YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Is having 240,000 minutes of watch time every year not a good indicator that you will get views?
They seem to be saying that it's not as good as having a subscriber base and the 240,000 minutes.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
it would pool all YouTube Red revenue into a single pool, and distribute it to all YouTube creators based on how much watchtime they accrued.
No; it would distribute to the top X, where X is a number that certainly did not include any channels with less than 100,000 subscribers (top 1,000? Top 10,000? I can't remember.)
And it wasn't based on YouTube Red playtime, but all playtime. It was just set up to make the rich richer, and if you're starting a new channel, fuck you. (Which is to say if PewDiePie who is human garbage had 200,000 13-year-olds watching his videos, even if zero of them subscribed to YouTube Red, he'd get a huge cut of YouTube Red revenue.)
But even the dumbshits running YouTube probable realized how shitty that was, because it was incredibly shitty. Even by YouTube standards.
-
@blakeyrat said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
it would pool all YouTube Red revenue into a single pool, and distribute it to all YouTube creators based on how much watchtime they accrued.
No; it would distribute to the top X, where X is a number that certainly did not include any channels with less than 100,000 subscribers (top 1,000? Top 10,000? I can't remember.)
And it wasn't based on YouTube Red playtime, but all playtime. It was just set up to make the rich richer, and if you're starting a new channel, fuck you.
But even the dumbshits running YouTube probable realized how shitty that was, because it was incredibly shitty. Even by YouTube standards.
I remember hearing that too, but I've earned $0.00062k from YouTube red, so there's definitely some money going to smaller channels.
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I remember hearing that too, but I've earned $0.00062k from YouTube red, so there's definitely some money going to smaller channels.
Well, not actually going.
-
@boomzilla said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I remember hearing that too, but I've earned $0.00062k from YouTube red, so there's definitely some money going to smaller channels.
Well, not actually going.
If I read YouTube's blog post correctly, I should be getting two dollars and seventy cents deposited into my bank account when I get kicked off the program.
So in a way, I'm earning more money than I would be if they hadn't changed the rules.
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
If I read YouTube's blog post correctly,
FTR, I think I am, by letting other people read it for me.
-
@LB_ by the way, are your subscriber vs non-subscriber view (2% subscriber) and watch time (13.7% subscriber) ratios similar to mine?
-
@blakeyrat said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
it would pool all YouTube Red revenue into a single pool, and distribute it to all YouTube creators based on how much watchtime they accrued.
No; it would distribute to the top X, where X is a number that certainly did not include any channels with less than 100,000 subscribers (top 1,000? Top 10,000? I can't remember.)
And it wasn't based on YouTube Red playtime, but all playtime. It was just set up to make the rich richer, and if you're starting a new channel, fuck you. (Which is to say if PewDiePie who is human garbage had 200,000 13-year-olds watching his videos, even if zero of them subscribed to YouTube Red, he'd get a huge cut of YouTube Red revenue.)
But even the dumbshits running YouTube probable realized how shitty that was, because it was incredibly shitty. Even by YouTube standards.
Well then they've definitely changed it in that case, my lifetime YouTube Red revenue is more than $20 for my channel with less than 1000 subscribers.
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@LB_ by the way, are your subscriber vs non-subscriber view (2% subscriber) and watch time (13.7% subscriber) ratios similar to mine?
A little over 2/3rds of my watch time is from people who are not subscribed. I can't find a good way to see that in the browser app, but here's what the mobile app shows:
-
@LB_ it looks like the mobile app is using the beta UI, so for the web equivalent, go here: https://studio.youtube.com/
-
@ben_lubar Yeah the new Studio beta shows the same numbers as the mobile app. I found how to do it in the old design though,
https://www.youtube.com/analytics?o=U#dt=nt,fe=17546,fr=lw-001,fs=17519;fb=1%253A0,fc=0,fcr=0,r=views,rcbr=1,rpa=a,rpbm=7-93-110,rpd=4,rpg=93,rpgr=0,rpm=t,rpp=0,rpr=d,rps=93,rpsd=1
I have heard from others that it's pretty common to get higher numbers for "not subscribed", which I personally find strange but I guess makes some sense. It's just a tad counter-intuitive for me. Apparently I get a lot of traffic from the suggested videos sidebar that I thought almost everyone ignores. Mostly really old videos that I forgot I even made.
