Channel denied YPP again for reused content, content is all original

DIY Garage said:
Could it be that I have affiliate links in the descriptions? Or that I just don't have enough content to provide context to my channel??
Click to expand...
who knows fam I dont worry about this kinda stuff, but hopefully I gave some ideas or helped get your thread bigger because i understand that this is pretty big deal
 
AllVisuals4U said:
I found an interesting topic about this (also read the Twitter links)...

It seems that it also could be that YouTube needs context about the value and editing of the work you create. Even if you don't speak and don't have a have a facecam.
Click to expand...
I have heard this as well, but on the Creator's Insider channel (an official YT channel), they replied to this rumor and denied it. They said you do not have to show your face or talk. I do not have the link to the vid, it was some months ago.
 
There is one false thing in that Reddit post which was reiterated again and again; which was that "YouTube is a job".

YouTube is not a job, and if you read the Partner Programme agreement, it specifically states this.

If YouTubers in the Partner Programme were actually Google Employees, YouTube would be required to pay at least minimum wage level for hourly work, or we would need to draw a fixed salary. Ad revenue would be a bonus, if it came into the picture at all.

YouTube would also have to collect both Federal Income Taxes on the wages or salaries, and Social Security for those members who were United States residents. I've seen people referring erroneously to "working for or on YouTube" for years now; and its time the Creator Insiders or YouTube admin through their blog cleared this up once and for all.

I know about the Creator Insider video; but it seems to be in direct opposition to the "significant original commentary" section of the reused content clause of the AdSense Content Quality Guidelines. Channels attempting to use text-only commentary are rejected again and again; which leaves only vocal commentary; whether by the channel owner, or a hired voiceover artist. Computer-generated text to speech is disallowed under the repetitive content rules.

All in all it would seem that YouTube may be contradicting itself.
 
Last edited:
DIY Garage said:
Crown, thanks for that link, that's gold right there. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
Yes it is indeed; yet both of you should look at the post by Jordan very carefully. I will quote the sections which apply most closely to @DIY Garage's situation.

"REMOVED FOR REUSED CONTENT

My content is completely original or I significantly transform the work, so why was I removed for Reused Content?

We sometimes make mistakes during the review process – this may happen if your channel is lacking context or information about the creative value you’re adding to make the content unique. Keep in mind that abusers try to blend in with legitimate channels, so if you’re not adding significant original commentary, narration, or clear educational value to the repurposed content, and there’s no indication anywhere of how you’ve transformed the work, then the review team is lacking all of this info during the review process."

I m curious as to why Jordan keeps harping on the word "repurposed", when the first part of the header is "My content is completely original". If something is completely original there is by very definition of the term, no repurposed content present.

And...

"Are there any other best practices to show YouTube my content is unique?

The best possible scenario is for the unique value to be clear when watching your video. The spirit of the Reused Content policy is to make sure we’re incentivizing unique and original content into YPP and that we’re protecting and rewarding the creators who work hard on original content.
Here are some best practices:
  • Add commentary or show your presence in your videos (voice or on screen)
  • Link back to your YouTube channel from your official website and vice versa
  • Provide more context about your work in your video and channel descriptions
  • Have a featured video where you talk about your channel and how your work"
Click to expand...
The bolded emphasis is my own on the bullet-item. Here we have at the same time, @TeamYouTube saying "no it's not necessary"; while Jordan, whose header clearly states he is a Google Employee on Team YouTube citing that very thing as a "best practice". Indeed that is at the top of the best practices list!

Finally...

"I’ve made changes to my content and re-applied, but I’m still not approved?

Your channel may not be approved for the YouTube Partner Program if you’re only making minor changes. If you're going to create content that primarily draws from other sources, then we encourage you to focus on transforming the original work and giving it new creative perspective or meaning. We’d recommend making additional changes to your overall content strategy and/or adding more context to your channel, and re-applying to YPP in 30 days."

Jordan still seems to be "assuming" that most people who have this issue are repurposing the content of others, and does nothing to address the concerns of those with fully original content who are denied more than once.

A less than satisfactory answer IMHO.
 
UKHypnotist said:
There is one false thing in that Reddit post which was reiterated again and again; which was that "YouTube is a job".

YouTube is not a job, and if you read the Partner Programme agreement, it specifically states this.

If YouTubers in the Partner Programme were actually Google Employees, YouTube would be required to pay at least minimum wage level for hourly work, or we would need to draw a fixed salary. Ad revenue would be a bonus, if it came into the picture at all.

YouTube would also have to collect both Federal Income Taxes on the wages or salaries, and Social Security for those members who were United States residents. I've seen people referring erroneously to "working for or on YouTube" for years now; and its time the Creator Insiders or YouTube admin through their blog cleared this up once and for all.

I know about the Creator Insider video; but it seems to be in direct opposition to the "significant original commentary" section of the reused content clause of the AdSense Content Quality Guidelines. Channels attempting to use text-only commentary are rejected again and again; which leaves only vocal commentary; whether by the channel owner, or a hired voiceover artist. Computer-generated text to speech is disallowed under the repetitive content rules.

All in all it would seem that YouTube may be contradicting itself.
Click to expand...

So is parenting a job? I would say it is. Just because Google and govt. says being a creator is not job means nothing. More to the point not every country has social security or minimum wage laws.

Let's all try to be more inclusive and end the cis gendered, Ameri/Eurocentric, whitesplaining in our posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top