Instagram users finally have an explanation for the discrepancy in the quality between some videos, with the platform throttling less popular ones.

A Threads user by the name of Lindsey Gamble posted a video of Instagram head Adam Mosseri explaining how the company’s algorithm worked.

In general we want to show the highest quality we can…but if something isn’t wantched for a long time, because the vast majority of views in the beginning, e will move to a lower quality video. Then if it’s watched again a lot, then we will re-render the higher quality video. We also, if we are serving a video to someon on a slower internet connection, will serve the lower quality video so that it loads quickly, as opposed to giving them a spinner.

So it depends, it’s a pretty dynamic system. The goal is to show people the highest quality content we can.

lindseygamble

In a response to the thread, Mosseri provided more context, saying the algorithm worked at the aggregate level, rather than on individual videos.

It works at an aggregate level, not an individual viewer level. We bias to higher quality (more CPU intensive encoding and more expensive storage for bigger files) for creators who drive more views. It’s not a binary theshhold, but rather a sliding scale.

mosseri

Mosseri also responded to questions about whether the algorithm disadvantaged smaller content creators.

It’s the right concern, but In practice it doesn’t seem to matter much, as the quality shift isn’t huge and wether or not people interact with videos is way more based on the content of the video than the quality. Quality seems to be much more important to the original creator, who is more likely to delete the video if it looks poor, than to their viewers.

mosseri

Needless to say, the revelation has not gone over well with users, with many complaining that content creators starting out have wasted a lot of time trying to figure out why their videos looked bad, when it was ultimately something outside of their control.

All-in-all, while Instagram’s algorithm makes sense from a technical standpoint, the company should have done a better job explaining what it was doing, saving users from a lot of head-scratching and wasted time re-rendering and re-uploading their videos.