-
I find it interesting that in the top 25 videos by lifetime views for subscribers, there is a video on my channel that only I have ever watched.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I have heard from others that it's pretty common to get higher numbers for "not subscribed", which I personally find strange but I guess makes some sense.
Sure. I give the channels to which I subscribe plenty of views, but a lot of the time I may not have bothered to log in. It's a pain/easy to forget, especially if you use multiple computers or clear your cookies periodically.
-
@blakeyrat said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Did you subtract out YouTube Red revenue already?
Did they fix it to actually give a share to small fries? YouTube Red used to be only distributed to like the top 1,000 channels or something shitty, which is why I never bought it on principle.
Is that true? Do you have a citation for that? If so I might cancel my YouTube Red.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Apparently I get a lot of traffic from the suggested videos sidebar that I thought almost everyone ignores.
I often watch stuff from there.
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I find it interesting that in the top 25 videos by lifetime views for subscribers, there is a video on my channel that only I have ever watched.
Also, you can see this Reddit thread hitting the front page of /r/dwarffortress pretty clearly on the graph:
-
@heterodox said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I have heard from others that it's pretty common to get higher numbers for "not subscribed", which I personally find strange but I guess makes some sense.
Sure. I give the channels to which I subscribe plenty of views, but a lot of the time I may not have bothered to log in. It's a pain/easy to forget, especially if you use multiple computers or clear your cookies periodically.
Pretty similar here: I stay logged out of Google services on my computers unless I need to do something with them (GMail management, mostly). Checking my phone, I'm subscribed to exactly one channel and it's not one of the ten or so I watch regularly.
-
@polygeekery said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Is that true? Do you have a citation for that? If so I might cancel my YouTube Red.
It used to be but it's definitely not anymore, as discussed earlier in this thread.
@heterodox said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
a lot of the time I may not have bothered to log in
@parody said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I stay logged out of Google services on my computers
Ah, I hadn't considered this type of usage, that's interesting to know.
-
@heterodox said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Sure. I give the channels to which I subscribe plenty of views, but a lot of the time I may not have bothered to log in. It's a pain/easy to forget, especially if you use multiple computers or clear your cookies periodically.
I bookmark videos a lot.
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar wait, their requirement is 4000 hours? But there's nowhere in their UI that ever shows watch time as hours. Did they phrase it that way just to seem like it was reasonable?
"Yeah, we used to require 10,000 lifetime views, but now it's 240,000 minutes per year and 1,000 people must see every video you post as soon as you post it. Because that's going to stop abuses of our system like Logan Paul and PewDiePie."
This sounds like it's trying to combat those creepy spiderman elsa videos.
-
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar wait, their requirement is 4000 hours? But there's nowhere in their UI that ever shows watch time as hours. Did they phrase it that way just to seem like it was reasonable?
"Yeah, we used to require 10,000 lifetime views, but now it's 240,000 minutes per year and 1,000 people must see every video you post as soon as you post it. Because that's going to stop abuses of our system like Logan Paul and PewDiePie."
This sounds like it's trying to combat those creepy spiderman elsa videos.
I fail to see why demonetizing them would stop them from happening. They're basically free to produce, and I can't imagine them getting much (if any) ad revenue if they're in the set of channels affected by this change, so they must have been doing it for some other reason.
-
Okay then, maybe Google is trying to get rid of the smaller channels and focus more on their big fish, or trying to make youtube more garbage.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I found how to do it in the old design though
Hehe, none of my views are from my "subscribers". Then again, I don't really spit out content at all...
-
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Okay then, maybe Google is trying to get rid of the smaller channels and focus more on their big fish, or trying to make youtube more garbage.
I suspect their advertisers didn't want to be associated with the creepy videos. Demonetizing them won't stop them, but it will mean that the advertisers are happier and hopefully that means more ad revenue for everyone.
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
hopefully that means more ad revenue for everyone.
Having a smaller pool to fill ads with will almost certainly make the water levels rise, yes.
-
@thebread IMO this is happening to make clickfraud harder.
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
My total revenue for the last 4 weeks: $0.36
My views in the last 4 weeks: 212YouTube estimates the following advertising revenue per thousand views for my channel:
USA - $2796.40
UK - $1755.30
Germany - $1471.30
Poland - $1296.30
Sweden - $606.20
Estonia - $6121.90Math question: How many monetized views have I had?
... per THOUSAND VIEWS? as in, thousand monetised views should yield you that much money, if you lived in those countries?
are they on crack or something?
