The YouTube Meltdown - Warning

by Harlan
334 replies
Yesterday the first reports surfaced that Google began suspending large numbers of YouTube accounts. These suspensions came without warning. In typical Google fashion, there were not extensive explanations of what happened or what the cause was. Letters from YouTube just indicated violations of terms of service.

Included in the mass suspension (for 6 months) was famed ProBlogger. His account was suspended yesterday and reinstated today after massive protests.

Why Google suspended him is worth paying attention to...

His account - along with many others - was suspended because a video had the words Make Money as primary keywords.

As we know, the words Make Money are a red flag of evil to Google.

In didn't matter what the content was; apparently just the keywords got him suspended.

His other video that got his account suspended was about SEO tricks.

Here's what we know so far:

Google has stated it's desire to clean up YouTube and it looks like it's using the same criteria it's using in AdWords.

The following subjects are evil:

1. Make money
2. Gaming the Google SEO system
3. Exaggerated health claims
4. MLM/Network marketing
5. Stolen content
6. Videos with no content
7. Talking articles that serve just for a link

My main Google spy will be talking to the high mucky mucks inside Google today to find out what's going on but it appears that a YouTube shakeout will be upon us shortly.

Please be advised to be careful you don't fall victim to the latest Google/YouTube housecleaning update.

I'll post back when I learn more.

Peace
#meltdown #warning #youtube
  • Profile picture of the author Tarik93
    woah thanks for the warning...
    they're so heartless
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059480].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author matt5409
      Originally Posted by Tarik93 View Post

      woah thanks for the warning...
      they're so heartless
      no, they're just trying to cut down on the repetitive, inaccurate crap which is so rife on the web these days.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062003].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author liquidice04
      Originally Posted by Tarik93 View Post

      woah thanks for the warning...
      they're so heartless
      Dude, they are not heartless, they are doing this for better user experience, there are just to many people that are trying to game the system and take value instead of give value.

      To many crappy videos out there.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4083874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Langer
    Thanks for the info Halran, this is really something. I thing this is the problem with Google's Terms that allow them to do such things... Is there a way to defend ourselves?
    George
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059557].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    It's about time.

    I'm fed up seeing crap videos that are blatent sales pitches or just for links and using really poor content or PLR articles just to spam Youtube for links.

    I hope they crack down so much that the video spammers go and find something else to do instead.

    Youtube is being integrated into a lot of home-based technologies as part of the race to bring content to home video subscribers so the less trash content - the better as far as I'm concerned.

    It was bound to happen - it was one of those "game it while it lasts" things that a lot of people jumped onto not thinking about when it would get slammed.
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059574].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      It's about time.

      I fed up seeing crap videos that are blatent sales pitches or just for links and using really poor content or PLR articles just to spam Youtube for links.
      Right now, their triggers are set on chop off their heads and ask questions later....
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059600].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        Right now, their triggers are set on chop off their heads and ask questions later....
        Yes - not ideal.

        Hopefully they're realise by the number of complaints that they need a more focused hand in dealing with the accounts they're actually looking to cut rather than using the normal Google approach of create a filter and apply it and then see how many innocent victims get caught and need to be put back in the ocean

        Fortunately for many people they're too small to get caught in the net, and unfortunately too small that Youtube will care enough about them to put them back if they got slapped by mistake.

        I'm sure their intentions will be to aim at the low-value stuff and any genuinely good channels that get slapped with eventually get re-instated.

        It's another example of why people need to remember who controls which aspects of their business and what happens when those elements get affected.

        Probably a good reminder for people that are only just getting into throwing up videos because they heard it will get them traffic.

        I hope it will have the usual effect of getting rid of the people who don't want to spend time creating new/useful content and leave more room for the ones who want to give it proper attention and bring good content to people.

        Andy
        Signature

        nothing to see here.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059626].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Shook
          Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post



          Probably a good reminder for people that are only just getting into throwing up videos because they heard it will get them traffic.
          Andy
          This was really hard to resist.
          Signature


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061240].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Terry Hatfield
            Google is the biggest spammer of all when it comes to youtube.

            I will go to watch a video that is a minute long and get a commercial I have to watch for a half a minute before I can view my video.

            Talk about a really bad user experience. I almost can't even stand to use youtube any more due to all the commercials.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061285].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author onlinemarket01
              Originally Posted by Terry Hatfield View Post

              Google is the biggest spammer of all when it comes to youtube.

              I will go to watch a video that is a minute long and get a commercial I have to watch for a half a minute before I can view my video.

              Talk about a really bad user experience. I almost can't even stand to use youtube any more due to all the commercials.
              I agree with you here.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068883].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Trivum
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        Right now, their triggers are set on chop off their heads and ask questions later....
        Ha! That's very Google, isn't it?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062723].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JamieSEO
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        Right now, their triggers are set on chop off their heads and ask questions later....
        Their trigger is always set to that :p
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067649].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Wizardofwords
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      It's about time.

      I'm fed up seeing crap videos that are blatent sales pitches or just for links and using really poor content or PLR articles just to spam Youtube for links.

      I hope they crack down so much that the video spammers go and find something else to do instead.

      Youtube is being integrated into a lot of home-based technologies as part of the race to bring content to home video subscribers so the less trash content - the better as far as I'm concerned.

      It was bound to happen - it was one of those "game it while it lasts" things that a lot of people jumped onto not thinking about when it would get slammed.

      I'm in complete agreement on this. If there are videos posted on Youtube, Vimeo, Metacafe and elsewhere...any video hosting site...I think content should be king...and spammers of any sort should be called out on it.
      Signature

      Need articles, press releases, sales letters, multi-media, TV, or radio scripts? Click here to see much more about me, read testimonials, etc. Then E-mail me to discuss your needs and my rates!
      http://www.willblesch.com
      http://il.linkedin.com/in/williamblesch

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067775].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mtntgr
      I agree - up to a point.

      See "Tragedy of the Commons", for the Big Picture View.

      Basically, people game the "system".
      e.g.- google, amazon's kindle, etc...
      by spewing out non-stop crapola 24/7, and then surprise, surprise!

      The owner of the resource - the "evil ones" -
      the ones who spent billions building the resource don't want it turned into an open sewer.

      BUT -
      the problem is the owner (as is their habit), are using purely mechanical techniques to do a mass kill-off.
      Take a human subjective judgement approach - NEVER!

      And so it goes...

      But all-in-all, its really for the best - imho.



      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      It's about time.

      I'm fed up seeing crap videos that are blatent sales pitches or just for links and using really poor content or PLR articles just to spam Youtube for links.

      I hope they crack down so much that the video spammers go and find something else to do instead.

      Youtube is being integrated into a lot of home-based technologies as part of the race to bring content to home video subscribers so the less trash content - the better as far as I'm concerned.

      It was bound to happen - it was one of those "game it while it lasts" things that a lot of people jumped onto not thinking about when it would get slammed.
      Signature

      opportunityisnowhere

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077023].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author scrofford
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      It's about time.

      I'm fed up seeing crap videos that are blatent sales pitches or just for links and using really poor content or PLR articles just to spam Youtube for links.

      I hope they crack down so much that the video spammers go and find something else to do instead.

      Youtube is being integrated into a lot of home-based technologies as part of the race to bring content to home video subscribers so the less trash content - the better as far as I'm concerned.

      It was bound to happen - it was one of those "game it while it lasts" things that a lot of people jumped onto not thinking about when it would get slammed.
      The problem with that Andy is it's affecting legitimate marketers in all niche markets also. If they just took down the "crap" that would be great. But instead they are hacking away at videos that aren't scams or crap. I think it's really wrong what they are doing.

      They need to stop and think (like that will ever happen) about what they are doing and set their sights on true garbage. Not just videos with keywords that have "make money" or what not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077091].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      It was bound to happen - it was one of those "game it while it lasts" things that a lot of people jumped onto not thinking about when it would get slammed.

      OR

      Not thinking about what is good for the community, because they are so busy hoping it would be good for their bank account.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4106062].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      It's about time.
      I totally agree. I hate to see worthy free services such as Craigslist, YouTube, eZines, etc being exploited by marketers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4236863].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Henry White
    Increasingly, it seems, Google has this "total world domination" thing going on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059655].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iced$ugar
      Originally Posted by hwhite View Post

      Increasingly, it seems, Google has this "total world domination" thing going on.
      Yup, monopoly it is with no end in sight.
      However, there truly was and is soooo much spammy junk out there. I just wish they could find a middle way
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063210].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author stafford
      Originally Posted by hwhite View Post

      Increasingly, it seems, Google has this "total world domination" thing going on.
      Exactly!

      And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist (on what is probably my first post here--LOL) but I have always (10 years or so) felt like Google sits on the left hand of the devil, while the government sits on the right.

      At this point, I also wonder if I should kill my gmail account. Are they going to be snooping into that next and delete those because we might mention making money? It sounds nutty, but look at everything Google does. If that's not nutty, I don't know what is.

      I've heard others mention using Facebook more. I personally don't have any luck with FB and I trust them about as far as I trust Google.

      Sounds like we all just need to build a better mousetrap.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075465].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Ausin
    I still see the same videos I saw a week ago on the page one for phrase "make money online" which is sort of the next evil thing right after "make money from home". So I don't think it is the keyword phrase alone that gets you suspended.

    What I think (meaning I have no way of knowing and this is just a speculation) is that they only want to go after crap videos which noone watches, even if it is make money online or something else evil.

    I imagine they know very well that if they remove videos that get top views, people will find a way to watch them on some other site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059668].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by Matt Ausin View Post

      I still see the same videos I saw a week ago on the page one for phrase "make money online" which is sort of the next evil thing right after "make money from home". So I don't think it is the keyword phrase alone that gets you suspended.

      What I think (meaning I have no way of knowing and this is just a speculation) is that they only want to go after crap videos which noone watches, even if it is make money online or something else evil.

      I imagine they know very well that if they remove videos that get top views, people will find a way to watch them on some other site.
      It's just rolling out now.

      It will take some months to get into full swing.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059794].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author omk
    It's too bad that G. is somehow getting legitimate accounts in this purging, but I'm glad they're cleaning YT up. It was starting to get a little crazy in there. Plus that makes room for the rest of us who don't abuse the system.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059715].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author vvsingh
    I have even heard that G that it is experimenting on a software which will recognize sounds of a se**al scene and remove it.
    Signature

    SEO Corporation packages customized just for small businesses. For Best SEO Services visit us at WTC Noida Price Panchsheel Pratishtha Dasnac Jewel of Noida

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059806].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by vvsingh View Post

      I have even heard that G that it is experimenting on a software which will recognize sounds of a se**al scene and remove it.
      My spies tell me they have perfected software to listen and analyze videos.

      More when it's available....
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059850].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        My spies tell me they have perfected software to listen and analyze videos.
        I'd be surprised if they hadn't, by this point. They've got massive experience and data from the voice-to-text stuff they've been doing. All they'd need to do is convert the conversations in the videos to text and analyze that. Non-trivial amounts of processing time would be required if they take that approach, but they have the technology in hand already.

        They're going to have the same logistical problems that plague any such effort in the beginning. Tweaking their filters to achieve a reasonable balance. Never an easy task, and it will be made harder by the active efforts of the intended targets to work around the system.

        Gonna get interesting, no matter how they go at the issue.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060155].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DamenRabat
          Wel, there will go all those "dominate youtube with the push of a button" WSOs as of late down the drain.....

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060191].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
            I'm just sitting back and waiting for the day when things go back to the way
            they were before all the tricks started.

            1. Put up a site that has relevant, good, useful, correct and interesting content.

            2. Submit manually to SERPs for approval to be listed.

            3. Get a backlink because somebody actually saw your site and liked it so
            much that they put a link to it on their own site.

            Yeah, we can all dream can't we?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060339].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author dbarnum
              Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

              I'm just sitting back and waiting for the day when things go back to the way
              they were before all the tricks started.

              1. Put up a site that has relevant, good, useful, correct and interesting content.

              2. Submit manually to SERPs for approval to be listed.

              3. Get a backlink because somebody actually saw your site and liked it so
              much that they put a link to it on their own site.

              Yeah, we can all dream can't we?

              You started me down memory lane, Steve....to the days where you could build it and they would come. No PPC, no massive link building campaigns, etc. - >> NADA.

              Those were the days, you are right, my amigo ...sigh...
              Signature
              Get customized help:100+ Ways / Support / Warrior4Hire Specials!



              Save & Share: Best Buys / Top Tasks / blog / MAP / Recurring $
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060699].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                Hi,

                If they're 'cleaning up' youtube, does that include the twenty zillion comments written by people with serious hate issues?

                If I want to see an example of the evolutionary process in reverse at a frightening pace, I just go and peruse the youtube comments for two minutes.

                It doesn't matter how many videos they erase, if they don't do something about the mainly unmoderated commenting youtube will never be 'clean' - and I'm no prude.
                Signature


                Roger Davis

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060816].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
                  Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                  Hi,

                  If they're 'cleaning up' youtube, does that include the twenty zillion comments written by people with serious hate issues?

                  If I want to see an example of the evolutionary process in reverse at a frightening pace, I just go and peruse the youtube comments for two minutes.

                  It doesn't matter how many videos they erase, if they don't do something about the mainly unmoderated commenting youtube will never be 'clean' - and I'm no prude.
                  Agree.

                  Add thousands of videos with titles appropriated for kids, but containing sexual images or strong language. Then add all the racial hate videos. Then add fight / gore videos.

                  But Youtube seem to be ok with that...
                  Signature
                  People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061150].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                    Hi Fernando,

                    Here's an example - I've just been reading some news about a football manager. Apparently the English manager who was working in Holland, did a TV interview where someone noticed that he had spoken in English but with a strong hint of a Dutch accent, which sounded odd.

                    So, being curious, I went for a look at this interview on youtube. Can you believe, the people commenting on this football manager's interview accent ended up having an argument, involving the usual language, about (get this) - whether the English and Dutch were responsible for importing slavery into America! LOL.



                    If you're interested, search youtube for 'Steve McLaren - dutch accent', the row is just below the video on the latest set of comments.
                    Signature


                    Roger Davis

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061192].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
                      Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                      Hi Fernando,

                      Here's an example - I've just been reading some news about a football manager. Apparently the English manager who was working in Holland, did a TV interview where someone noticed that he had spoken in English but with a strong hint of a Dutch accent, which sounded odd.

                      So, being curious, I went for a look at this interview on youtube. Can you believe, the people commenting on this football manager's interview accent ended up having an argument, involving the usual language, about (get this) - whether the English and Dutch were responsible for importing slavery into America! LOL.



                      If you're interested, search youtube for 'Steve McLaren - dutch accent', the row is just below the video on the latest set of comments.
                      Roger,

                      Football, internet and the chance to type something anonymously never ends up well.



                      But I was thinking about the idea of moderating the comments in that joint - it's just impossible, isn't it? How many thousand employees will be needed for that? It's just unreal.

                      And the flag system has major flaws at the moment. Lot's if folks are targeting competitors using it.

                      All in all Youtube is great, but it's also a great mess.
                      Signature
                      People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061294].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                        Hi Fernando,

                        Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

                        Football, internet and the chance to type something anonymously never ends up well.
                        Ain't that the truth!

                        Sometimes, when I'm reading a football match report or sports news story on Yahoo, I'll scroll down too far and catch some of the user comments.

                        It's like entering a hate dimension.


