Rich Lund

Hey @TeamYouTube, I want to thank you for a genuine reply that didn't just suggest I request a manual review. That truly is appreciated very much. And what you state makes logical sense. The system needs time and data to learn. *Perfectly* reasonable.

@TeamYouTube Can I point out one more thing to be considered, though: In a roundabout way, you are also stating that your system is still learning, and isn't where it needs to be yet. If it's flagging a science video that has no talking, nothing even close to questionable...

@TeamYouTube ...then it's quite far away from being ready to do the job it's intended to do. I agree, it needs practice to learn. But in the meantime, *while it's learning*, should it be implemented to do a job it's not ready for yet?

@TeamYouTube There's a *simple* solution that all involved would benefit from. We are asked many things when uploading vids. Has it appeared on TV. Should it have an age restriction. Etc. *Why not* also ask us at that time to verify that it's suitable for all advertisers?

@TeamYouTube Creators could have the options of "Yes, suitable for all advertisers" or "Might not be suitable for all advertisers" or "Not suitable for most advertisers". Then, let the video be published...

@TeamYouTube And *if* the creator already verified it as suitable for all ads, *and* it gets flagged as not suitable by the systems, you can automatically have it be in a category of needing to be manually reviewed, without the creator needing to see that and do something.

@TeamYouTube Further, *if* such a video is flagged this way, creators should be given the benefit of the doubt, and ads should remain. After all, this program is still learning, and is *not* at all reliable yet.

@TeamYouTube Upon manual review, *then* the video could be deemed as suitable or not suitable by a human. In this method 1) Revenue is not wrongly missed out on by the creators nor by YouTube. 2) The system still learns just as much. 3) Creators are not devalued/disrespected.