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar said in The Official Status Thread:
@weng I think I was confused by the terrible line break placement:
To rephrase YouTube's blog post in a way that actually makes sense, 99% of the people on this program who are being removed don't get paid at all some years, and 90% get paid less than once every 3 years. (You get paid only when your threshold gets hit, which is at minimum $100.)
As long as I'm not losing access to the features I signed up for the partner program for (scheduled videos mainly, but also custom thumbnails and a few other things, all of which it looks like are now available to non-partner channels), I don't really care.
Ok, this is really dumb. If I met the view time requirement, I would be hitting the payment threshold two and a half times per day. Does YouTube think anyone who doesn't earn $92K per year from ads isn't worth paying?Turns out my math was wrong:
oh, this seems to explain my previous question. still seems like unrealistically much, for 1k,but... at least it's two magnitudes less unrealistic
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
So in a way, I'm earning more money than I would be if they hadn't changed the rules.
Actually, it seems like you still need to meet your AdSense payment threshold, which you can do by selling ad space, since AdSense and YouTube Partner Program are separate. Or if you have more than $10 in your AdSense account, you can close your AdSense account and they will pay you that small amount of money. Source:
How you can still succeed on YouTube in 2018 & what you need to know! - @Barnacules – 32:55
— Barnacules Nerdgasm
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Okay then, maybe Google is trying to get rid of the smaller channels and focus more on their big fish, or trying to make youtube more garbage.
I suspect their advertisers didn't want to be associated with the creepy videos. Demonetizing them won't stop them, but it will mean that the advertisers are happier and hopefully that means more ad revenue for everyone.
On mobile so fuck linking... but look up Dan Olson's video "Gaming the Algorithm" for more info on how those channels operate; it becomes more apparent why this change targets them.
Effectively: those channels... And there are THOUSANDS of them... all belong to a group of MCN. Not A Mcn... but several (who knows how many). Bots upload keyword-salad videos, thousands of them. The way YouTube recommendation system works, it tries to be fair by mixing in similar content from different and smaller channels, so the "what's next" isn't fun the same core group of popular channels.
So since these videos match keyword, and SEEM to be different channels, they get selected.
The primary audience is toddlers parked in front of an iPad with little or no supervision. Video gets played, ad revenue collected.
In addition, the channels run a complex web of content id "block worldwide / take monetization" bots, so they can collect revenue from each other, and keep out competition. Try re-uploading one of the videos set to private (on a burner account) and watch how many claims you get instantly.
These new YouTube changed are meant to target these channels. Those thousands of channel exist to spread out the risk and add redundancy to this scam network. If one channel gets flagged and taken down, then it's a small amount of revenue gone, and easy to replace with a new channel. But those channels, under the new rules, won't have enough views, followers, etc to actually collect ad dollars.
The scam networks could operated fewer channels, and concentrate the views and likes and subscribed... but that increases the risk. If one channel goes down, that's a lot more damage, and is harder to replace.
Yes, scammers can still buy followers, use bots, etc... but that's an additional cost to them, which makes the scam less profitable, and possibly not profitable at all on the scale they're seeing now. It might even mean they have to do more cross-pollination of the bot channels to like/watch/subscribe to their other channels... which would make it easier for Big Data Google to identify and eliminate them.
Will this plan work? Will it actually harm the scammers enough? Well they just find a different way to game the system? Will this just hurt small channels an order of magnitude more than the scammers? We'll have to wait and see.
But yes, yes it will.
But since Google's real customers... The advertisers... Will be satisfied that SOMETHING is being done to prevent their ads from being shown in front of millions of videos that no one is actually watching, that'll be "job well done" for google.
-
TL;DW if you had features and abilities already, you won't lose them when you get disconnected from the YouTube Partner Program, and there's no preferential treatment of videos that are in the program. All that is changing is ability to monetize.
YouTube Partner Program Follow Up – 07:21
— Creator Insider
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
All that is changing is ability to monetize.
Which is fine with me, but it would be nice if the email was phrased in a way that didn't have the possibility of this horrible line break placement that implied otherwise:
-
@ben_lubar said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
this horrible line break placement that implied otherwise:
I saw you say this before but I still don't understand what you mean. I assume you're referring to the highlighted text. It's part of a sentence. Its meaning doesn't change because of text wrapping. This isn't pythong or Visual Basic.