                        Frank
                        Signature
                        TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061391].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                        Roger,
                        they have a social responsibility
                        Wait. They're giving something for free, and they have a responsibility to do it the way the recipients demand?

                        Let me tell you a story. It's true, and has happened more than once, with very minor differences in the details.

                        I started a little newsletter back in 1996. It's been free ever since. I get a lot of feedback, some of it critical and some complimentary. Occasionally, someone will become a particular kind of rude I don't accept from people getting something from me at no charge. It's very uncommon, but it happens. I unsubscribe those people, or, as I like to call it, "give them the complementary upgrade to the psychic edition."

                        I've had several of them go off on extended rants, telling me in colorful terms how I had no right to remove them from my list of subscribers.

                        Screw them. My customers don't get to talk to me in the way that earns someone the unsolicited unsubscribe. (It takes quite a lot, most days.)

                        Google is providing a service with YouTube, and paying a lot of money in the process, that lets people have their own publishing platform. It was never intended to be a free ad site. If people chose to use it that way for as long as they could get the free ride, that doesn't impose any obligation on Google to keep carrying the freight for those folks.

                        Additionally, Da Goog hasn't got a real monopoly in the field. There are other free video hosting services. If you start to penalize companies for being the market's freely chosen preference, as YouTube clearly is, things start to get real scary, real fast.

                        I am no fan of Google, but I can't agree that they have any obligation to marketers simply because marketers chose to use (and often abuse) their free offerings.

                        Brian's comments about their public "explanations," on the other hand, I agree with completely. If the public notice said, "We didn't like the guy's face," I'd defend their right to that. But claiming the sorts of things they are at the moment is just begging for a lawsuit.


                        Paul
                        Signature
                        .
                        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061538].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
                          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                          ..... I unsubscribe those people, or, as I like to call it, "give them the complementary upgrade to the psychic edition."

                          Paul
                          That's the best laugh I've had all day
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063062].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author mytoy78
                  Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                  Hi,

                  If they're 'cleaning up' youtube, does that include the twenty zillion comments written by people with serious hate issues?

                  If I want to see an example of the evolutionary process in reverse at a frightening pace, I just go and peruse the youtube comments for two minutes.

                  It doesn't matter how many videos they erase, if they don't do something about the mainly unmoderated commenting youtube will never be 'clean' - and I'm no prude.

                  I couldn't agree more...it's an extremely hostile place on the Youtube Frontier...some marshalling would go down well
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089550].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author dcristo
              Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

              I'm just sitting back and waiting for the day when things go back to the way
              they were before all the tricks started.

              1. Put up a site that has relevant, good, useful, correct and interesting content.

              2. Submit manually to SERPs for approval to be listed.

              3. Get a backlink because somebody actually saw your site and liked it so
              much that they put a link to it on their own site.

              Yeah, we can all dream can't we?
              Showing your age old timer. It hasn't been necessary to manually submit to search engines in a LONG time.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4236802].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          I'd be surprised if they hadn't, by this point. They've got massive experience and data from the voice-to-text stuff they've been doing. All they'd need to do is convert the conversations in the videos to text and analyze that. Non-trivial amounts of processing time would be required if they take that approach, but they have the technology in hand already.

          They're going to have the same logistical problems that plague any such effort in the beginning. Tweaking their filters to achieve a reasonable balance. Never an easy task, and it will be made harder by the active efforts of the intended targets to work around the system.

          Gonna get interesting, no matter how they go at the issue.


          Paul
          I would assume that they are doing the same as Echelon. The system is set to pick up a range of keywords. If the keyword is in there the system flags the video and it is then reviewed by humans.

          It's the only method that even starts to make sense to me even though in the beginning it will take a lot of man hours to initiate but once the inventory of crap is removed it won't be so bad. As people get the hang of what will get pulled and what won't they will stop posting risky videos and it will become a fairly manageable system. It will take time to refine it and a lot of things might get pulled at first that would not have gotten pulled after the refinement processes. I'm sure they already have a good size list of flagged accounts and that if a video comes through for that account that gets flagged,they will just delete it instead of putting man-hours into monitoring...at least at first.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061435].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ExRat
            Hi Frank,

            Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso
            Football, internet and the chance to type something anonymously never ends up well.
            Ain't that the truth!
            The hell it is! Don't you know anything you &^%$£!!!! rant rave blah hate....


            Signature


            Roger Davis

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061457].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author rts2271
              Google is irrelevant. The IM industry just hasn't detached itself from its coattails. What we are seeing is Google trying to clean up there mess and become relevant again.

              Google itself realizes its in decline. Its engineers are complaining about the antiquated infrastructure, Caffeine and its resource requirements coupled with instasearch have pushed the aging hardware well past its performance threshold. Adwords is effective for megacorps only and is rife with click fraud that makes it impossible for small business venues in even sparsely populated niches.

              Google takes it a step further and is now competing with affiliates directly for affiliate sales. Sure makes you understand the bias there. Google is surviving from Adwords and Android and Oracle could very well take a chunk of the Android market away from it with it's patent suits for the JVM in Android.

              Google has become a megacorp sucking the government teat for corporate welfare. Even the board knows this and has been tabling breaking the company up to try to get back what they've lost. They are no longer agile, have terrible support, and have become the very thing they swore they wouldn't back in 98.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061601].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Harlan
                I think most folks have got it right.

                YouTube cleaning house is to all our benefit.

                Therefore, it will be easier and more profitable to those who play buy the rules.

                Google isn't against affiliates per se.

                They are against garbage videos with no purpose but spamming links.

                30 second affiliate videos have no purpose other than spam.

                Peace.
                Signature

                Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
                Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
                http://overnight-copy.com
                Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
                Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062116].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author tstorms
                Originally Posted by rts2271 View Post

                Google is irrelevant. The IM industry just hasn't detached itself from its coattails. What we are seeing is Google trying to clean up there mess and become relevant again.

                Google itself realizes its in decline. Its engineers are complaining about the antiquated infrastructure, Caffeine and its resource requirements coupled with instasearch have pushed the aging hardware well past its performance threshold. Adwords is effective for megacorps only and is rife with click fraud that makes it impossible for small business venues in even sparsely populated niches.

                Google takes it a step further and is now competing with affiliates directly for affiliate sales. Sure makes you understand the bias there. Google is surviving from Adwords and Android and Oracle could very well take a chunk of the Android market away from it with it's patent suits for the JVM in Android.

                Google has become a megacorp sucking the government teat for corporate welfare. Even the board knows this and has been tabling breaking the company up to try to get back what they've lost. They are no longer agile, have terrible support, and have become the very thing they swore they wouldn't back in 98.
                The most accurate assessment I've heard so far, and absolutely right. Well done.
                Signature

                -Tom Storms

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078933].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author David Spyres
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          I'd be surprised if they hadn't, by this point. They've got massive experience and data from the voice-to-text stuff they've been doing. All they'd need to do is convert the conversations in the videos to text and analyze that. Non-trivial amounts of processing time would be required if they take that approach, but they have the technology in hand already.

          Paul
          Paul ...

          I have to laugh...I mentioned this to a few others and well...anyway:

          Why do you think Google gave away so many google phone numbers (google voice)?

          VOIP going through their systems...possibly capturing/learning voice patterns, speech recognition ... call me a conspiracy theorist but really, is it THAT far out of the realm of possibilities?

          Hmmmm...

          ;-)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063689].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author azmanar
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          I'd be surprised if they hadn't, by this point. They've got massive experience and data from the voice-to-text stuff they've been doing. All they'd need to do is convert the conversations in the videos to text and analyze that. Non-trivial amounts of processing time would be required if they take that approach, but they have the technology in hand already.

          Paul
          Hi Paul,

          I'm from the TV broadcast industry previously.

          As early as 1997, there have been news archiving systems offered to
          analyze video-audio directly based on context and keyword phrases.
          Raises flags for selected phrases. You get to view & edit them Non-linear.

          When I checked 2 years ago, there are more software, more accurate,
          very sophisticated, speedy and having small footprints.

          It's cheaper now and would cost G only a tiny spit.
          Signature
          === >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069861].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Charles Harper
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        My spies tell me they have perfected software to listen and analyze videos.

        More when it's available....
        This is already in effect.

        I have noted months go that there were several cases where text was not typed into the description; yet the video found its way close to other "related" videos. The only way that the vids could have been related was if Google was "listening". Additionally, in the captions and transcript section, you can get a machine transcription of the video. Mind you, it is not too good, but if the bot can automatically produce a transcript for you, that means that it can listen to your video and tell what the content is.

        Google Rolls Out Automated Closed Captions For YouTube Videos

        Note from the comments that this article was published at least one year ago.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063133].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        My spies tell me they have perfected software to listen and analyze videos.

        More when it's available....
        Spies, lol.

        You don't need a spy to see that Youtube can sample audio & detect. A video with a copyright song will have the audio removed, or a link at the lower right of the video player to buy the same exact song on itunes. They can still detect even If the name of the video title isn't the song title.
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064909].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          In the broader sense it will be interesting to see if this move is tied to future bandwidth allocations due to 'net nuetrality' and other schemes.

          As more and more carriers, the people that handle the bandwidth, try to institute fess for bandwith usage, there may be deals going on in the corporate backrooms to squeeze video content providers for a share of the burden.

          In other words, a form of cap and trade over bandwidth.

          If that sounds far fetched consider the altogether irrational moves that have been made in other industries in the name of profit. A bandwidth bubble would be a natural extention of the craziness.

          And looking forward to such a scenario happening down the road, and unbeknownst to the public of course, why wouldn't a company like YouTube take a proactive stance. Pro active meaning to clean the pipes of generally unwanted or useless bandwidth noise.

          It's fun to pretend the world revolves around marketers wants and needs. But if the reality is YT is better served by videos like the Numa Numa video, with 42,308,792 views as I type this, who are you with your 1680 views to your affiliate offer to say otherwise. You're a hot shot? By whose definition?

          And then there is the cost of server space to hold all that video. Billions of videos that rarely get any airtime to speak of. Videos that are only on the servers to avoid the cost of hosting to the owner. You think YT owes you free hosting? You think it was marketers who put YT on the map? Well, ask the Numa Numa guy, see what he thinks.

          It's one thing to pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes, it's quite another to drop the myopic view and try to see a broader picture.

          Things are changing at the uber corporate level, and nobody on the outside will be privey until the deals are made. That kind of stuff is generally not broadcast until the players have secured there desired outcomes. What? They didn't tell you about the trillion dollars bank bailouts until the deal was done? Got left out of the loop did you, Sparky?

          It happens.

          Now, am I saying any of this has to do with the coming bandwidth wars? I don't know, I'm not in the loop. Apparently it looks like I'm in a room full of folks with hammers and everything around us looks like nails.

          ~Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4065029].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MarkPavic
            A lot of chatter is going on in the IM world about You Tube suspending channels. Some top level marketers have had their accounts shut down. Imagine years of videos no longer there. Plus the use of videos for SEO purposes go down as well. Some are now trying to figure out what video source to use now. This is just the start. Paypal has also been on a spree of shutting down a lot of accounts. Anyone in the biz opp or mlm are getting their accounts axed. It just means as marketers we always have to adapt and never let these obstacles take over us.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4065365].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Lisa RRB
            Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

            In the broader sense it will be interesting to see if this move is tied to future bandwidth allocations due to 'net nuetrality' and other schemes.

            As more and more carriers, the people that handle the bandwidth, try to institute fess for bandwith usage, there may be deals going on in the corporate backrooms to squeeze video content providers for a share of the burden.

            In other words, a form of cap and trade over bandwidth.

            If that sounds far fetched consider the altogether irrational moves that have been made in other industries in the name of profit. A bandwidth bubble would be a natural extention of the craziness.

            And looking forward to such a scenario happening down the road, and unbeknownst to the public of course, why wouldn't a company like YouTube take a proactive stance. Pro active meaning to clean the pipes of generally unwanted or useless bandwidth noise.

            It's fun to pretend the world revolves around marketers wants and needs. But if the reality is YT is better served by videos like the Numa Numa video, with 42,308,792 views as I type this, who are you with your 1680 views to your affiliate offer to say otherwise. You're a hot shot? By whose definition?

            And then there is the cost of server space to hold all that video. Billions of videos that rarely get any airtime to speak of. Videos that are only on the servers to avoid the cost of hosting to the owner. You think YT owes you free hosting? You think it was marketers who put YT on the map? Well, ask the Numa Numa guy, see what he thinks.

            It's one thing to pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes, it's quite another to drop the myopic view and try to see a broader picture.

            Things are changing at the uber corporate level, and nobody on the outside will be privey until the deals are made. That kind of stuff is generally not broadcast until the players have secured there desired outcomes. What? They didn't tell you about the trillion dollars bank bailouts until the deal was done? Got left out of the loop did you, Sparky?

            It happens.

            Now, am I saying any of this has to do with the coming bandwidth wars? I don't know, I'm not in the loop. Apparently it looks like I'm in a room full of folks with hammers and everything around us looks like nails.

            ~Bill
            I think you hit the nail on the head here Bill. Without Net Neutrality companies who run websites like YouTube will be hit with higher rates. Sure they may be able to negotiate some kind of price... however they can still be ruined by certain providers if they don't pay the bill. What's an easier way to get a lower monthly cost then just deleting the videos? I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube becomes like 4chan in a few years. Where videos are only temporary and then deleted after a set amount of time.

            If you research net neutrality you'll realize that Google used to be on the pro net neutrality side back in the early 2000's. They have swapped sides with their release of Android on Verizon. They try to cling to the idea stating that "mobile internet" is "different." It's all a bunch of crap. In a few years there will be no such thing as "unlimited bandwidth."

            Net Neutrality has been a dead bill in the House for ages now... most people don't seem to understand the purpose of it. It's to protect the small guy. Companies like Google can easily negotiate the price... but the average guy will just have to either pay the bill or not.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069895].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dean Jackson
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          Spies, lol.

          You don't need a spy to see that Youtube can sample audio & detect. A video with a copyright song will have the audio removed, or a link at the lower right of the video player to buy the same exact song on itunes. They can still detect even If the name of the video title isn't the song title.
          If you speed/slow the song down a fraction of a % you can bypass it

          Not sure if they patched that up though.
          I am certain that voice interpretation has arrived... but I doubt we'll be hearing about it on the main stream any time soon.

          Dean
          Signature
          NEW: CRAZIEST Copywriting offer ever offered on WF
          My top student WILL make your sales go BANANAS!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4066016].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rkcc4
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        My spies tell me they have perfected software to listen and analyze videos.

        More when it's available....
        What crap, they must be laughing that you believe such tripe.

        I saw the blog post (not affil link)

        http://www.davidjenyns.com/youtube-update

        and was glad to see he got it back but he still has two stikes (3 and you are banned).

        YouTube is a community driven site, there are plenty of people ready to knock other which results in a review. This is where Google has got it wrong because negative feedback is not a good way rate things compared to say Facebook "like". People can hate for all kinds of reasons but usually say positive things for more genuine reasons.

        You tube needs to concentrate on the nasty videos before it hassles genuine merketers like David.

        I would not worry too much anyway, it is easy to create new videos in different accounts and build a structure that will keep you one step ahead.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077405].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Harlan
          Posting for the first time from my iPad

          The information I posted came from way inside Google.

          I trust my source.



          Originally Posted by rkcc4 View Post

          What crap, they must be laughing that you believe such tripe.

