
Roux is just clickbait?
Clickbait is when something is deliberately badly labelled so that when you open it out turns out to be something other than what you were expecting. Labeling Roux videos is the exact opposite of clickbait. It's labeling the video so that when you open it you know you're not just going to get another common CFOP solve.

Your title on the other hand is a good example of clickbait. It's provocative to get people to click on the thread, then the post itself doesn't even mention clickbait.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,879
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Shadowslice
Personally I'm actually in the habit of labelling most of my videos with the method I use in them simply so people know what I'm using. I don't think it's clickbait because if someone wanted to see me solve using say petrus then they can search for petrus and it would come up. Definitely also much better than just having a load of solves where people old have to guess what each one was (in fact I've been asked what method I'm using even though I clearly state it in the title on at least 2 occasions).

Also, if I'm a new cuber and I want to see a video of each method, I can't just type in rubik's cube solve as 99% of the search results would be CFOP and I would have to trawl through many results before I found a different method. From this point of view it's just an efficiency thing. Would it be odd to you if someone specified that a solve is oh or ft or bld in a title?
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,080
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
yeah, i never really thought about it, it just seemed natural to do. there is a large group of people who care that the solves are using the roux method, namely, those who use roux. or perhaps cfop user who are interested in the roux method. but yeah, saying the solve is "roux method" does increase the amount of people who will click on the video i think. it's "click bait" but surely not deceiving the viewer in any way; i don't think it should be viewed as anything bad.
I agree. It's not negative clickbait but it certainly does grab attention.

Clickbait is when something is deliberately badly labelled so that when you open it out turns out to be something other than what you were expecting. Labeling Roux videos is the exact opposite of clickbait. It's labeling the video so that when you open it you know you're not just going to get another common CFOP solve.

Your title on the other hand is a good example of clickbait. It's provocative to get people to click on the thread, then the post itself doesn't even mention clickbait.
click·bait
ˈklikbāt/
noun
informal
  1. (on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.
    "these recent reports of the show's imminent demise are hyperbolic clickbait"
Lots of the time it is labeled incorrectly but that's not the definition :p

Personally I'm actually in the habit of labelling most of my videos with the method I use in them simply so people know what I'm using. I don't think it's clickbait because if someone wanted to see me solve using say petrus then they can search for petrus and it would come up. Definitely also much better than just having a load of solves where people old have to guess what each one was (in fact I've been asked what method I'm using even though I clearly state it in the title on at least 2 occasions).

Also, if I'm a new cuber and I want to see a video of each method, I can't just type in rubik's cube solve as 99% of the search results would be CFOP and I would have to trawl through many results before I found a different method. From this point of view it's just an efficiency thing. Would it be odd to you if someone specified that a solve is oh or ft or bld in a title?
Ok that makes a lot of sense. This is probably the most valid argument I have heard so far :p

As a Roux solver I am more interested in watching roux speedsolves so it really helps that people label their videos with the method they're using. Also, some cubers like Tao Yu or @shadowslice e have videos using different methods so it's nice to know what method they're using in a particular video.
Makes sense. It's just to help other people trying to find videos of that specific method find them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,080
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
Well if someone put a solve saying "5.39 at home." You are gonna think its CFOP because it is the most common. They are just trying to get the method more attention, and I think thats a good thing.
I feel like we definitely need more variety, ZZ is a bit harder for beginners to get their head around so it makes sense that less people use that but it would be nice to see more people using roux. It is much easier than cfop and it's actually a pretty good beginner method. I have tried both roux and cfop and I just prefer cfop but it still is a cool method
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
606
Location
Home
WCA
2015FOXC01
YouTube
MASTERMIND2368
I feel like we definitely need more variety, ZZ is a bit harder for beginners to get their head around so it makes sense that less people use that but it would be nice to see more people using roux. It is much easier than cfop and it's actually a pretty good beginner method. I have tried both roux and cfop and I just prefer cfop but it still is a cool method
I was thinking a while ago why people use cfop. I came to the conclusion that it is easiest to transition to CFOP with LBL, and I thought, "If the method we first learn had a 4th of CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Pertus, the population would be more even." I think it could work very well, we just need someone to make it and I don't think I could make a good video on it, but if the world thinks I can, sure I'll make it.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,080
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
I was thinking a while ago why people use cfop. I came to the conclusion that it is easiest to transition to CFOP with LBL, and I thought, "If the method we first learn had a 4th of CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Pertus, the population would be more even." I think it could work very well, we just need someone to make it and I don't think I could make a good video on it, but if the world thinks I can, sure I'll make it.
I don't think it works that way. I don't think a method where you make an EO line, make 2 blocks, do F2L then have last layer is really doable. How would the steps work? Would it be like orient edges while making F2B then solve the edges of the bottom layer then LL? I think we just need to make more beginner tutorials that maybe show 2 different ways to solve it. Beginners roux (F2B, corner orientation, corner permutation, edge orientation, edge permutation) and classic begginers method. Honestly I think ZZ is a terrible method for beginners. It just sounds overly complicated method and it is a more intermediate/advanced method. I think people just need to start making 3 kinds of beginners method tutorials.
1. LBL- classic beginners
2. Roux- simplified roux with less algs
3. Corners first (it's viable for speedsolving too)
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,879
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Shadowslice
I was thinking a while ago why people use cfop. I came to the conclusion that it is easiest to transition to CFOP with LBL, and I thought, "If the method we first learn had a 4th of CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Pertus, the population would be more even." I think it could work very well, we just need someone to make it and I don't think I could make a good video on it, but if the world thinks I can, sure I'll make it.
The main reason everyone uses CFOP has more to do with the fact that lots of people use CFOP
 
Top