Google is testing a new YouTube feature that lets you hum or record a song to search for it.
If you’re part of the YouTube experiment for the feature, you can hum or record three or more seconds of a song so that Google can try to identify it, according to a support page. Once YouTube identifies the song, it will show you relevant content about that song. Basically, it’s a Google-y take on Shazam, which is owned by Apple.
It may be new to YouTube; but it’s not new to anyone who’s used Google’s voice assistant. I don’t know if it’s better than Shazam. They both have worked phenomenal for me 🤷🏻♂️
Even if you hum off key, it is usually correct about what you’re looking for.
Shazam can search by humming?
That’s what I originally used it for years ago. I don’t know if that’s what it was intended for, but it worked well enough that I kept using it for a while.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Google is testing a new YouTube feature that lets you hum or record a song to search for it.
If you’re part of the YouTube experiment for the feature, you can hum or record three or more seconds of a song so that Google can try to identify it, according to a support page.
Google says it’s rolling out to “a small percentage of people across the globe who watch YouTube on Android devices.”
Google told TechCrunch that the YouTube version relies on the same technology, but the publication noted that the YouTube version works faster than the Google one, which needs 10–15 seconds to figure out a song.
Google says it’s also testing a YouTube feature that bundles multiple uploads in “a short amount of time” from a single creator into a special “channel shelf” in your subscriptions feed.
“We’re experimenting with this for a few reasons — as a way to make it easier for viewers to find the content they’re looking for, to put less pressure on creators to upload multiple times a day, and to make it simpler for viewers to engage with the content in the shelf and / or navigate to other content while scrolling in their feed,” Google says.
The original article contains 277 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 26%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