          I saw the blog post (not affil link)

          http://www.davidjenyns.com/youtube-update

          and was glad to see he got it back but he still has two stikes (3 and you are banned).

          YouTube is a community driven site, there are plenty of people ready to knock other which results in a review. This is where Google has got it wrong because negative feedback is not a good way rate things compared to say Facebook "like". People can hate for all kinds of reasons but usually say positive things for more genuine reasons.

          You tube needs to concentrate on the nasty videos before it hassles genuine merketers like David.

          I would not worry too much anyway, it is easy to create new videos in different accounts and build a structure that will keep you one step ahead.
          Signature

          Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
          Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
          http://overnight-copy.com
          Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
          Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077419].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rkcc4
            Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

            Posting for the first time from my iPad

            The information I posted came from way inside Google.

            I trust my source.

            ooh "my source" they much be laughing so much they wet themselves.

            Must be matt cutts
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077430].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburgess11
      Originally Posted by vvsingh View Post

      I have even heard that G that it is experimenting on a software which will recognize sounds of a se**al scene and remove it.
      It is my understanding that they already have such a thing and I've been advised to submit videos with computer generated voice as the software they use can understand the words easier.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4112986].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Thanks for the warning, but to be honest just deleted ALL the videos from my Youtube personal account a couple months ago.

    I have another account, but if they want to give it a go, be my guest. Google is pushing a lot of folks into less then advised techniques... so in the end, it's their loss.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059826].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Miranda
    Good to know. thanks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4059848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    Didnt see this, thanks for the heads up.

    look out scammers or IM marketers lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060188].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    If I were running a server intensive video service I would not allow any promotional videos either. Let them pay for their own advertising instead of making the video service pay for their ads.

    The average Joe Blow doesn't find Make Money Online videos all that amusing. Just another ad.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060489].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
      You have a good point, but I'd like to also point out that Google Places for business owners which Google offers for free to local business owners actually encourages listing owners to link to Youtube videos in their Google Places listing. In fact the only option for business owners to upload videos to their Places listing is from Youtube and no other Video sharing site.

      Obviously seeing that Google Places is for businesses the videos would be self promotional in nature as well. What Dentist is going to put a video of his dog eating the mail on his YouTube account and then link to it in his Google Places Listing?

      PS: Well I'm an idiot as I need to get glasses! I misread YT TOS in regards to commercial usage. LOL





      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      If I were running a server intensive video service I would not allow any promotional videos either. Let them pay for their own advertising instead of making the video service pay for their ads.

      The average Joe Blow doesn't find Make Money Online videos all that amusing. Just another ad.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124306].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060495].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The following subjects are evil:

      1. Make money
      2. Gaming the Google SEO system
      3. Exaggerated health claims
      4. MLM/Network marketing
      5. Stolen content
      6. Videos with no content
      7. Talking articles that serve just for a link
      I think that's a good list to start with. Maybe chopping off heads is the way to get it started - it gets attention and gets talked about. It puts the word out. Some smart marketers will take down their promo videos before they get smacked.

      Yes, take down videos that may offend the great Google/YouTube gods
      I know it's the in thing to bash google - but I have no problem with a site owner setting the limits of how a site can be used. There will be mistakes and fussing and it may be a long process. The alternative is to pick off those bad clips you find (and miss a lot of crap) or to allow "anything goes" and risk the site itself taking a downward dive.

      kay
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060603].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
    Blows my mind that "make money online" is so evil - especially in a damn economy where people can't find work OUTSIDE the home and yet they still have to pay bills. Are we supposed to find a freaking magic money tree or a guy we can trade a cow for some magic beans?

    I'm glad Google's making bank and doesn't have to worry about such trivial things like where the money will come from for their bills.

    God forbid someone use a keyword like "make money online" to promote a video that truly helps someone with a tip on getting some money coming in. Yet they glorify videos that show teenage girls beating the **** out of each other.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060599].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by TiffanyDow View Post

      Blows my mind that "make money online" is so evil - especially in a damn economy where people can't find work OUTSIDE the home and yet they still have to pay bills. Are we supposed to find a freaking magic money tree or a guy we can trade a cow for some magic beans?

      I'm glad Google's making bank and doesn't have to worry about such trivial things like where the money will come from for their bills.

      God forbid someone use a keyword like "make money online" to promote a video that truly helps someone with a tip on getting some money coming in. Yet they glorify videos that show teenage girls beating the **** out of each other.
      Well, the problem is that there are far too many scams associated with the MMO business. You run an honest business, I do and a lot of people do, but there are many who don't.

      Let's say that everyone in the MMO business was honest. Why should Google pay for them advertising their businesses? That's what a youtube MMO video is .. an ad, with Google footing the bill for the servers and bandwidth.

      Lets say that make money one, which is #1, actually provided people with some valuable content and they kept it, why wouldn't they sh*t can numbers 2-7? If I were YouTube, I would not be footing the bill for people to advertise their businesses, whether they were a scam or not.

      Marketers have such a sense of entitlement. Someone launches a free site/service and marketers think it is their right to use it in any way that they want to use it to market their services, even if that is explicitly against the site's TOS.

      The following subjects are evil:

      1. Make money
      2. Gaming the Google SEO system
      3. Exaggerated health claims
      4. MLM/Network marketing
      5. Stolen content
      6. Videos with no content
      7. Talking articles that serve just for a link
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4060685].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Linda_C
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Marketers have such a sense of entitlement. Someone launches a free site/service and marketers think it is their right to use it in any way that they want to use it to market their services, even if that is explicitly against the site's TOS.
        Spot on. When my daughter lived at home, I used to tell her "my house, my rules." Same concept. If someone else is paying for the servers and bandwidth, they get to decide how they're used. Not sure why that's a hard concept for people.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061228].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Linda_C,

          Spot on. When my daughter lived at home, I used to tell her "my house, my rules." Same concept. If someone else is paying for the servers and bandwidth, they get to decide how they're used. Not sure why that's a hard concept for people.
          I totally understand yours and Suzanne's point. I see the logic in what you are saying and agree with it, except for one issue -

          Literally millions of peoples livelihoods, to a large degree, live and die depending on the decisions that Google makes. Google offers a load of free services along with a load of paid services that provide similar outcomes - EG - paid search vs organic search.

          Based on this they have a social responsibility and by acting in the way that they do - (banning people instantly for life with no recourse or explanation) - they are playing 'God' with peoples livelihoods. This doesn't apply quite as much to youtube, but it certainly does with organic search and PPC.

          Add to this all of the panda updates and such which drive people to instead have to pay Google for traffic in an unregulated auction, while Google continually adjusts it's own services which appear at the top of the SERPS, which are clearly the result of Google seeing what people are doing to make money and monopolising these businesses too (EG Google product search.)

          No one should be allowed to get into this position, but they have. The problem is clear - they have been allowed to monopolise whole industries which has put them in a position where they can play 'God' and where they can create rules which in practice, only apply in a draconian way to the little people, whereas huge corporations clearly have a different set of rules (see the SEObook blog for clear examples).

          So the answer is simple - their monopoly must be dismantled as they have been given a chance and have been proven to have abused that position.

          I'm not saying Google shouldn't be allowed to do whatever it wants (within the law) with it's own SERPs, but it should not be allowed to monopolise everything going on the internet.
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061269].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author scrofford
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Well, the problem is that there are far too many scams associated with the MMO business. You run an honest business, I do and a lot of people do, but there are many who don't.

        Let's say that everyone in the MMO business was honest. Why should Google pay for them advertising their businesses? That's what a youtube MMO video is .. an ad, with Google footing the bill for the servers and bandwidth.

        Lets say that make money one, which is #1, actually provided people with some valuable content and they kept it, why wouldn't they sh*t can numbers 2-7? If I were YouTube, I would not be footing the bill for people to advertise their businesses, whether they were a scam or not.

        Marketers have such a sense of entitlement. Someone launches a free site/service and marketers think it is their right to use it in any way that they want to use it to market their services, even if that is explicitly against the site's TOS.
        Well then Youtube SHOULDN'T allow FREE video uploads. That would solve that problem. Right now they do, and I don't think it's right for them to just rip out videos that aren't scamming people or crap. If they want to change and make it paid then nobody could complain. But Youtube started out free and has continued to be so.

        It would take massive time to go through each video and decide what is crap to them and what's not, but if they are going to do what they are doing now, maybe that's what they need to do and then start charging once it's all cleaned up. Just my opinion.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077151].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by scrofford View Post

          Well then Youtube SHOULDN'T allow FREE video uploads. That would solve that problem. Right now they do, and I don't think it's right for them to just rip out videos that aren't scamming people or crap.
          Well, I allow visitors to come to my house, but if they start pissing on the furniture they're gonna get booted. My house, my rules.

          And everyone is acting so like ... oh, these are such valuable pieces of video that anyone should beg me to host my ads for free. Yeah, right.

          The majority of marketers who swarm the free sites like a cloud of locusts do very little to add to the value for regular users who are looking for amusing videos rather than advertising videos. And who cares what the imbecile users seem to love so much ... fight videos and accident videos, etc. Pretty much crap, but they like them and find them amusing. I don't fault people for liking porn either, although it's not my taste in entertainment.

          Craigslist, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, HubPages, Squidoo, Article Directories .... you name it ... all the free sites have to take drastic measures to keep the marketers from degrading their websites to the point where they would be nothing but adservers.

          I had to delete every follower from my Twitter acct and start all over just so I could actually enjoy Twitter the way it was designed to be enjoyed.

          I deleted my first Facebook acct and made my second one private with only a few friends and family members to get rid of the crap people posted on my wall.

          Marketers think these ads are valuable ... and they are ... to them. Puts money in their pockets at the hosting websites expense.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077502].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author scrofford
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Well, I allow visitors to come to my house, but if they start pissing on the furniture they're gonna get booted. My house, my rules.

            And everyone is acting so like ... oh, these are such valuable pieces of video that anyone should beg me to host my ads for free. Yeah, right.

            The majority of marketers who swarm the free sites like a cloud of locusts do very little to add to the value for regular users who are looking for amusing videos rather than advertising videos. And who cares what the imbecile users seem to love so much ... fight videos and accident videos, etc. Pretty much crap, but they like them and find them amusing. I don't fault people for liking porn either, although it's not my taste in entertainment.

            Craigslist, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, HubPages, Squidoo, Article Directories .... you name it ... all the free sites have to take drastic measures to keep the marketers from degrading their websites to the point where they would be nothing but adservers.

            I had to delete every follower from my Twitter acct and start all over just so I could actually enjoy Twitter the way it was designed to be enjoyed.

            I deleted my first Facebook acct and made my second one private with only a few friends and family members to get rid of the crap people posted on my wall.

            Marketers think these ads are valuable ... and they are ... to them. Puts money in their pockets at the hosting websites expense.
            Yeah but now they aren't even allowing marketers to "come to their house." Forget about pissing on the furniture! And they aren't even following their own rules. They allow racist, sexual and all sorts of other crap on their, but if something says "make money online" it's ousted? That's not good.

            I think it's good they want to clean up the videos, don't get me wrong. I just think the way they are going about it is crap and they really need to take a look at who and what they are deleting. If they didn't want all this stuff coming into their house in the first place, they shouldn't have left the doors open for so long. Then nobody would be pissing on their furniture. They should have charged from the get go.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077835].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by scrofford View Post

              Yeah but now they aren't even allowing marketers to "come to their house." Forget about pissing on the furniture! And they aren't even following their own rules. They allow racist, sexual and all sorts of other crap on their, but if something says "make money online" it's ousted? That's not good.

              I think it's good they want to clean up the videos, don't get me wrong. I just think the way they are going about it is crap and they really need to take a look at who and what they are deleting. If they didn't want all this stuff coming into their house in the first place, they shouldn't have left the doors open for so long. Then nobody would be pissing on their furniture. They should have charged from the get go.
              Don't get me wrong. I have no particular love for Google but I do stand by my belief that those who own the site can run it as they see fit and make or change rules as they deem necessary to preserve their vision of their site.

              I feel bad that Tiff's videos are gone. I do believe that people are building their houses on sand when building on "free" sites that they don't own.

              Amazon S3 can hosts all your videos for dirt cheap. You won't get the Youtube traffic, but Youtube wasn't designed to cater to marketers and doesn't owe them anything really. Same with Squidoo, EZA, HubPages, Facebook, Myspace, Craigslist ... all free services that were not designed to host YOUR ads.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077913].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Well, the problem is that there are far too many scams associated with the MMO business. You run an honest business, I do and a lot of people do, but there are many who don't.

        Let's say that everyone in the MMO business was honest. Why should Google pay for them advertising their businesses? That's what a youtube MMO video is .. an ad, with Google footing the bill for the servers and bandwidth.

        Lets say that make money one, which is #1, actually provided people with some valuable content and they kept it, why wouldn't they sh*t can numbers 2-7? If I were YouTube, I would not be footing the bill for people to advertise their businesses, whether they were a scam or not.

        Marketers have such a sense of entitlement. Someone launches a free site/service and marketers think it is their right to use it in any way that they want to use it to market their services, even if that is explicitly against the site's TOS.
        I agree with much of what you're saying, but don't think for a second that Google is doing this because of server costs. What they did with Adwords should be proof of that. They did the same sweeping cleanup and banned accounts paying literally hundreds of thousands per month in ad costs, so it really is NOT about a "sense of entitlement" for many marketers. It's simply an avenue for link building, etc.

        What I think has people up in arms is because Google will do exactly what it did with Adwords accounts - suspend with no possibility of recourse and no accounts ever again. Even if you are NOT a scammer.

        When they suspended my Adwords account a couple of years back, I was at a loss as to why. We were running ads for my products. All they said were "violation of terms...blah blah".

        It took about 14 emails back and forth to finally get what the issue was.

        My partner was making training videos and grabbed an "affiliate" product to use in the video. A product about making money on line. And a product which, at the time was NOT an issue with Google.

        The ad ran literally 2 days. Got 100 or so impressions and no hits. We took it down after the video was done.

        SEVEN MONTHS LATER they decided the product was a scam product and deleted accounts of anyone and everyone who ever ran an ad for it.

        We explained about the training video and even sent them a link to it. Tough. Bye bye, have a nice day.

        So, what I see happening is, even if you delete all of your videos today and 6 months from now they decide to ban all accounts who ran a video on that subject, they'll ban you anyway because you ran the video on your account.

        Bottom line, it's easier and cheaper for Google to do sweeping deletions than it is to simply remove offending videos, weed out the scammer from someone who simply needs a little education. Hey, I get it - that's not their job. But they - with their vast wealth - could at least have some sort of appeal process or something.

        And Brian - sue Google? LOL, sure. I am sure many of the little guys who get banned will have the resources to take them on. Nice thought though...

        And here's is what I find the most ironic...

        After they banned my Adwords account, I get at least once a month a post card in the mail, and/or an email from Google enticing me to open an Adwords account. They even send it along with a $50 coupon.

        They banned me - so what I call that is spam. And quite possibly a scam.

        But what do I know...
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4090793].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          I agree with much of what you're saying, but don't think for a second that Google is doing this because of server costs. What they did with Adwords should be proof of that. They did the same sweeping cleanup and banned accounts paying literally hundreds of thousands per month in ad costs, so it really is NOT about a "sense of entitlement" for many marketers. It's simply an avenue for link building, etc.

