3b1b

That level of granularity would be interesting. For what it's worth, the metric they go by is not click-through rate; it's expected total watch time. For example, if you have two thumbnails, A and B, and for every 100 impressions of A, there are 51 total minutes of watch time, and for every 100 impressions of B, there are 49 total, then what you'd see in the dashboard is "51% A, 49% B". More total clicks with less engagement will not necessarily win out.

I generally agree that it's a pretty wild choice to just let creators put up multiple titles. That said, it's hard not to play with the shiny toy when it's sitting right there, especially if you know it may mean the lesson reaches more people. In this case, I genuinely don't know what the "right" title is, even setting engagement aside. Is it fundamentally about analyzing an Escher piece? Is it fundamentally a lesson on complex analysis, and complex logs in particular? It's both, but you don't always want to cram two stories into one title. This becomes all the more challenging when titles are, inescapably, marketing.

In case you're curious, when I ran that title/thumbnail AB test, the option "This picture broke my brain" did end up winning. I was a bit disappointed, because I didn't really _want_ it to win, but I did include it out of curiosity. Ultimately, I changed it to the other title, mostly because I like it better, and the margin was small.

I was genuinely torn about how to title this, because one of my aims is that it stands to be enjoyed by people outside the usual online-math-viewing circles, especially the first 12 minutes, and leaning into the idea of a complex log risks alienating some of those.