Changes to the YouTube Partner Program • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#61

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 5:45 AM UTC

shostack wrote: post #49

notatoad wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a guess, they are moving to implement a much more stringent manual review of monetized channels, and the change to the eligibility criteria is an effort to reduce the number of monetized channels to a number that's more feasible to review. But if that's the case, I wonder why they don't just say it. >Why not let... the advertisers decide this? The advertiser's have been pretty clear they want YouTube to be the con…

That's an interesting take when you start factoring in the broader landscape. Video is no longer about just the short form, and increasingly attention is pulled away from Youtube by services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and FB's video play. I wonder how much video CPMs (particularly mid-roll) and the premium big brands are willing to pay plays a role in this vs something like a desire to growing engagement. If you inc…

Just multi-tier it.

You can pay more if you only want your ads against thoroughly vetted content.

Or pay less if you don't care.

Less video to bid against will raise ad costs for everyone.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#62

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 6:02 AM UTC

Nition wrote: post #43

mc32 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>) For niche channels, like my own, it can be easy to have the views but difficult to have the subscribers. These two should not be tied together for purposes of monetization. I completely agree. I've saved hundreds of dollars [and time] on car maintenance/repairs and plumbing by watching some guy or gal on youtube with very specific information (for a given make/model/year) for example. I hope these kinds of instruc…

Honestly I think people will keep making those sorts of videos anyway. We never get paid anything for posting on Stack Overflow or Hacker News yet here we are. And YouTube had lots of good videos before it had monetisation.

I guess Google will have the data to know for sure.

But will they backtrack if they’re wrong, or just accept it as collateral damage?

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#63

Post by intended » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 6:15 AM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #60

intended wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again that level of AI/ML means being able to state what the intent of a comment or document is. If we ever get close to that point, that programs can reliably mark something as "risky" content, human thought is in big trouble. "Risky" material is subjective. Something even humans can't make out reliably very often. I think, this is the result of the tech firms putting content creators of old out of business, but not…

It doesn't need to be perfect, just reliable enough to determine what needs more thorough review. A 2 minute video titled "How to fix your computer's _______", that is linked from fixit forums, that is universally liked with comments stating "Wow, that worked, thanks!" shouldn't even need human review to determine risk. The comparison alone to other videos with similar characteristics should do it.

How, all human activities have adversarial components to it- especially when there’s a financial pay off involved. People will just got the comments.

And that’s over the naturally noisy data set of human behavior.

Not to mention cultural norms across all nations in the world - I know many Indian user forums where even mildly helpful or unhelpful videos/posts will receive “thank you, could you help with...” posts.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#64

Post by sgentle » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 6:55 AM UTC

I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. Despite what the PR says, this has very little to do with the relationship between YouTube and creators, and everything to do with the relationship between YouTube and advertisers.

YouTube is renting out billboards at a music festival, and the advertisers, predictably, want to know who's playing. "Well, I dunno, like, whoever shows up" has proven to be an answer that they can't get away with. YouTube's negotiating position with advertisers depends on how they can position their package of advertising space. Right now they're trying to sell a big bundle of uncertain providence, with loads of little no-namers mixed in with the heavy hitters.

But what can YouTube do? If they split it up, they now have a gold package, a silver package, and a shit package. The rates for the shit package would be so bad that current YouTube revenue starts to look like winning the lottery. The smallest channels are subsidised by the bigger ones, not in terms of views but in terms of reputation. So if you need to improve the reputation of the group, what's left to do but drop the weakest performers?

If you're thinking "but that's totally illogical! Smaller channels collectively contribute an enormous number of very valuable advertising impressions", you're right, but making the same mistake YouTube did. The advertising industry isn't logical, it's 18 layers of ticket-clippers and con men playing telephone with money. It doesn't run on economically rational real-time bidding systems, it runs on trend-chasing and reputation. That other stuff is just to keep the nerds happy.