          What I think has people up in arms is because Google will do exactly what it did with Adwords accounts - suspend with no possibility of recourse and no accounts ever again. Even if you are NOT a scammer.

          When they suspended my Adwords account a couple of years back, I was at a loss as to why. We were running ads for my products. All they said were "violation of terms...blah blah".

          It took about 14 emails back and forth to finally get what the issue was.

          My partner was making training videos and grabbed an "affiliate" product to use in the video. A product about making money on line. And a product which, at the time was NOT an issue with Google.

          The ad ran literally 2 days. Got 100 or so impressions and no hits. We took it down after the video was done.

          SEVEN MONTHS LATER they decided the product was a scam product and deleted accounts of anyone and everyone who ever ran an ad for it.

          We explained about the training video and even sent them a link to it. Tough. Bye bye, have a nice day.

          So, what I see happening is, even if you delete all of your videos today and 6 months from now they decide to ban all accounts who ran a video on that subject, they'll ban you anyway because you ran the video on your account.

          Bottom line, it's easier and cheaper for Google to do sweeping deletions than it is to simply remove offending videos, weed out the scammer from someone who simply needs a little education. Hey, I get it - that's not their job. But they - with their vast wealth - could at least have some sort of appeal process or something.

          And Brian - sue Google? LOL, sure. I am sure many of the little guys who get banned will have the resources to take them on. Nice thought though...

          And here's is what I find the most ironic...

          After they banned my Adwords account, I get at least once a month a post card in the mail, and/or an email from Google enticing me to open an Adwords account. They even send it along with a $50 coupon.

          They banned me - so what I call that is spam. And quite possibly a scam.

          But what do I know...
          Living proof of how f'd up Google is.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4091471].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
            A word 2 the wise to any and all marketers who push Google/You Tube related products.....and there's more then a few of you here.

            What do we all know for sure? NOBODY CAN PROMISE ANYONE WHAT GOOGLE OR YOUTUBE WILL OR WILL NOT DO.

            I highly recommend you do NOT ever say something to the effect that.....

            "If you do exactly as I say....you will NOT be banned from You Tube etc.."

            Those who do are selling snake oil...because you do not have the right to make a statement like that.....

            And there are at least a couple of you who do just that...and might want to rethink your position...

            Because as always...applications set in stone today...might just turn into sinking quicksand tomorrow and you're gonna lose all credibility "boxing yourself into making statements about a company that does what they please when they please for what ever reason they please. Period. End of story.

            And I've read statements like that...and it 100% disingenuous...because how in the hell do you or anyone else have that kind of insight into what Google/YouTube will or wont do today or tomorrow? What possible proof can anyone provide that there is a bullet proof blueprint that assures anyone they can't get banned...yet I've heard statements that all but say do as I do....you will NOT GET BANNED. I say bull****.

            I don't care if your account has been gold for 5 years....past performance has no bearing on what may happen tomorrow....and to tell your customer that you have the magic formula that purports anything along the lines of "ban proof"......I'd say be careful when the boomerang swings around and hits you in the head...cuz you're done at that point. Your credibility is gone...just like that.

            For sure there are things to do that lesson the chance of getting banned....but to those who are making blanket statement in their products....I'd get your editor to do some quick changes.


            Vegas Vince
            Legend.


            p.s. Tiffany.....thank u for sharing your ordeal. And you're still the original Squidoo Diva around this joint right? Google can't take that from ya.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4091733].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          Bottom line, it's easier and cheaper for Google to do sweeping deletions than it is to simply remove offending videos, weed out the scammer from someone who simply needs a little education.
          The final straw will drop some day. I've always said that the only thing that will bring Google down is Google itself.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4107458].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          And Brian - sue Google? LOL, sure. I am sure many of the little guys who get banned will have the resources to take them on. Nice thought though...
          Mike,

          That's what contingency fee agreements are all about. "Little guys" may not have the resources. Attorneys do.

          Forget attorneys. Just the leverage the media can bring to bear with a tearful story from a nice person who has been unfairly trashed as a scammer and had all of her videos deleted - I am very confident Big G would immediately change some of its practices.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4113743].message }}
    • Originally Posted by TiffanyDow View Post

      Blows my mind that "make money online" is so evil - especially in a damn economy where people can't find work OUTSIDE the home and yet they still have to pay bills. Are we supposed to find a freaking magic money tree or a guy we can trade a cow for some magic beans?
      Freaking Magic Money Tree. Sounds like a good WSO!
      Signature
      Marketing is not a battle of products. It is a battle of perceptions.
      - Jack Trout
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075274].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DebiJ
      Tiff,

      I'm annoyed that your videos are gone as well. It's time to research some of the other video places some of the folks here have mentioned, where we can control the content.

      Oh...I searched for your Squidoo video. Got this message which I'm sure you've seen...

      "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy againstspam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.
      Sorry about that."


      So, I clicked on their "Report a bug" link and sent this message....
      "There MUST be a bug somewhere in your system because Tiffany Dow has never done anything but assist a lot of people in learning how to set up an honest business!!

      Please figure this out and put her videos back up!!

      Debi J"

      I'm sure it will do absolutely no good and they will completely ignore me....but I felt better having bugged them anyway!!

      So sorry to hear about your videos...glad I got to watch most of them before they mucked it all up!!
      Debi

      Originally Posted by TiffanyDow View Post

      Blows my mind that "make money online" is so evil - especially in a damn economy where people can't find work OUTSIDE the home and yet they still have to pay bills. Are we supposed to find a freaking magic money tree or a guy we can trade a cow for some magic beans?

      I'm glad Google's making bank and doesn't have to worry about such trivial things like where the money will come from for their bills.

      God forbid someone use a keyword like "make money online" to promote a video that truly helps someone with a tip on getting some money coming in. Yet they glorify videos that show teenage girls beating the **** out of each other.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075576].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Nightowl John
        Originally Posted by DebiJ View Post

        Tiff,

        I'm annoyed that your videos are gone as well. ...
        So, I clicked on their "Report a bug" link and sent this message
        Here's the bug report I sent them:

        "I have watched many of TiffanyDow's videos over the past couple of years and have never seen her violate terms. She advocates running ethical online businesses and is often uses her video reviews to call out the scammers and spammers. Please reinstate her account. There were many valuable videos there."

        I follow Tiffany because of her integrity and transparency. Oh, and when I searched Youtube for "Make Money on Squidoo," it gave me 443 results, two of those (well, I didn't look through them all - these were in the top 4) were Tiff's videos on other people's accounts.

        I hope they reinstate her account.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Keith Everett
      Originally Posted by TiffanyDow View Post

      Blows my mind that "make money online" is so evil - especially in a damn economy where people can't find work OUTSIDE the home and yet they still have to pay bills. Are we supposed to find a freaking magic money tree or a guy we can trade a cow for some magic beans?

      I'm glad Google's making bank and doesn't have to worry about such trivial things like where the money will come from for their bills.

      God forbid someone use a keyword like "make money online" to promote a video that truly helps someone with a tip on getting some money coming in. Yet they glorify videos that show teenage girls beating the **** out of each other.
      Thanks Tiffany. I had my account "Terminated" by Google YouTube 3 weeks ago. I'm NOT looking for any sympathy, I've started again with a site called Viddler..

      Am I a Spammer. NO, do I make Cr*p Videos - NO. I offer video tutorials on how to make money from Internet Marketing, Social Media etc..

      I lost 91 videos, it took two weeks after my account was closed for YouTube to tell me what my CRIME was.. YES... I put the words "Make Money Fast" in the video title of one of my videos..

      NOW, any other organisation would perhaps have sent a "Warning", so you can ACT and continue, but NO - not YouTube.. TERMINATION...

      Now, I know it's FREE to use, but is this FAIR.. after all, re-embedding all of your videos from scratch again, all of the lost comments, hits etc.. when all YouTube had to do was REMOVE the offending video and issue you with a warning, surely this would have been more LOGICAL..

      After all, YouTube still has tons of Money Making Videos, some of which are total CR*P, it also has videos about people VOMITTING, getting DRUNK etc..

      SO, when did "Making Money" become such a SIN ?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211287].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author johnlittle
        Originally Posted by kweb777 View Post

        Thanks Tiffany. I had my account "Terminated" by Google YouTube 3 weeks ago. I'm NOT looking for any sympathy, I've started again with a site called Viddler..

        Am I a Spammer. NO, do I make Cr*p Videos - NO. I offer video tutorials on how to make money from Internet Marketing, Social Media etc..

        I lost 91 videos, it took two weeks after my account was closed for YouTube to tell me what my CRIME was.. YES... I put the words "Make Money Fast" in the video title of one of my videos..

        NOW, any other organisation would perhaps have sent a "Warning", so you can ACT and continue, but NO - not YouTube.. TERMINATION...

        Now, I know it's FREE to use, but is this FAIR.. after all, re-embedding all of your videos from scratch again, all of the lost comments, hits etc.. when all YouTube had to do was REMOVE the offending video and issue you with a warning, surely this would have been more LOGICAL..

        After all, YouTube still has tons of Money Making Videos, some of which are total CR*P, it also has videos about people VOMITTING, getting DRUNK etc..

        SO, when did "Making Money" become such a SIN ?
        Well that does suck.

        Perhaps the new chief decision maker for youtube bought something from clickbank in the make money niche, you know the super push button software crap ie auto blog makers and thought enough was enough lol.

        Have you had any response as to whether you will get your videos back?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211335].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PCRoger
        If you could talk to a real person, you might ask them to point out just how that violates any of their PUBLISHED policies.

        If they really don't want certain topics of videos, I wonder if it ever dawned on them to MENTION that somewhere?

        Roger.

        Originally Posted by kweb777 View Post

        Thanks Tiffany. I had my account "Terminated" by Google YouTube 3 weeks ago. I'm NOT looking for any sympathy, I've started again with a site called Viddler..

        Am I a Spammer. NO, do I make Cr*p Videos - NO. I offer video tutorials on how to make money from Internet Marketing, Social Media etc..

        I lost 91 videos, it took two weeks after my account was closed for YouTube to tell me what my CRIME was.. YES... I put the words "Make Money Fast" in the video title of one of my videos..

        NOW, any other organisation would perhaps have sent a "Warning", so you can ACT and continue, but NO - not YouTube.. TERMINATION...

        Now, I know it's FREE to use, but is this FAIR.. after all, re-embedding all of your videos from scratch again, all of the lost comments, hits etc.. when all YouTube had to do was REMOVE the offending video and issue you with a warning, surely this would have been more LOGICAL..

        After all, YouTube still has tons of Money Making Videos, some of which are total CR*P, it also has videos about people VOMITTING, getting DRUNK etc..

        SO, when did "Making Money" become such a SIN ?
        Signature
        Track your affiliate sales back to the ARTICLE or WEBSITE that generated the sale. CBSaleTracker

        I was making money in days with the 4 Day Money Making Blueprint

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4236732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    One person's "warning" is another person's "opportunity" ...

    If you have "legitimate" videos, get suspended, and Google slaps up a statement saying the video was removed because it is a "spam, scam, or commercially deceptive" - quit whining and sue Google for defamation.

    A best practice is to always keep a copy of your video outside of Google anyway so it can be posted elsewhere.

    Trust me - a few good lawsuits, even just one that gets publicity, will have Google pulling back and changing its practices.

    Think of Google whacking a video of a little girl with her lemonade stand explaining how to "make money" this hot summer.

    Interesting: I see nothing about spam, scams, or deceptive commercial videos in the YouTube terms of service or community guidelines. Digging into the 'safey' section at Google there is this:
    What is Spam?
    Spam is content that uses misleading descriptions, tags, titles or thumbnails in order to trick you into watching it. Most of the time this shows up on YouTube as massively posted messages that try to direct you to other sites.


    Everyone hates spam. Don't create misleading descriptions, tags, titles or thumbnails in order to increase views. It's not okay to post large amounts of untargeted, unwanted or repetitive content, including comments and private messages.

    Mass advertising: When a user uses automated bots or massively posts content for advertising purposes.

    Misleading text: When a user incorrectly identifies their videos within the title, tags and video description. This is done to trick the viewer into watching their video by being dishonest about the video content. Misleading text can also mean that an uploader has used the video description area to put in many different tags that don't match the video content to try to gain views.

    Misleading thumbnails: When a user deliberately chooses a thumbnail that is not representative of the actual video content in order to gain views.

    Scams/Fraud: When a user posts a video which contains information to trick the viewer for their own financial gain.
    Avoid those issues and you shouldn't have a problem.

    Bottom line: a billion dollar company posting written statements declaring as fact that a video is spam, a scam, or commercially deceptive had better be right about that statement.

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author koppster
    Google up to their old games.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061163].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Scams/Fraud: When a user posts a video which contains information to trick the viewer for their own financial gain.
    Now a guy promoting a site, service, product, event or his own city (???) is a Scam and a Fraud?

    OMFG
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061176].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Goldenboy
    Let's look at the bright side of things. Cleaning Youtube is not a bad idea. However, suspension without notice is just not fair. Knowing that the keyword stayed there for quite some time would make the owner think that it was alright but suddenly suspending him without even giving a warning message or something like that is not acceptable. But for the poster, thanks for bringing this up. This would save a lot of us from the danger that lies ahead.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ti
    Could you please go into more detail of what these "protests" were that got his account back?
    Signature

    Affiliates Wanted --> http://Pwnboxer.com <-- Promote to your MMORPG/World of Warcraft Niche
    Insanely Popular Software Lets You Play 5x WoW+ On 1 PC - 100% Legit Bliz Approves Multiboxing
    Current Affiliate Stats: June 4th 2011: EPC = $3.50, Conversions = 10.2%, $23.50/sale

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061195].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DancingHamster
    Yep, Google can do what they want... YouTube is owned by them, we don't pay for the service... sigh
    Signature

    Ask me about making screencast tutorials for your software/service.

    Follow me on Twitter @SomewhatJustin

    Check out my startup, Audio Press

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061226].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Seems like Monday madness. It's all about Spamming, plagiarism, false scarcity, crappy spun articles, backlink Spam blasters and all the other tricks. It's all part of the fast-buck mentality that has come to the Internet like a plague.

    Whether it be Google, the FTC or any other regulatory watchdog clamping down to curb the blatant abuse, we all suffer, even if we're playing it straight. It will take time to sort but in the end I don't think legit make money online offers will suffer much... if they're actually legit.

    The thing is, most of the new rules won't hurt folks who are actually in business to offer value through building lasting relationships with customers by offering quality stuff. I can't say I'll miss the days of "drive by" hit and run marketing when they're gone. Rereading that last sentence makes me feel just a little naive but things are changing for the better.

    I wonder if there's an opportunity here. I've got it! Quality products, true claims, excellent customer service, valuable, meaningful, original content... What a business model. Think it could catch on? :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061425].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner


    Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061617].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Shook
      From the list of subjects OP posted, it kind of looks like these particular areas might indicate areas where they might be practicing strategic management.

      These areas are excellent targets for government actions and 3rd party lawsuits. If I was a regulatory agency or a lawyer, I would be targetting the folks who have the pockets deep enough to provide a nice hefty fine or damages.

      I think it is possible that Google might be targetting these particular areas as first on the clean up list because those are easy targets for punitive damages and only consequentially areas which marketers target.
      Signature


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061666].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Vanessa Reece
        Let's ask Justin Beiber, and that 'It's Friday Friday' Gal, and while we're at it let's also ask Gary Vaynerchuk - oh heck, let's ask anyone who made a lot of money from being on Youtube (and possible offered a YT partnership)

        What's the difference? It's not what you do it's the way that you do it.

