Well, perhaps you know what they mean! Me? I can only read the words and then guess based on the words I read. If it's not clear from my post what guesses I have made based on the words I have read, and which assumptions I have made while making those guesses, then I apologise. I will try to make it easier for the reader next time.

It sounds like you found no reference to portrait aspect ratio videos in the article either.

▲

Brian_K_White 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I assumed it was just a sloppy way to actually say it has an option to filter out shorts. (Because shorts are always portrait, and it's a common wish to want to eliminate shorts.)

Either way, I also knew what they meant, because "vertical video" is not an inscrutable term that leaves any room to guess it's meaning incorrectly. It's entirely scrutable.

You can keep trying to defend the obtuse complaint that all videos have a vertical dimension, but if it were me I think I would not be so eager to advertise that I was this baffled by this.

▲

Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, we can assume "vertical video" means "shorts". But once we do that, I still don't see anything on the front page or the FAQ or the github page that mentions shorts. The HN title had "without vertical videos" jammed in and that needs clarification. Maybe there's a toggle somewhere to hide shorts? Or maybe it doesn't have a shorts feed but it otherwise has shorts? Or something else? It's not clear.

	▲	Brian_K_White 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't either. But I didn't install the app so it's still possible. But yeah I don't see anything either.

▲

tom_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The point of my post was that the title is editorialized. Am I allowed to say "Did you click the link"? Probably not. But, still, let me suggest that you click the link. Once you've clicked the link, compare the title of the page you find yourself on to the title posted here. Now you've compared them, ask yourself: are they the same? I just did this experiment myself, and the answer was: no. The title of the page at time of my click is this: "NewPipe - a free YouTube client". The title of the HN submission at the time I'm composing this message is this: "NewPipe: YouTube client without vertical videos and algorithmic feed".

We are oft implored, not only by our famous and much-valued dang, but also the other guy (whatever his name is. He does a great job too though), not to editorialize the titles by submitting submissions with titles other than the actual title. How can you tell if the submitted title is other than the actual title? That's easy. You read the one and read the other and compare the two and see if they're different. (Which is another way of restating the previous paragraph.) In this case: they are. (Or at least were at time of writing! Since you'll be reading this in the future.) Hence my complaint.

The vertical video thing? That was just my little joke. OF COURSE I KNOW THAT VERTICAL VIDEO MEANS PORTRAIT VIDEO. And, yes, I have visited youtube.com, and have had a big pile of portrait shorts shit up the feed, same as everybody else. I am not completely... wait, hang on. I am completely stupid. Because I thought it would be so obvious that it was a joke, that nobody would bother to quibble. They'd just chuckle at my attempt to amuse the reader, or roll their eyes at it and ignore it, and then go on to moan at me about some other part of my post. Though, reading my post again, more fool me perhaps. I guess I didn't leave people enough other material to complain about.

Sorry. I'll try to do better in future.