So, like in every other field Goophabet has entered, the techno-utopianism lasts right up until it hits the balance sheet. Party's over, folks. YouTube is an advertising company and now it's realising it has to act like one.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#65

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 7:04 AM UTC

bitmapbrother wrote: post #48

anonytrary wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has no rival and never will. Likewise, it's difficult to take your comment seriously with this beast of a closing line ;)

My line is realistic. Your opener, however, is comical.

We've asked you numerous times before not to post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN. If you can't or won't stop doing this, we're going to end up banning you. Flamebait and flamewars aren't welcome on this site.

If you'd (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take that spirit to heart when commenting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#66

Post by jijji » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 7:14 AM UTC

its all about keeping the advertiser money flowing and reducing payments to content creators, that way youtube makes more money

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#67

Post by exDM69 » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 7:19 AM UTC

dvt wrote: post #57

dragonwriter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is doubly true for services like Google Search, and yet (for example) security-oriented engines like DDG are barely making a dent. DDG is making a huge dent in the narrow segment it is designed to appeal to , which is all any specialized service can hope for. I think DDG fans persistently overestimate how many people find Google’s personalization a net cost. > I honestly don't think niche is the way to go if y…

> Sure, if you are trying to replace one of those as the dominant mass market player in its domain you need to do that. The parent post was discussing disrupting the major player -- YouTube. Me making some tiny website that caters to videos of, say, amateur astronomy, while interesting and successful in its own right, would not so much as make a dent (let alone disrupt) YouTube. That was my point: that disrupting You…

It's not just disrupting YouTube, it's also about creating a sustainable service. Video streaming has enormous costs which you need to get back somehow.

Unless your niche audience is willing to pay per minute, it is going to be difficult to pay the bills.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#68

Post by Roverlord » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

keyboardhitter wrote: post #39

So, will they also be screening the legitimacy of subscribers and watchers in those 12 month? The first thing that came to my mind is that I can't imagine it is terribly difficult to purchase bot subscriptions. Their policy changes to focus on relevant watched hours in a set amount of time could, and probably will, open new demand for purchasing illegitimate traffic as well. Same game, different rules. I wonder if th…

And the exchange of subs to boost both your counts and hit 1000. No doubt there will be auto player scripts emerging that will randomly watch 4000 hours of content by Friday.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#69

Post by InclinedPlane » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 7:30 AM UTC

jeffmould wrote: post #13

As one of the people whose channel is affected by this policy change, I have to say I am not happy. There are a few issues I have with their new policy: 1) They should not have made this change retroactive to channels. If you already met the criteria you should be grandfathered into the new program. To terminate monetization entirely gives me no incentive to continue with YouTube. 2) For niche channels, like my own,…

YouTube doesn't understand or care about the true underlying value of its platform, let alone its potential. And they continue to make bad choices to steer it in entirely the wrong direction. It could be a powerhouse but they keep screwing it up. This is all part and parcel of google/alphabet being horrendously bad at product management and customer interactions.

Re: Changes to the YouTube Partner Program

#70

Post by InclinedPlane » Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 7:33 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #4

Scoundreller wrote: post #2

Great. /s I published ONE video about how to easily fix a head-scratching computer hardware problem, because there isn't any other guide on it. I get about 1000 views a month, tons of thank yous and make a few dollars. Because I won't get 4000 hours of watch time[1], and nobody will subscribe, I'll get squat. And zero motivation to publish more videos. The next time I figure out a life-trick[2], I won't bother. Who s…

What's the motivation here then? To stop paying money to one-hit wonders and funnel it only to the professional/serious content producers? I don't really understand why that'd be necessary. Youtube makes some strange choices with their monetization. I really wonder why they are so obsessed with finely controlling who can profit from producing good content on their platform. Why not let a) the users and b) the adverti…

The motivation is obvious when you look at it from youtube's perspective. They do not value content creators much, but they lick the boots of advertisers. They want to create a system that is as smooth for advertisers as possible, regardless of the impact on any other aspect of the platform. They want to reduce the risk of bad PR (which causes advertisers to run away). All they care about is the product of eyeball counts and ad impressions yielding dollars, they don't understand at all the goose that lays the golden egg or how easy it is to kill it.