        Did these people intentionally set out to make money/get famous in order to make money from their videos? Or did they just want to share their talent or work? Are you going to tell me Justin Beiber didn't want to get famous and therefore get super rich?

        If Gary Vaynerchuk, says 'buy this wine - here's the link.' on one of his videos is he not using Youtube as a vehicle for free advertising - or is it okay because he's a top bloke and people love him? And YT love getting hits to their site right?

        Do you know what my top videos views on one of YouTube channels are about? Growing tomatoes from seed. Yep, I film my tomatoes and other home grown vegetables with a progress report. Yep, I really know how to live the rock and roll lifestyle. Someone even asked for an update the other day since I haven't posted in a month. :p I have veg growing fans - go me!

        Honestly I want to help people who're thinking of doing that as these crazy food prices keep going up. It's my hobby. I like to talk about it. I'm sharing my experience etc.

        Now if I really wanted to make a home gardening channel and talked about how to 'sell' your home grown tomatoes, ' to make money' in tough times would I get my channel pulled?

        I'm not saying yes or no. I'm just putting it out there. Because as far as I can see there is one rule for some and one rule for others on YT.

        As for Darren (PRO Blogger), he's fine upstanding guy as far as I can tell. But he too has entered into 'make money from blogging.' realm. Nothing wrong with that. It's a very viable business if done correctly.

        Clearly he has enough sway for people to protest enough to get his channel re installed. So what gives? If you have enough sway and get hordes to complain you get what you want?

        Look, if we're debating if its right or wrong we need to define what makes it 'right' or 'wrong'. To offer advice and build up your rep, and then talk about possibly turning your hobby into a job, or offering your viewers a sweet deal on someone you're offering? Or finding enough fame on YT doing something you love and then cutting a deal with an organization on the back end of that fame? Plenty on YT have done this.

        As for comments that has always been up to the user to define what gets past their moderation. It's only when a comment has enough neg ticks it gets pulled. I'm also baffled/appalled by many comments on there.

        V
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061922].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aryangarg
    i also lost many accounts
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ginak59
    Thanks for the heads-up. It's amazing how these huge companies stomp all over us little guys. Google is a good example of what happens when one company dominates a market. After cancelling my adwords account last December I started with Bing. I never thought I'd say this but Microsoft seems to be the good guy lately!
    Signature
    DON'T GET SCAMMED! 33 Great Ideas for Losing Money on the Internet. The Little Book of Street Smart and Savvy Internet Marketing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061815].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      It's amazing how these huge companies stomp all over us little guys.
      Oh, good grief. We've been hearing this about one company or another for as long as the forum has existed.

      The translation of this comment is as follows: "The owners of the company want to use their resources for their own benefit, rather than sacrificing them for us, so they're evil bastiches who fillet kittens and serve them with butterfly sauce."

      Piffle, I say.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061851].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
        Originally Posted by ginak59 View Post

        It's amazing how these huge companies stomp all over us little guys.
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Oh, good grief. We've been hearing this about one company or another for as long as the forum has existed.

        The translation of this comment is as follows: "The owners of the company want to use their resources for their own benefit, rather than sacrificing them for us, so they're evil bastiches who fillet kittens and serve them with butterfly sauce."

        Piffle, I say.
        Paul
        Shame on you Paul. Have you no sense of decency. My gawd, can't we all just be one big happy family? It's about time we all kissed and made up.

        Time for a group hug, right now! Everybody kiss.

        Now, wasn't that fun. Don't we all feel better?
        Signature
        "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

        Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4089587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
    If we're going to make demands, then I demand Google add "kitten recipes" to their list of evil subjects.

    ~ Becky

    p.s. I don't agree with everyting Google does (especially the privacy stuff), but don't blame them for banning stuff. Blame spammers for creating the sludge that everyone else needs to wade through.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061920].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author swi55tony
      Oops

      It looks like I am going to have to go and do some serious name changes of my videos and blogs.

      Not more work

      I know it is worth doing rather than losing my accounts

      To Your Success
      Signature

      Tony Draper

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062178].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bobsalong
      Well put, Paul..errr, although I don't know what "evil bastiches" and "piffle" mean, the recipe sounds wonderful.
      Bob
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064103].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sonicadam123
      wow, some of those I could understand like stolen content, but most of them I don't agree with.

      I'm sure this will result in a shift from youtube to other sites
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069102].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author magentawave
      I had a video on my Youtube channel that started with "Make Money" so I guess that explains why my account was terminated a few months ago.

      Hey, thanks for posting this and please be sure to tell your "spy" at Youtube that I wish they would go F themselves and die for terminating my account (that complied with all their "terms" and had valuable content) with no explanation of the problem and chance to change anything.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069280].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Hocking
      Google can and will do what they want but in a age of social media, Google's pattern of behavior will leave a sour taste in the mouth.

      I have seen it with Adwords, Adsense and now Youtube. When you start to ignore the customer, you open the way for competitors to rise and chalenge you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4234829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JuniorMarketing
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4344372].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Profolegy
        Originally Posted by JuniorMarketing View Post

        Thank you so much for warning me.I just read a post yesterday about using Youtube to market because its free.I was thinking of doing it until i saw this post.thanx a ton
        Hey don't let this thread stop you from marketing with Youtube. Just do it you have nothing to lose. The experience will be worth it. If you are smart you will have your videos saved somewhere else anyway.
        Cheers Bruce.
        Signature
        First 10 Modules for Free.
        Online Business Building Academy
        http://AuthoritySiteNomad.com
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4350183].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author jasonthewebmaster
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Profolegy View Post

          Hey don't let this thread stop you from marketing with Youtube. Just do it you have nothing to lose. The experience will be worth it. If you are smart you will have your videos saved somewhere else anyway.
          Cheers Bruce.

          I agree. If you decide NOT to use YouTube on the chance that you could lose your account, then you will be missing out on a huge opportunity and that would be really dumb!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4350201].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author anwar001
    I think it is going to be a lot of fun for some people and lot of grief for others over the coming weeks if Google continues cracking down on accounts like these. There are thousands and thousands of videos on youtube related to SEO and internet marketing. I don't think they are going to pull all of them down as that would mean lot of visitor loss for youtube.

    After Panda, this seems to be the next big dramatic project they are embarking on. And the panda cries have still not died down yet....

    Why has Google become so insecure lately??? What is it fearing?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4061938].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SGTech
    If you come into my house, I have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do while you're there. Likewise, Google has the right to tell us what we can and cannot do on sites that THEY OWN.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062346].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Paul,

      Thanks for the reply.

      Wait. They're giving something for free, and they have a responsibility to do it the way the recipients demand?
      Nope. Firstly, I was referring to their virtually unique combination of interlaced paid and free products, not just free products. Secondly, I wasn't saying that they have a responsibility to do it the way the recipients demand, I am saying that due to their possibly unique position which means that to a large degree, they control huge chunks of the internet, they therefore have a social responsibility.

      For example - I watched a video the other day of a man dying. To view this, I had to log in in order to 'prove' my age. Does this not demonstrate that the business they are in has at least some element of social responsibility? (Yes, I'm aware that this is a different area of responsibility to the one I first referred to, I'm just establishing that many areas of their business lead to them having a social responsibility.)

      The first part relates mainly to organic vs PPC so if I were to go too deep into that it will take us off the youtube topic. But the part of this that is relevant is that the organic vs PPC is a part of their monopoly.

      I am aware of the story you told about your subscribers (you've told it before, it's a helpful story.) I totally agree with your point about them telling you that you had no right to remove them and how this is ludicrous. I'm also aware of how this also relates to the forum I'm posting in. But you (or the forum) are not Google - you have a different business model, and just one of the key differences is scale, in terms of how much of the market their particular business dominates and another is what kind of market/business they are in.

      My comments were related to all of Google's business as a whole rather than youtube in isolation - some of my comments were specifically not focussed on youtube, but elsewhere - EG - (the only part where I mentioned social responsibility)

      Literally millions of peoples livelihoods, to a large degree, live and die depending on the decisions that Google makes. Google offers a load of free services along with a load of paid services that provide similar outcomes - EG - paid search vs organic search.

      Based on this they have a social responsibility and by acting in the way that they do - (banning people instantly for life with no recourse or explanation) - they are playing 'God' with peoples livelihoods. This doesn't apply quite as much to youtube, but it certainly does with organic search and PPC.
      So to be more specific with youtube - what I am saying is that it would make all of the difference in the world (due to the fact that you (presumeably), I and everyone else (I reckon) knows that people have built businesses that depend on youtube traffic) if, rather than closing people down overnight, they tried just a little bit harder to identify where people are causing problems, highlight those areas for them and then inform that they either clear up the problems or lose their account.

      I'm not saying that they should have to do this, I'm saying that it would demonstrate that they are capable of taking responsibility (or social responsibility) towards their users. It would demonstrate that they recognise the broadness of their reach and their position as a dominant market leader and the responsibility that goes with that and that they are acting in a way that is befitting of that position - that they understand the difference between being unsubscribed from your newsletter and having a youtube account closed - (not trying to belittle your excellent newsletter, just making a point about Google's reach.)

      Additionally, Da Goog hasn't got a real monopoly in the field.
      Again, the monopoly I refer to is not one of monopolising the free video hosting market. The one I refer to is being a major player in free video hosting, free email, free search engine, 1001 other free things plus many paid things, including paid search and including a contextual advertising system that infiltrates nearly every one of their services (and many other peoples), whether that is displaying the advertising, or mining the data that powers that contextual advertising.

      Let's get this into the proper context - this is a company that when it uses an interesting logo on it's main search page, virtually every major national newspaper in the UK runs a full page story on the logo. They never do that when I change my logo! This is a company whose brand name has been turned into an internationally recognised verb.

      If you start to penalize companies for being the market's freely chosen preference, as YouTube clearly is, things start to get real scary, real fast.
      Paul, you know that I know this. You should probably know by now that I am one of the least likely to suggest state interference or regulation in business affairs.

      Where do you draw the line between 'the market's freely chosen preference' and a dangerous monopoly? It's not unsimilar to the recent F.I.F.A vote. Sepp Blatter was the voters freely chosen preference to head the organisation in the leadership election. He was also the only candidate on the ballot paper!

      I am no fan of Google, but I can't agree that they have any obligation to marketers simply because marketers chose to use (and often abuse) their free offerings.
      Taking your statement as it stands, I agree. But taken in the context of everything else that they do, then the conclusion is different.

      Example -

      Joe Bloggs' business gets a lot of valuable business (traffic) from his youtube videos. He gets his account closed down.

      So he thinks, 'shame about that. Where do I go for traffic now?' Of course there are other video hosts, but none of them are the number one video host like youtube, who have vastly superior brand awareness and traffic.

      So he looks to different mediums. What about PPC? Who's the market leader with the most reach? Google. Do they kick people out in the same manner after they have done a ton of work setting up their campaigns and complying with a ton of specific rules? Yes.

      What about organic SERPs? What about ad networks and affiliate networks? Google are everywhere and they tend to lead those markets.

      Does that clarify my earlier points?

      If we talk about youtube solely then I agree with your points. But they don't negate my points.

      If we talk about their monopoly of a whole spectrum of internet services, then I feel that my points are valid and also that their current behaviour regarding youtube justifies bringing their monopolistic status into the discussion because even though in isolation, their youtube actions are justifiable, when considered in the context of the big picture I would suggest that their actions are demonstrative of why they shouldn't be allowed to control such a huge chunk of the internet.

      It's probably worth mentioning that due to my lack of youtube videos I don't actually have a dog in this particular fight or any personal grievance or loss motivating my posts. It's the usual motivation - principle and of course possible future personal grievance/loss.

      Hi Harlan,

      Google isn't against affiliates per se.
      I agree. But I would add that they are clearly interested in taking away their affiliate business for themselves, which then throws a slightly different light on their overall behaviour when considering their unique position as the dominating controller and profiteer of way too many traffic sources and internet businesses along with the sheer quantity of data they have regarding competing businesses and their activities.

      It's true to say that we can avoid allowing Google to harvest our data. But it's also true to say that it's actually very difficult to do any kind of online business and avoid them harvesting our data in the process.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    I don't know if any of you have noticed but Facebook is surpassing Google as the place where people are heading to get their information and referrals. From their family and friends.

    Also, despite the cries that Twitter is dead, Apple has just switched a deal that they started with Facebook over to Twitter.

    Last but not least, I read a current study (sorry I can't recall where it was), that showed a decline in videos while podcasts are rising. (iTunes now carries a variety of shows from all of the self produced show hosting places like BlogTalkRadio)

    All of the above is the reason that Google is scrambling right now.

    Google isn't the god that everyone thinks they are.

    Many of us were here before Google and we will be here after they fall. I remember when people couldn't live without Webcrawler and Excite.

    If you don't like what they are doing, take your content somewhere else and quit feeding them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062740].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Hey everyone, it's been fun but I'm moving on for a while.

      I have some new information about the Panda update (hint) they aren't done and I'll be speaking to my insider about YouTube.

      I'll be back to post in a few weeks.

      Over and out.

      Peace.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062783].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ralf Skirr
      Just a tip: One takeaway is that you need to keep copies of your videos.

      Many marketers integrate the youtube version of their video into their own website to save bandwidth. Then if their youtube account is shut down, they lose the video on all places where they had it embedded.

      Youtube is just a distribution channel, don't see it as the main host for your video content.

      Ralf
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062805].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author absolutelee
    Yet another reason to make sure you never put all your eggs in one basket. If you're serious about making money off the Internet, you need at least three different income streams.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062820].message }}
  • i guess i'm lucky my account is not suspended yet!
    Signature
    soon people... Relax...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4062984].message }}
  • Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    Yesterday the first reports surfaced that Google began suspending large numbers of YouTube accounts. These suspensions came without warning. In typical Google fashion, there were not extensive explanations of what happened or what the cause was. Letters from YouTube just indicated violations of terms of service.

    Included in the mass suspension (for 6 months) was famed ProBlogger. His account was suspended yesterday and reinstated today after massive protests.

    Why Google suspended him is worth paying attention to...

    His account - along with many others - was suspended because a video had the words Make Money as primary keywords.

    As we know, the words Make Money are a red flag of evil to Google.

    In didn't matter what the content was; apparently just the keywords got him suspended.

    His other video that got his account suspended was about SEO tricks.

    Here's what we know so far:

    Google has stated it's desire to clean up YouTube and it looks like it's using the same criteria it's using in AdWords.

    The following subjects are evil:

    1. Make money
    2. Gaming the Google SEO system
    3. Exaggerated health claims
    4. MLM/Network marketing
    5. Stolen content
    6. Videos with no content
    7. Talking articles that serve just for a link

    My main Google spy will be talking to the high mucky mucks inside Google today to find out what's going on but it appears that a YouTube shakeout will be upon us shortly.

    Please be advised to be careful you don't fall victim to the latest Google/YouTube housecleaning update.

    I'll post back when I learn more.

    Peace
    And not before time.

    It's about time they did something about all the c**p on youtube.
    Signature

    Light thinks it travels faster than anything else, but it is wrong. When it arrives it finds that darkness has always got there first.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author J Bold
    Youtube has always been deleting accounts they don't like for one reason or another. Often accounts with the types of videos many seem to be criticizing and applauding for deletion, here.

