• Join the largest paid sponsorship network. No contracts, no gimmicks, get paid quick. New sponsorships are added daily. Join at famebit.com

Monetization Not Approved for Repetitious content

Michael

I Love YTtalk
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
22,352
Reaction score
16,076
Channel Type
Youtuber
Yes I know, other channels are doing it! I guess big channels can keep doing this OR they will eventually be reviewed and YouTube will remove monetisation from their channels. They've done this with 100K+ and 1M+ subs channels so you can just wait and see.
I am starting to think this is about them shoe horning creators into making other stuff even though children watch and enjoy it. So basically this is their way of controlling what people make. Seems it is as always one rule for some and another rule for others. That kinda stuff just angers people.

I would say that all channels are repetitive to some extent?
Whether you draw in every video or play an istrument in every video or you turn wrenches on engines?
Can you appeal?
I agree, it is what they encouraged in the past, to make more of what is popular on your channel. I am sure there is more to this than meets the eye, the same with all of the demonetisation in general. I think they lost a lot of advertisers, cut a lot of creators with rounds of demonetisation, dont want more creators or perhaps less videos uploaded and to put people off creating videos/uploading they now have a very finicky and off putting review scheme. All of this will have been well planned. Google/YouTube arent stupid usually, except for letting us know about keeping our Google Plus data, what a waste of an email, no one could possibly want their data from there :p
 

Michael

I Love YTtalk
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
22,352
Reaction score
16,076
Channel Type
Youtuber
It is as if they want original content yet their whole suggested sidebar features nothing but related content which in turn encourages people to make similar videos and when those take off they will make more. Their ideas/system are really flawed here.