TeamYouTubeVerified account

@TeamYouTube I upload a science video on liquid oxygen. There's zero talking. Text only describes the Chemistry. Only body part shown is a hand. How is this "not suitable for most advertisers"? Do you know what flags such vids? Do you admit there's a problem w/ your algorithm?

@TeamYouTube Even if this is manually reviewed, that takes time. It's silly to think that YouTube doesn't understand that the first few days of a video are when most videos make the majority of their ad revenue. Why isn't this fixed? Why don't you discuss it with us?

@TeamYouTube Instead, the same response is given to these issues that I've received for months: To request a manual review. Why is that still the only solution? It does nothing to solve the problem of videos missing out on the first day or two of revenue.

@TeamYouTube Please don't just reply with "request a manual review". That's not an actual solution. Could you at the *very least* recognize that this is a current problem? Could you apologize for it? Could you mention anything about if it's being worked on?

@TeamYouTube Couldn't YouTubers be able to earn some sort of merit points? Can't we "verify" that the vid is ad friendly? Then, if a viewer flags it as not, only *then* it gets temporarily blocked from having ads, and *then* we can request manual review? If not, why?

@TeamYouTube Why have us verify the video only *after* being published, and *after* the problem has happened? Can't we have some benefit of the doubt, until we demonstrate we don't deserve it?

@TeamYouTube For example, say someone verifies the vid is ad friendly, then it gets flagged, and a manual review requested. Upon manual review, it IS deemed "not suitable". That YouTuber could get a strike. We have such strikes for copyright claims and such. Why not this?