    So what's the difference, now?

    Someone is telling us that they are now going on a focused, concerted effort to disable accounts like the blogger guy, who talk about making money online.

    Many seem to think it's great that they are doing this without knowing the whole story, I would think. I don't think anyone knows the whole story but at least it gives everyone a chance to go up on their soapboxes once again and preach their gospel about their views, even if it's not completely applicable in this situation.

    I would think, that if Google merely wants to do a large sweep of accounts that have anything to do with making money online, they probably will be deleting accounts that are not just pure ads, that are not spam, that are not just there for linkbait, but actually have good, non-objectional content that helps people with tips on how to make money online.

    Also, Google allows clickable links in their description boxes. So? Let's you say you make a video with purely helpful content and then you add a link to your site in the description box. That's what Google allows! So clearly they don't seem to mind you giving links to your site, in my opinion, as long as your video is cool with them.

    In the end, Google can do what they want, it's their site.

    I think the beef people have with Google in general is when something like this happens, they have about zero customer service. Perhaps understandably as they are so massive and can't possibly talk with everyone about their account deletions on various Google services. But it's frustrating when it happens and their is no clear clue in their TOS that you have done something wrong.

    But I can't worry about what Google does. They can do what they want. It's not going to help me to complain about, because it highly likely will not change a thing.

    So, I will just go about my business and watch with interest what Google will or won't do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BrendaG
    I happened to see Probloggers tweet as this was going down but have not had a chance to drill into details until reading this thread. Thanks so much for the explanation. I appreciate the info
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Roger,

    You didn't read the PM I sent you before you posted.

    I deleted my post because it looked like I was trying to win an old argument and I wasn't trying to do that

    Roger,

    I remember you and I having a long discussion a couple of years ago, about the difference between compassion and learning through "tough love".

    As I recall, you were in favor of stern consequences as the mightier teacher while my compassionate approach would only allow for more bad behavior.

    Why would this not be an example of learning through consequences, or tough love?

    Shouldn't it be viewed as a valuable lesson for those that rely on Google's breasts for their marketing milk?
    I do see your point now that you have elaborated on it.

    Tough love should be adjusted based on the power behind it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063318].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Matt,

      I just read the PM after I posted, then sent you two PMs before deleting my reply in response to the initial deletion of yours!

      So here's my post again, undeleted!

      (For anyone confused, Matt's reply to me above is to the post below, his quoted part is what inspired this response. Confused even more now?)

      .................................................. ............

      Quote:
      Shouldn't it be viewed as a valuable lesson for those that rely on Google's breasts for their marketing milk?
      Very good question Matt, I appreciate the challenge presented in answering that. I agree with that point about 99%.

      The 1% is this - when someone has such huge reach in a market, then the consequences of their actions go beyond the 'normal' scope and therefore the normal principles, or 'rulings' that we apply to them.

      Should we base all of our laws, judgements and regulations on absolutely unfettered capitalism? Should we never reconsider things when monopolisation may be occurring?

      What about if this is in one of the newest industries, the product of a technological revolution that involves many facets of possible invasion of privacy, risk to children (for example) and (specifically) damage to competition and nefarious, underhand activities by dominant corporations?

      When television appeared in our lives, was it a wise thing to immediately consider and investigate the possibility of brainwashing? Were ordinary people capable of immediately realising and understanding their susceptibility to things like subliminal messages (at one end of the scale) and product placement (at the other)?

      Is it not also logical to assume that the internet and all of it's possibilities present new, possibly currently misunderstood or untackled challenges that may for a period of time provide dominant corporations with a dangerous level of reach or advantage?

      Some 'tough love' might just be a bit too tough.

      .................................................. ............
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063363].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Is it not also logical to assume that the internet and all of it's possibilities present new, possibly currently misunderstood or untackled challenges that may for a period of time provide dominant corporations with a dangerous level of reach or advantage?
        But in this case, we the content creators are the product that Google is packaging and selling back to us.

        We have more responsibility in this than just consuming.

        If we don't like the power Google has over our business (Youtube account being shutdown without warning), then we should stop giving it the content that drives it's business.

        Instead of coming here and crying about how bad Google is and trying to learn new ways to kiss their a**, why don't we take our content and give it to all of those other video sharing sites.

        On the surface, it may appear that Google can get by without all of us Internet marketers filling all of their pages with our "crap", but what will be left?

        Blogger Blogs with Adsense and Amazon ads? Really? Is Amazon really going to be happy when the only people giving them ad space is Blogger?

        If Google has this grandiose idea that they will be able to compete with the other Social Media sites for advertising dollars, they are in for a rude awakening.

        Now they are going after Youtube marketers and will find out fast that people are not going to stand for all of the violent and hateful stuff already mentioned in this thread.

        So what will be left for Youtube? Viral cat videos?

        The truth is that we marketers and entrepreneurs are driving the Internet.

        Where we marketers go, we find ways to drive traffic to where we are at. That is where the advertising dollars come from.

        Google's biggest mistake over the years has been thinking that it alone has been bringing in the traffic.

        So if Google wants to run us off, I say, let's go show Bing how to take over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063444].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Matt,

          why don't we take our content and give it to Bing? Or in this case, all of those other video sharing sites.
          We should. Or host it ourselves (which is the lesson you referred to.)

          But don't you think that there is something sinister, that should be noted and perhaps prevented, about someone coming along, creating a platform where other peoples content is utilised to gain dominance (sound familiar? (SERPs)) which is generally unmoderated by them, then once domination has been achieved they start moderating heavily and discarding people on a whim for spurious reasons with little regard to the consequences?

          This is also one of the hidden reasons why 'spamming crap' is so destructive. When the big boys swing their axe, they cast blame and swing the axe widely with the get-out - 'it's ruining things for everyone, particularly our viewers.' The crap spammers give room for the big boys to covertly nobble the small boys who are trying to be bigger boys.

          Many of those who are nobbled will resort to one of Googles paid services instead.

          It goes like this -

          * create primary traffic sources that totally obliterate the competition (Google SERPs and PPC) which ultimately result in revenue from business users

          * create (or buy up - case in point) other secondary traffic sources

          * use methods to control and fix the primary sources so that the costs of beneficial use escalate

          * work secondary sources so that the revenue producing users are first invested in businesses which utilise them/somewhat rely on them, by making the sources an open channel for those users, then close off that channel and leave them with a choice of loss (or sale) of their investment, reliance on tertiary sources, or be funnelled back to the more lucrative primary sources (which has the knock on effect of creating a 'bidding war' which raises revenues even further at the primary source)
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063501].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            But don't you think that there is something sinister, that should be noted and perhaps prevented, about someone coming along, creating a platform where other peoples content is utilised to gain dominance (sound familiar? (SERPs)) which is generally unmoderated by them, then once domination has been achieved they start moderating heavily and discarding people on a whim for spurious reasons with little regard to the consequences?
            Well there are two parts to your statement.

            I think if people set their furniture out on the sidewalk with a sign that says "Free. Please Take", then they can't later complain that some entrepreneurial neighbor is now selling it.

            Now let's say that the neighbor decides to cut the first person a deal by giving them a percentage of the sale.

            So the first neighbor agrees to the deal and he quits his job and the other neighbor is his only source of income.

            Now the entrepreneur goes back to the first one and says that he doesn't want to do business with him anymore.

            The first neighbor can no longer pay his bills and understandably, feels taken advantage of.

            But really whose fault is it?

            Not only does Google not have any legal obligation to continue to send checks, give free services, or even answer the phone, but they DID the neighborly thing and warned everyone.

            They have been telling everyone for a few years now that they would not accept scraped content, auto-blogs, crappy web sites with very little original content...through their webmasters pages, forums, blogs, videos...

            I personally have been involved in many Duplicate Content debates right here warning people what Google was telling everyone what they were going to do.

            I posted links to Google statements, blog posts by Google employees, I even made a screen capture video highlighting parts of text at the official Google Webmaster's Blog that explained in detail what Google was planning to do.

            Go back and look through those threads at all of the replies and downright nastiness because people didn't want to see the truth.

            Google not only warned people, but they gave them a couple of years to adjust.

            So if someone keeps their head in the sand, whose fault is that?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063655].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ExRat
              Hi Matt,

              Now the first neighbor can no longer pay his bills and understandably, feels taken advantage of.

              But really whose fault is it?

              Did the entrepreneur promise to always take care of the first neighbor? No. They had no contract stating anything like that.
              So consider this -

              The entrepreneur gains so much business that he sells 60% of all of the furniture in the world. During the rise to that point, it becomes the default way for society to sell their furniture and make money through him.

              Only after this occurs does he start pulling the plug.

              See the difference? This is what I was explaining to Paul.

              If you keep using analogies where the examples are a guy on the street, I have to keep pointing out that Google have gone way beyond that, so far in fact that that is why I am saying that it is problematic. It wasn't necessarily problematic when they were small. Now that they are monopolising globally, it is.

              Why?

              It's to do with stifling competition. If your guy in the example dominates the whole street, it's a problem for other vendors in his street.

              It's when it's a problem for anyone who wants to compete that it becomes the type of problem I am referring to.

              Not only does Google not have any legal obligation to continue to send checks, give free services, or even answer the phone, but they DID the neighborly thing and warned everyone.

              They have been telling everyone for a few years now that they would not accept scraped content, auto-blogs, crappy web sites with very little original content...through their webmasters pages, forums, blogs, videos...
              But you're now referring to the SERPs issue, using the current youtube issue as the datum point in terms of the date. The SERPs and youtube dominance plans are not occurring concurrently, but they are interlinked.

              That 'few years' ago was when they started pulling the plug on the SERPs where they had already established dominance. Then they started the warnings about the SERPs. It was also around the time that they bought youtube. This plug pulling drove many of the traffic seekers to their new plaything, which was designed in order to establish dominance for the new plaything.

              See my bullet points in the above post. Now they pull the plug on youtube driving those people back to SERPs and PPC which has since had it's price of utilisation escalated and by doing this it will escalate again (bidding war).

              I say that they are playing a very clever strategy that they should not be allowed to play, because eventually all smaller businesses will be marching to their tune and that's not healthy or competitive. We've already seen them 'eating', or 'hoovering' sectors of business that were thriving into their dominance.

              If we try and justify this with any kind of example or analogy at the lowest level (IE they're just doing business) then we are basing our rules upon unfettered capitalism, which then means we should have no problem with one world bank, one world supermarket, one world drug manufacturer, one world hospital provider etc....

              We don't want these for very good reasons. A broad range of key internet services dominated by one company completely fits the same bill.
              Signature


              Roger Davis

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063710].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
                Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                If you keep using analogies where the examples are a guy on the street, I have to keep pointing out that Google have gone way beyond that, so far in fact that that is why I am saying that it is problematic. It wasn't necessarily problematic when they were small. Now that they are monopolising globally, it is.
                Yep. Gotcha.

                When one reaches a point of too much power, the rules must change to accommodate those subjected under that power.

                At least in civilized societies. Which goes to your Social Responsibility point.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063727].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tstorms
          Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

          But in this case, we the content creators are the product that Google is packaging and selling back to us.

          We have more responsibility in this than just consuming.

          If we don't like the power Google has over our business (Youtube account being shutdown without warning), then we should stop giving it the content that drives it's business.

          Instead of coming here and crying about how bad Google is and trying to learn new ways to kiss their a**, why don't we take our content and give it to all of those other video sharing sites.

          On the surface, it may appear that Google can get by without all of us Internet marketers filling all of their pages with our "crap", but what will be left?

          Blogger Blogs with Adsense and Amazon ads? Really? Is Amazon really going to be happy when the only people giving them ad space is Blogger?

          If Google has this grandiose idea that they will be able to compete with the other Social Media sites for advertising dollars, they are in for a rude awakening.

          Now they are going after Youtube marketers and will find out fast that people are not going to stand for all of the violent and hateful stuff already mentioned in this thread.

          So what will be left for Youtube? Viral cat videos?

          The truth is that we marketers and entrepreneurs are driving the Internet.

          Where we marketers go, we find ways to drive traffic to where we are at. That is where the advertising dollars come from.

          Google's biggest mistake over the years has been thinking that it alone has been bringing in the traffic.

          So if Google wants to run us off, I say, let's go show Bing how to take over.
          Another great point Matt. In reading this thread, I can't help but notice the overwhelming "victim" mentality. I'm not saying that pointing fingers or trying to make anyone feel offended, but really, go back and read through the thread objectively.

          Yours was the first post I read the echoed what I'd been thinking.

          "We are the source of traffic!"

          If Google wants to crap in our oatmeal because they feel they are too big to fail, let them. Where we go, we will drive the traffic. That is after all what we do isn't it?

          We are the ranchers providing all the beef for the market to consume. I'm not saying that the choices Google are making will end them because they won't. They are playing with the big boys now. They have the big piece of the corporate market that every business dreams of all along.

          This simply means that we will have to pick up our chess board and play somewhere else. No biggie. It's a big Internet.

          The pattern is clear with all of these companies. They embrace marketers in the beginning because they love the traffic we bring. As they grow bigger and become a brand, or in Google's case, a pop culture icon, they kick the people who got them there because they have a richer, nicer dressed class of friends.

          Fine. It will never change, and lamenting it will solve nothing. This is a huge opportunity for those marketers that truly have talent and business acumen.

          New markets will be exploding, ripe with opportunity and room to grow. The big difference that is occurring is that it just isn't going to be as easy as it was for the last 12 years, but what is?

          My 2 cents.
          Signature

          -Tom Storms

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079041].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Johnny Slater
            Originally Posted by tstorms View Post

            The pattern is clear with all of these companies. They embrace marketers in the beginning because they love the traffic we bring. As they grow bigger and become a brand, or in Google's case, a pop culture icon, they kick the people who got them there because they have a richer, nicer dressed class of friends.

            If you look at history you will see that exact thing played out over and over. Take the Gold Rush of the US.

            Towns would spring up all over the place and were filled with a bunch of crooks and theives. This was allowed to stand for a time because those guys spent money in the sallons and the miners bought supplies in the general stores.

            After a while the towns would either die out or grow up. The ones that grew would at some point decide to clean out the bad apples and create a more friendly atmosphere. They would build chuches and schools and get a sherrif to round up or run off all the crooks.

            The internet isn't much different. Sites allow pretty much anything as long as it brings in traffic and gets them noticed but at some point they have to grow up and start policing the bad apples or face being run into the ground.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scott Lambency
    Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    Yesterday the first reports surfaced that Google began suspending large numbers of YouTube accounts. These suspensions came without warning. In typical Google fashion, there were not extensive explanations of what happened or what the cause was. Letters from YouTube just indicated violations of terms of service.

    Included in the mass suspension (for 6 months) was famed ProBlogger. His account was suspended yesterday and reinstated today after massive protests.

    Why Google suspended him is worth paying attention to...

    His account - along with many others - was suspended because a video had the words Make Money as primary keywords.

    As we know, the words Make Money are a red flag of evil to Google.

    In didn't matter what the content was; apparently just the keywords got him suspended.

    His other video that got his account suspended was about SEO tricks.

    Here's what we know so far:

    Google has stated it's desire to clean up YouTube and it looks like it's using the same criteria it's using in AdWords.