-
@ben_lubar I still can't see what you see with that line break placement. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar I still can't see what you see with that line break placement. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
I can totally see how the line break inserts a mental pause. It should read as "you will lose all monetization tools associate with the YPP. Also, you will lose access to all monetization features of YPP."
The line break and mental pause can make it sound like "you will lose all monetization tools (mental pause) Also, in addition, you will lose all features of YPP."
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar I still can't see what you see with that line break placement. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
Try reading just the part before the line break (which is what they wanted to say) and then try reading just the part after the line break (which is what scared me).
-
@ben_lubar Yeah...still not getting it. Sorry.
-
@boomzilla said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@ben_lubar Yeah...still not getting it. Sorry.
I assumed that
features associated with the YouTube Partner Program
meant I would lose the features I signed up for the partner program to get.Even just adding another
monetization
beforefeatures
or removing one of the two redundant "tools
andfeatures
" would have made this email not scare me.
-
@ben_lubar yes, people with >1k subs and <4k hours of watch time will lose features such as Super Chat and the Sponsor button. So you did read it correctly originally, and it reads the same way with and without the line break. I think the confusion is that you didn't know the features that you specifically care about are currently available to everyone regardless of YPP membership. Many features are available as a result of having a verified account via verifying a phone number.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I think the confusion is that you didn't know the features that you specifically care about are currently available to everyone regardless of YPP membership
Yes, and I never got any notification that those features stopped requiring YPP membership.
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Apparently I get a lot of traffic from the suggested videos sidebar that I thought almost everyone ignores.
@heterodox said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
I give the channels to which I subscribe plenty of views, but a lot of the time I may not have bothered to log in.
The vast majority of YT videos that I watch are ones that are embedded here. If I actually go to YT to watch a video (rather than one embedded here), I've probably gone there to search for a particular topic. Once I'm there, I will usually get sucked into the suggested videos sidebar rat-hole and waste far too much time. It's not at all unusual for my search result and some suggested videos to be from a creator I subscribe to, but I'm almost certainly not logged in when I'm watching, unless I encounter something that's age-restricted; that's pretty much the only reason I have an account at all. (And even then, more often than not, I won't log in, because I don't want to watch it enough to bother.)
-
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
make youtube more garbage.
Is that even possible?
-
@hardwaregeek said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
make youtube more garbage.
Is that even possible?
There's still more bottom to this barrel.
-
I forgot to post this, but considering how buggy Twitch Premieres are, I have a strong suspicion Twitch tried to react fast to YouTube's changes. Twitch has much lower requirements to become affiliate, after all.
Then there's also this...
Twitch’s deal with Disney will see four of the digital network’s larger personalities – Jacksepticeye, LuzuGames, Markiplier, and Strawburry17 – establishing their own channels on Twitch, where they’ll broadcast live and create exclusive video-on-demand content.
While some of these creators already had Twitch channels, they’ll begin posting new and exclusive content starting today, says Twitch.
That's probably more coincidental, but the timing works out great for Twitch. It's a shame Twitch's user interfaces are absolute garbage.
-
@lb_ As Disney continues to own everything...
-
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
Okay then, maybe Google is trying to get rid of the smaller channels and focus more on their big fish, or trying to make youtube more garbage.
MYTGA!
-
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@hardwaregeek said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@thebread said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
make youtube more garbage.
Is that even possible?
There's still more bottom to this barrel.
Sir Mix A Lot - Baby Got Back (Official Video) – 04:14
— Quantumofficial
-
@tsaukpaetra said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
It won't really mess with your analytics that much, will it? I mean, who actually watches YouTube in 144p that's not on a 2G connection?
-
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
On the heels of Twitch’s exec shakeup yesterday which saw the Amazon-owned streaming site adding a new COO, the company today announced a multi-year partnership with Disney Digital Network
YouTube, could you stop advertising Nazis in front of our videos, and featuring dead bodies?
lol nope u want an algorith?
...... Hey, Twitch, do you want a bunch of money?
Yes
-
@lorne-kates said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
@lb_ said in YouTube demonetizes people in the scariest way possible:
On the heels of Twitch’s exec shakeup yesterday which saw the Amazon-owned streaming site adding a new COO, the company today announced a multi-year partnership with Disney Digital Network
YouTubeGoogle, could you stop advertising Nazis in front of our videos, and featuring dead bodies?
lol nope u want an algorith?
...... Hey,TwitchAmazon, do you want a bunch of money?
YesLet's go one level higher...
-
@lorne-kates pecunia non olet.