- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 22
- Age
- 37
I am kinda puzzled, confused and frustrated with the inconsistency when it comes down to demonetization of a video and the manual review. I have no idea what is the baseline on what they view as acceptable.
I uploaded 2 videos, which were private. Both videos were demonetized pretty much immediately, so I submit it for manual review. The videos had no tags, description, no thumbnail uploaded and the title (which used the file name) was not controversial. The videos are reviews of mods for single player games like skyrim and fallout, which is allowed by the game developer/publisher. A video usually has 5 mods or so which usually consist of mods that changes how an object looks, a new spell or weapon, a follower NPC and at least one outfit mod. The outfit may or may not be on the skimpier side, but nothing that you would not see at a beach in Santa Monica or Long Beach. These days, I try to be careful and not zoom in or make the user of the outfit do any suggestive poses since adpocalypse. It is all my content and I use royalty free music by incompetech and argofox.
But anyways, Video A was manually reviewed (apparently by 1 person/view) and it was approved and remonetized within 24hours.. However, Video A had a lingerie outfit and I was using euphemisms to ask people to compare which does the outfit improves the most, the butt or bust.
Video B was manually reviewed (by 3 person/view) and it was confirmed by manual review that it was not ad friendly. I was puzzled because that video is more tame in sense that the outfit covered up more and I didn't make any crude jokes like in Video A.
Interestingly, I also had a Video C. I had a follower that had a skimpy outfit (heck one of the boob had a nipple cover as part of the outfit) and I can't really control what she originally wears. I also made a Bill Cosby pill joke. Video C was approved as well lol.
Maybe the reviewer of Video A and Video C was more chill and okay with it.. and the reviewers for Video B were ultra prudes or having a bad day?
You, as in the reader of this post, may or may not approve or like of the type of videos I do. I am aware of it, but for the sake of this post, let's just focus on the manual review process. The majority of what is in my video is not focused on the outfits, as the majority of the video are of the other mods. Heck, not all outfits are skimpy. Some are casual or something you would wear to a wedding.
The point I am trying to make is that I can't really figure out what youtube views as okay for ads. I built my channel from these videos and I have toned down on what might be the problem, but I cannot figure out where is the baseline as being okay. Of course, you could suggest I do other types of videos.. but imagine getting big from make-up videos and all of a sudden, you gotta do videos about accounting/taxes. Probably won't fly too well. Youtube was a great place 3-4 years ago as long as you were not too extreme, now any tiny thing can hinder and cost you =\.
I uploaded 2 videos, which were private. Both videos were demonetized pretty much immediately, so I submit it for manual review. The videos had no tags, description, no thumbnail uploaded and the title (which used the file name) was not controversial. The videos are reviews of mods for single player games like skyrim and fallout, which is allowed by the game developer/publisher. A video usually has 5 mods or so which usually consist of mods that changes how an object looks, a new spell or weapon, a follower NPC and at least one outfit mod. The outfit may or may not be on the skimpier side, but nothing that you would not see at a beach in Santa Monica or Long Beach. These days, I try to be careful and not zoom in or make the user of the outfit do any suggestive poses since adpocalypse. It is all my content and I use royalty free music by incompetech and argofox.
But anyways, Video A was manually reviewed (apparently by 1 person/view) and it was approved and remonetized within 24hours.. However, Video A had a lingerie outfit and I was using euphemisms to ask people to compare which does the outfit improves the most, the butt or bust.
Video B was manually reviewed (by 3 person/view) and it was confirmed by manual review that it was not ad friendly. I was puzzled because that video is more tame in sense that the outfit covered up more and I didn't make any crude jokes like in Video A.
Interestingly, I also had a Video C. I had a follower that had a skimpy outfit (heck one of the boob had a nipple cover as part of the outfit) and I can't really control what she originally wears. I also made a Bill Cosby pill joke. Video C was approved as well lol.
Maybe the reviewer of Video A and Video C was more chill and okay with it.. and the reviewers for Video B were ultra prudes or having a bad day?
You, as in the reader of this post, may or may not approve or like of the type of videos I do. I am aware of it, but for the sake of this post, let's just focus on the manual review process. The majority of what is in my video is not focused on the outfits, as the majority of the video are of the other mods. Heck, not all outfits are skimpy. Some are casual or something you would wear to a wedding.
The point I am trying to make is that I can't really figure out what youtube views as okay for ads. I built my channel from these videos and I have toned down on what might be the problem, but I cannot figure out where is the baseline as being okay. Of course, you could suggest I do other types of videos.. but imagine getting big from make-up videos and all of a sudden, you gotta do videos about accounting/taxes. Probably won't fly too well. Youtube was a great place 3-4 years ago as long as you were not too extreme, now any tiny thing can hinder and cost you =\.