    The following subjects are evil:

    1. Make money
    2. Gaming the Google SEO system
    3. Exaggerated health claims
    4. MLM/Network marketing
    5. Stolen content
    6. Videos with no content
    7. Talking articles that serve just for a link

    My main Google spy will be talking to the high mucky mucks inside Google today to find out what's going on but it appears that a YouTube shakeout will be upon us shortly.

    Please be advised to be careful you don't fall victim to the latest Google/YouTube housecleaning update.

    I'll post back when I learn more.

    Peace
    Interesting.. You know, this is going to give a few savvy marketers a HUGE advantage
    Signature

    Greatness is difficult to appreciate from close up. The great mountain on the horizon is only the ground when you are standing on it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jeremysteam
    One Of my videos got banned and deleted because it said was "misleading"
    It was about CPA Marketing titled CPA Marketing 101... IT was ranked number for CPA Marketing on Youtube too... I just don't know how explain to them that theyre idiots
    Signature
    Need Help In Your Business?

    Grab amazing tips, tricks, techniques and systems from my blog
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063542].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scott VME
    It was only a matter of time!

    As always, quality content will stand the test of time. If you are in the home business/make money market consider what you can offer others rather than forcing your biz op/latest money maker on others.

    Market yourself first and your products will sell themselves

    For any business issue: If it's not working for you, do something different!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063647].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rich Struck
    I hope the cash gifting videos are included in this purge.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063757].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Matt,

      Yep. Gotcha.

      When one reaches a point of too much power, the rules change to accommodate those falling behind.

      At least in civilized societies. Which goes to your Social Responsibility point.
      I agree. Why do golfers play with a handicap?

      Because it's no fun when one guy annihilates everyone else every time because there's no competition.

      In business, without competition innovation can stall because it's not a priority (maximising profits is) and ethical standards fall even further behind.

      Thanks for the back and forth, it's been educational. Where's Paul?

      You keep making me question whether I actually believe what I'm saying, or whether there's a hole in my argument so big that I'm looking straight through it.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063782].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Where's Paul?
        I hope he is creating a wizbang spammer zapper so he can spend more time out here with us
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063792].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
          Well.....this actually might back fire for google.

          Get rid of all the unsavory yet "copyright compliant videos".......and guess what you're left with?

          A whole lot of videos that are in direct violation of copyright laws....sitting out in the open even easier to spot. Interesting.....because that puts a lot of "heat on YouTube/Google".

          I also found it amusing that a video put out by youtube stated that if the video wasn't "something you'd let your own Grandmother watch" don't run it.

          LMAO. Who are they kidding? And that's the actual quote.......FYI.

          Who believes that YouTube survives if the only videos allowed are copyright cool....and pass the granny litmus test? Let's get real.

          I'd say copyright infringement and videos Grandma wouldn't care for.... represent well over 50% of all videos on you tube....and damn sure represent the most viewed.

          I personally produce my own videos so no copyright problems and I don't spam.....and if I do post a video response.....you can rest assured it's RELEVANT to the video above it.

          Interesting to note the many of You Tube's "promoted" videos are in fact the very same videos that they are yanking? lol. Does that not surprise anyone?


          peace,

          Vegas Vince
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063901].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Roger,
        Where's Paul?
        Reading.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4066088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author xxdksxx
    Thanks for the heads up seems as though they are weeding some people out of marketing online. But who knows they may be weeding out more people in the future.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063789].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063850].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LynneCarey
    Thanks Harlan, and everyone else, as well for the discussion.

    I guess Google can do what they want with what they own, and they make the rules. Certainly the way they go about things could be argued as less than fair, and perhaps they could go about the process in a better way.

    Which makes me wonder... why don't they? My guess is, they know what they are doing, they have their own objectives, and let's face it, they didn't get to be 'Google' by ignoring money making opportunities, or trying to be the 'nice' guy. Obviously, you can't please all the people all the time!

    It would certainly be good for them to clean up YT as they have been doing with their SE, however the old adage comes to mind.... 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Time will tell!

    Meanwhile, we need to play by their rules, and it is a pity that some 'innocent' business people will likely lose out as Google implement their strategies. For the most part, I guess with change come opportunity... it is just a matter of being able to see it.

    Wouldn't it be nice if our society ran on 'everybody wins all of the time, and no one ever gets shafted'? Clearly, that is not the case and probably won't ever be, in this world at least.

    What would life be, without these little challenges? Nice to be alerted to current events though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4063972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ti
    Keep in mind Rebecca Black's video is now a $2.99 rental on Youtube. What a joke.

    But I agree with Youtube, it is time to remove all the IM junk that has proliferated onto the site over the past few years. Yes, I understand people in IM need to make money, however, these cancerous creations of garbage content that is everywhere needs to stop.

    Quality, thoughtful, and useful content will always reign supreme. Not because of some Youtube filter, not because of content uniqueness, not because of backlinks/seo/etc. Instead, it will reign surpreme because it is quality, thoughtful, and useful content!
    Signature

    Affiliates Wanted --> http://Pwnboxer.com <-- Promote to your MMORPG/World of Warcraft Niche
    Insanely Popular Software Lets You Play 5x WoW+ On 1 PC - 100% Legit Bliz Approves Multiboxing
    Current Affiliate Stats: June 4th 2011: EPC = $3.50, Conversions = 10.2%, $23.50/sale

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064116].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matthew Loop
    Good heads-up, Harlan... Google is a bully and unless you're an advertiser spending over 50K / month with them, they treat you like garbage. You don't have to look too far to see them bending their TOS for major corporations that do the same as the little guy who gets banned.

    YouTube is an extension of Google so it's no surprise they're banning accounts more frequently now. Yes, some should be banned for the crap they put-out but there should definitely be manual reviews before the axe drops.

    I also agree with some that have already commented on this thread about YouTube's discrimination against "make money," as opposed some of the hate-filled, degrading, violent, or racist videos that still show regularly. How ass-backwards is that?

    On a side-note, it's amazing how a company of this magnitude can get away with elusive and terrible customer service, too...
    Signature

    For the newest Facebook marketing tips that rapidly grow your online business visit my blog

    Click here to automate every aspect of your online marketing including, SEO, PPC, social media marketing, Facebook ads, article marketing, etc.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064272].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dr Livingston
    Thanks Harlan. We all knew it was coming. It's a good thing but as usual google goes crazy and innocents get banned. Google is trying to be about quality and relevancy but we have people taking advantage of the system by mass uploading garbage and by not providing value. It's one thing to advertise, it's another thing to advertise crap. Know what I'm sayin?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064777].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Claire Sharp
    What a crap! Very disgusting! Thanks for sharing this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    The following subjects are evil:

    1. Make money
    2. Gaming the Google SEO system
    3. Exaggerated health claims
    4. MLM/Network marketing
    5. Stolen content
    6. Videos with no content
    7. Talking articles that serve just for a link

    Enforce that one & you'll have something like 11 videos left on Youtube.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064885].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Enforce that one & you'll have something like 11 videos left on Youtube.

      Exactly the point I was making.....and spot on. You Tube in their attempt to clean up this or that....should start with what is actually a federal crime in this country......copyright infringement.

      Seems to me that should be the focus....that should trump "evil videos on MLM." et al.

      But it's not. I love You Tube...but let's get real......a major percentage of their content is in fact violating the friggin' LAW. Not civil....criminal.

      And you're right......how many millions of videos are in violation of federal copyright laws right now at this very second on YOU TUBE......I couldn't count that high.

      Napster played the game for a while....but it to ended.

      Eventually....You Tube's weak excuse of "if they report it , we'll remove it policy"..... isn't going to hold water when some musician or movie studio finally says your ass is going to court.

      And you know how easy a case this would be to win? Exhibit A.....you honor....we'd like to log into You Tube right now and ask the head honcho on the stand how many videos are in direct violation of copyright law.

      LMAO.....that would be one long trial. Google, YouTube.....might put a bit more importance on this issue...rather then doing a replay of the Google Slap.....cuz they had the right to do that. Hosting millions of videos that are clearly in violations of the law....is gonna be a tough sell in front of a jury.


      peace,


      Vegas Vince
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071890].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    Some may say its a good thing Google is after the certain types of promotion that simply uses exaggerations to get a conversion, but ofcourse in their zeal, innocents will fall prey
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4064898].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author troy23
    Google seems to have no problem making money out of people from AdWords.
    If they are going to clean up YouTube I only wish they remove some of the other crap that goes on there like people uploading videos of their new born babies etc. Who wants to tune in to see that?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4066095].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Shannon Herod
      One of my channels was shut down. It was my Internet Marketing channel and had about 100 videos on it. None of the videos were spammy but all of them revolved around the Internet Marketing niche and there were at least 2 video sales letter I put up for my 2 WSO's.

      Also, I had a lot of talking head/screen capture reviews of products. They were well produced and high quality.

      So, I really do not know why my account was targeted.

      Shannon
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069663].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thegotoguy
    This doesn't surprise me. I love YouTube, but over the years I'm beginning to despise google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4066677].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Webtistic
    Lol. I dislike Google a lot of the time, unfortunately for now at least their service is considered better than the competition by the majority of users. We are not at the mercy of Google, we are at the mercy of it's billions of users. Give it 5 years though and I recon we'll see the whole market become more competitive.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4066980].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      ** Warning ** What follows is JUST my opinion. Take it for what it's worth
      to you.

      No third party site, vendor or whatever owes you anything unless you're paying
      for it. And even then, what you pay for only buys you so much. I get a kick
      out of folks who purchase a $7 ebook from me and expect lifetime coaching
      to come with it.

      Google, within the law (and I know nothing about Internet law) can do
      whatever the hell it wants provided it isn't breaking that law. Should the
      powers that be come to see them as a monopoly, maybe at that time they
      will do something about it...just like they did with Bell Telephone back in the
      good old days.

      Until then...if you don't like what Google is doing...don't use them.

      Don't put your videos up on YouTube
      Don't use Adwords
      Don't use their keyword tools
      Don't use their search engine period
      Don't use Adsense
      Don't use Blogspot

      Pretend as if they don't exist.

      There are other search engines
      There are other PPC sites
      There are other keyword tools

      Life CAN go on without Google in our lives.

      I depend on them for almost nothing. Hasn't seemed to affect my business
      any.

      The more dependent you become on other people, the more likely you're
      going to find that your business is about as stable as a bottle of nitro on
      top of a bull in a china shop.

      Again...take this message for what it's worth to you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067602].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        I get a kick
        out of folks who purchase a $7 ebook from me and expect lifetime coaching
        to come with it.


        But, it does come included with your $17 products, right?
        Signature

        Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

        Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068198].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
          I'm not worried.

          If my account gets banned, YouTube will be receiving angry, strongly-worded messages from my legions of fans.

          I'm sure those two messages will sway them!
          Signature

          Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

          Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068236].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
            Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

            I'm not worried.

            If my account gets banned, YouTube will be receiving angry, strongly-worded messages from my legions of fans.

            I'm sure those two messages will sway them!

            I'm sure you can go on Fiverr and buy additional "fans" who'll compose angry, strongly-worded messages.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068290].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PCRoger
        Steven,

        They CAN (and DO) do what they want.

        But I disagree that it is legal.

        It's defamation of character to ban people with messages to their followers that make it appear we are felons who the righteous Google caught and terminated so we could do no more harm.

        We did NOT violate their community guidelines and they should be sued, but only by those with deep pockets.

        As a monopoly (In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.), I would think (not an attorney) that they could not ban just anyone from their site the same way discrimination is prevented in other businesses.

        Google/YouTube can be considers themselves a monopoly going by their own PR.

        Best,
        Roger.

        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        ** Warning ** What follows is JUST my opinion. Take it for what it's worth
        to you.

        No third party site, vendor or whatever owes you anything unless you're paying
        for it. And even then, what you pay for only buys you so much. I get a kick
        out of folks who purchase a $7 ebook from me and expect lifetime coaching
        to come with it.

        Google, within the law (and I know nothing about Internet law) can do
        whatever the hell it wants provided it isn't breaking that law. Should the
        powers that be come to see them as a monopoly, maybe at that time they
        will do something about it...just like they did with Bell Telephone back in the
        good old days.

        Until then...if you don't like what Google is doing...don't use them.

        Don't put your videos up on YouTube
        Don't use Adwords
        Don't use their keyword tools
        Don't use their search engine period
        Don't use Adsense
        Don't use Blogspot

        Pretend as if they don't exist.

        There are other search engines
        There are other PPC sites
        There are other keyword tools

        Life CAN go on without Google in our lives.

        I depend on them for almost nothing. Hasn't seemed to affect my business
        any.

        The more dependent you become on other people, the more likely you're
        going to find that your business is about as stable as a bottle of nitro on
        top of a bull in a china shop.

        Again...take this message for what it's worth to you.
        Signature
        Track your affiliate sales back to the ARTICLE or WEBSITE that generated the sale. CBSaleTracker

        I was making money in days with the 4 Day Money Making Blueprint

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068448].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author NicheMayhem
          I've read that 28,800 hours of video are uploaded to Youtube each day. Can you imagine that?

          If it were me and I took a look at the massive amount of wasted space (and we are talking about 100,000TBs+ worth) I would also want to find a way to begin weeding out the useless and undesirable content my servers were burdened with.

          Think of the process, think of the staff required. It is hard to imagine the amount of data they are contending with. IMO, they have no choice but to figure out ways to automate a massive clean up.

          The words "make money online" are easily associated with 80% more crap videos then legitimate videos. Yes it sucks that this means all "make money online" videos get lumped in together but seriously, does anyone here have any idea how else it could be done? A massive hiring of people to pick through millions of videos is a silly thought, and unless they are all clones the variables of what goes and what stays will cause even more problems.

          Apply some logic to your understanding and realize their job at hand is incredibly massive. Millions if not billions of dollars are required to maintain and keep their servers operational already and to be quite honest, no matter what they do there will be a huge amount of complaints. I see no reason for them not to focus on maximizing their profits and keep the operational costs as low as possible. It's exactly what I would do, and more then likely you would too.

          Google has just as much social responsibility as they do moral responsibility. Every scammy, waste of space video is a reflection of Youtube's flaws. Same goes for the search engine results, kudos to Google for trying to clean it up. Where are all the genius marketers with better ideas for how the hell to go about the cleanse? I bet you, you will not be able to factor in every possible way to keep it fair. Actually, I think it is impossible to keep it fair to all and still get it done. I call that the nature of the beast.

          If you don't have a following of fans who will cry out and get you re-instated, tough luck. That's life folks. There are going to be casualties because there is no other way for the task to get done, simple as that.
          Signature
          Whether you think you can, or think you can't, YOU'RE RIGHT!! <~~Henry Ford

          Check out my video gigs on fiverr!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068870].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by PCRoger View Post

          Steven,

          They CAN (and DO) do what they want.

          But I disagree that it is legal.
          As I said, if some authority ultimately determines at some point in time that
          they ARE a monopoly, then by all means what they are doing is a load of
          horse crap.

          Until that time comes, what they are doing is perfectly legal.

          And I have no love for Google. In fact, I despise them with every drop of
          blood in my body. (slapped Adwords account and banned YouTube account
          for doing NOTHING wrong)

          Maybe it's time for somebody with some clout to bring their operation to
          the proper authorities.

          Until it happens, don't hold your breath for anything to change.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068931].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author PCRoger
            Well, I'm putting together a package for the Illinois Attorney General. They have been EXTREMELY helpful before fighting large companies, I may just see if they want to tackle Google.

            I can't afford to sue them personally, and not only do I not have enough fans to complain, like ProBlogger, but I don't even know how to ask them to complain.

            Roger.
            Signature
            Track your affiliate sales back to the ARTICLE or WEBSITE that generated the sale. CBSaleTracker

            I was making money in days with the 4 Day Money Making Blueprint

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068989].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author magentawave
              Good for you! I'd like to do the same but stooopid me didn't save copies of my videos as proof.


              Originally Posted by PCRoger View Post

              Well, I'm putting together a package for the Illinois Attorney General. They have been EXTREMELY helpful before fighting large companies, I may just see if they want to tackle Google.

              I can't afford to sue them personally, and not only do I not have enough fans to complain, like ProBlogger, but I don't even know how to ask them to complain.

              Roger.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069286].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dudeontheweb
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        ** Warning ** What follows is JUST my opinion. Take it for what it's worth
        to you.

        No third party site, vendor or whatever owes you anything unless you're paying
        for it. And even then, what you pay for only buys you so much. I get a kick
        out of folks who purchase a $7 ebook from me and expect lifetime coaching
        to come with it.

        Google, within the law (and I know nothing about Internet law) can do
        whatever the hell it wants provided it isn't breaking that law. Should the
        powers that be come to see them as a monopoly, maybe at that time they
        will do something about it...just like they did with Bell Telephone back in the
        good old days.

        Until then...if you don't like what Google is doing...don't use them.

        Don't put your videos up on YouTube
        Don't use Adwords
        Don't use their keyword tools
        Don't use their search engine period
        Don't use Adsense
        Don't use Blogspot

        Pretend as if they don't exist.

        There are other search engines
        There are other PPC sites
        There are other keyword tools

        Life CAN go on without Google in our lives.

        I depend on them for almost nothing. Hasn't seemed to affect my business
        any.

        The more dependent you become on other people, the more likely you're
        going to find that your business is about as stable as a bottle of nitro on
        top of a bull in a china shop.

        Again...take this message for what it's worth to you.
        Well said. I came to a realization years ago. If you can roll your own, then roll your own. I used as little 3rd party stuff as I possibly could.

        Look at all the complaining that was done when marketers lost tons of blogger blogs in one fell swoop. All the Google updates, I still hear stories about the "Florida update" and how destructive that was. And all the free web hosts where people lost years of work and top SERPS. Think Geocities, yes there was alot of cr*p on there, but people did lose highly profitible site with goecities.

        I'm not a big fan of "free hosted" anything, because you never know when the freebie is going to end.(and they always do.) I don't like being in that position.
        Signature

        Need a QR Code? Check out my QR Code Generator. It's FREE!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4070354].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
    Someone said there's a lot of scams associated with MMO. True, but there are a lot of scams associated with religion and preachers, too - and teachers - and oh just about every topic out there. You can't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

    Each person should be fully investigated by a human reviewer and if proven to be scum, deleted. No need to throw us all away.

    I'm annoyed. And yet, when I get riled up like this, it makes me more productive - so thank you! LOL!

    Tiff
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067650].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gregg
    Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    Yesterday the first reports surfaced that Google began suspending large numbers of YouTube accounts. These suspensions came without warning. In typical Google fashion, there were not extensive explanations of what happened or what the cause was. Letters from YouTube just indicated violations of terms of service.

    Included in the mass suspension (for 6 months) was famed ProBlogger. His account was suspended yesterday and reinstated today after massive protests.

    Peace
    Thanks for the information. Very helpful!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4067730].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sebastian Oudot
    Thanks for the share.

    I remember last year, I had a channel with 30 videos and almost 1 000 000 views.

    One day, YouTube deleted my account and I still don't know why.

    I didn't have any of these mentioned criteria.

    So, that's really good to know.



    I still see the same videos I saw a week ago on the page one for phrase "make money online" which is sort of the next evil thing right after "make money from home". So I don't think it is the keyword phrase alone that gets you suspended.

    What I think (meaning I have no way of knowing and this is just a speculation) is that they only want to go after crap videos which noone watches, even if it is make money online or something else evil.

    I imagine they know very well that if they remove videos that get top views, people will find a way to watch them on some other site.
    Yes, that's one the strange things on Youtube.

    It's like the music copyright thing.

    YouTube (Google) seems very clear about it. They warn you, then they ban you if you don't respect this.

    However, I can see no official videos with music copyright content all over the place.

    There are so many videos uploaded everyday - imagine! it's about 24hours of videos uploaded every minutes, that's huge - that I think some videos can stay there for some time even if they don't respect the TOS.

    But from my experience, I believe that if you want keep your channel for a long time, you need to play by the rules.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068145].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronc0011
      Personally I think there is an opportunity here. I think the only real thing they have done is clear out a lot of the competition and noise. Everyone in the MMO market is still going to find ways to market their product / service but now a lot of the millions of videos they had to compete with are gone. So we change up the approach and the pitch. The objective is still the same. We have a product and there are people who are looking for it, do the keyword research. The market is there and people are going to pursue that market. It ain't rocket science.

      Honestly I think some of the people at Google are a bit of prima donnas. There are 197 gazillion websites on the internet. How many of them do you suppose are trying to make money? To try to pretend that wanting to make money online is somehow evil is just stupid. Of course people want to make money online. May as well complain that water is wet.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PCRoger
    Thanks for this info.

    Actually, I was feeling quite bad about it when it happened to me on Sunday - couldn't imagine what I did wrong.

    BUT, I was thinking I'd been hacked since they made me verify my account with a phone SMS verification code - but it was a Make Money Online video.

    And we all know that ONLY GOOGLE is allowed to make money online.

    Here is my story, posted before I came across this great thread:
    R.I.P YouTube?

    I agree with the DEFAMATION issue, besides, having a Make Money Online video is NOT against their community guidelines.

    In fact, GOOGLE SAYS IT ALL in their own guidelines:
    "It comes down to respect. YouTube is all about sharing and interacting with the community in respectful ways. If you're not sure whether a video or comment you've made crosses the line, follow a simple rule of thumb: if you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't say it on YouTube. And if you're looking to attack, harass, demean, or impersonate others, go elsewhere."

    Respect, something THEY DON'T Do.

    thanks,
    Roger.
    Signature
    Track your affiliate sales back to the ARTICLE or WEBSITE that generated the sale. CBSaleTracker

    I was making money in days with the 4 Day Money Making Blueprint

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068373].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PCRoger
    So what can you do if you're not ProBlogger, and how did his fans express their disgust to Google/YouTube?
    Signature
    Track your affiliate sales back to the ARTICLE or WEBSITE that generated the sale. CBSaleTracker

    I was making money in days with the 4 Day Money Making Blueprint

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068404].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Plaskow
    At the end of the day, this teaches us the importance of having SEVERAL marketing campaigns going at the same time.

    Never leave all your eggs in one basket.

    We found that out several years ago with the google slap and now it's happening with youtube.

    To be honest from a non IM perspective, it makes sense what google/YT are doing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4068766].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
    Originally Posted by LB View Post

    A real eye opening article. Thanks for sharing, though nothing in it surprises me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Steven, He's done some very good blog posts recently on the same type of subjects which is why I mentioned his blog in post# 36. They're well worth a read. I like the fact that he links extensively to the sources for his statements.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069380].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi Steven, He's done some very good blog posts recently on the same type of subjects which is why I mentioned his blog in post# 36. They're well worth a read. I like the fact that he links extensively to the sources for his statements.
        Well, Google (in my eyes) has been an evil blood witch from hell since they
        slapped my first Adwords account for reasons that are still beyond me. I'm
        just glad that I don't put anymore money in their pocket. Maybe if everybody
        stopped doing that they'd go away.

        One can dream.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069399].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Originally Posted by LB View Post

    Wow.

    This article reminds me all the discussions I have with my wife about G.

    So damn true it hurts.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069502].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ecclectix
    I have a love/hate relationship with google. Not sure how I feel about this latest housecleaning effort though. On one hand maybe it does need to be cleaned up a little but on the other hand for there to be no warning of sudden violiation of terms seems a little harsh. Who knows what kind of hoop we will have to go through next.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4069710].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author azmanar
    Hi,

    There would be alternatives.

    Instead of Free Video Hosting sites, Amazon S3 comes into the picture for best alternative.
    Signature
    === >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4070906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dudeontheweb
      Originally Posted by azmanar View Post

      Hi,

      There would be alternatives.

      Instead of Free Video Hosting sites, Amazon S3 comes into the picture for best alternative.
      Also what I did years ago was contact hosting companies directly and let them know what kind of content I was going to be hosting and what kind of bandwidth I would need and most of the time they could give me a custom plan that suited my needs. I also shopped around for the best deal.

      Alot of people who run / offer hosting can and will work with you. So it could be a potential win/win for both parties.
      Signature

      Need a QR Code? Check out my QR Code Generator. It's FREE!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4070942].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author azmanar
        Originally Posted by dudeontheweb View Post

        Also what I did years ago was contact hosting companies directly and let them know what kind of content I was going to be hosting and what kind of bandwidth I would need and most of the time they could give me a custom plan that suited my needs. I also shopped around for the best deal.

        Alot of people who run / offer hosting can and will work with you. So it could be a potential win/win for both parties.
        Hi Dude,

        That's what I did earlier until YouTube came about.
        Was using Real and Flash back then. I have full control.
        But I'm not satisfied with the internet speed to users
        and no video-based admin back-end. So moved to YT.

        If anything happens to my stuff in YT, I would move
        all my videos to Amazon S3. Video admin at 1 place.
        And also can sync with my membership sites and levels
        as well as illegal download prevention when needed.

        Amazon S3 has similar built-in players like YT as well.
        Easy to embed players in my websites and blogs.

        Migration is not an issue as long as files are backed up
        in local HDD or DVDs.

        The unfortunate thing with the new YT Witch Hunting is,
        LOST OF YT SOCIAL COMMUNITY. YT is a gathering place.
        Lots of interactions between users in comments. When other
        users like your videos, they would embed them in their sites.
        Some would favourite them in their own YT channels. Their
        own users get to see your videos. For more, their users would
        go over your channel. This is organic networking.

        When such community has already been established and
        our account got suspended, it is not easy to rebuild them.
        We may lost contact with a majority of the social friends.

        But if it happened anyway, then we have an alternative to
        rebuild video-based social community, i.e. FB Comments Plugin
        for WP and API for sites. I think this is viral as well.

        Can't think of anything else yet. Don't feel good at all
        with this Google-YT Witch Hunting.
        Signature
        === >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4073238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seobro
    Hi Harlan:

    Thanks for giving us a heads up. With a name like SEOBRO um I will not last long - I guess. Time will tell us. It is sad, but I wonder where we will go. Youtube was such an excellent service. Like free hosting for our movies. The good old days are over.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Good News Now
    Thank you for this info. I felt that something like this may be coming. They had to do it at some point. YouTube was becoming a bit junky.....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4071988].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Targeted Traffic
    good post Harlan thanks a lot, we'll be vigilant
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4072282].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kctang
    I'm just happy I'm not in the make money industry. Scary how Google can sneeze and cause a hurricane.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074310].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Vanessa Reece
      It may be too late for some but it may be advantageous for others to set up a secondary account with no videos on it just to add the friends/subs you do have on your main account in case that does get banned.

      It's just a thought since you can message everyone who was on your main channel friend/subscriber list should SHTF and remind them where you can be found off YT.

      V
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074711].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi,

      Two things that interest me -

      1. What inspired the decision by Google to use the type of wording they do when they terminate accounts, whether it's youtube or adwords or anything else. These emails are boiler-plate, so it's entirely up to them (no extra effort) whether these emails are cold, brief, accusational and harshly-worded or they could instead do this -

      'We're truly sorry, but we have been forced into a position where we have to...'

      As I said, it's no extra effort. One person has to sit there for a few extra minutes and word them so that they show at least an inkling of appreciation for the very people who have built them up to be what they are - a brand that instantly falls off everyones lips when online video is mentioned.

      It would still be irrelevant if 99% of the people terminated were guilty, you would (normally) still consider the guaranteed 1% who were totally innocent and caught up in the cull. The truth is, it's probably many more than 1% who are just ordinary, law-abiding, TOS respecting people who have been unceremoniously dumped.

      It doesn't cost anything extra for them to be nice, courteous and considerate. Surely it's just good business?

      So what exactly, motivates them to act like a gleeful executioner?

      2. I spend plenty of my time researching political things, much of which would fall into the 'conspiracy' bracket. There are some excellent, informative and enlightening websites out there. Much of the information I find is contained within videos, some on youtube, some on Google video (although I think they are being moved to youtube?)

      Due to my cynical nature and as someone who has read enough conspiracy theories to become one of those people who regularly gets labelled a 'conspiracy theorist', plus the fact that governments and mainstream media are currently making a lot of noises about the dangers of the unregulated internet and add to this a lot of high-profile hacking going on, I am particularly interested to see if some of the most controversial videos get caught up in this termination net.

      If Google were to have this on their list, perhaps on the orders of higher powers, it would make sense to go in hard on a different sector (make money), with the convenient 'we can't afford to review and cherry-pick so mass deletions is the only way, unfortunately for those innocents caught up in this' excuse ready at hand. Then later on, the conspiracy sector gets the chop too, when the anger has already abated somewhat and people have already moved on.

      Interesting times.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074731].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnSchoemann
    YouTube Terminating- Make Money Online Accounts. As you probably heard this weekend, YouTube terminated thousands of Make Money Online Accounts.

    Here is my take on this: As Internet Marketers we need Youtube for the traffic it generates to our sites, and to those of our clients. Youtube has become an indispensible part in all traffic g...eneration strategies. The other Video sharing sites don't even rank close to Youtube when it comes to page views and potential traffic funneling to our web properties.

    I don't think we, as Internet Marketers should take YouTube's DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK (Yes, I call it a denial of service) on our channels lightly.

    We, "The Make Money On The Internet" crowd play a huge part in the training, coaching and education of people who ultimately become key customers for the top 10 Companies on the Internet.We "The Make Money On The Internet" crowd teach people how to make money on eBay. We teach people how to make money on Google. We teach people how to make money on Facebook. We teach people how to make money on Youtube. And Yes, We teach people how to make money on the Internet.

    We are directly responsible for the billions of capital that goes to the top Internet and Tech companies on the NYSE and the NasDaq. Yes, I am freakin mad! It is people like you me and the millions of other entrepreneurs who got Youtube, Google, Facebook, EBay, Yahoo, Amazon where they are today.

    We, the small time entrepreneurs are responsible for the Billions of dollars that they make. We are the driving force behind there rising stocks. We! We! We! Not corporate America! I am totally Freakin Pissed
    Signature
    John Schoemann
    Internet Marketing Strategist And Coach
    www.JohnSchoeman.com
    CEO & Founder at:
    www.NetwealthConcepts.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4074945].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author defaultuser
    I noticed YouTube talking about their awesome advertising platform and decided to make a little video about it.


    Don't you just love that it's a YouTube video that I am posting here?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075022].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Vanessa Reece
      Thanks for posting the vid defaultuser.

      Interesting why I'm still seeing false claim type advertising and 'make money from home' stuff on Google ad network. :rolleyes:

      I'm starting to think the Big G doesn't know its a*se from its elbow. But I'm also aware (and I think this may be what ExRat was hinting at ) that the powers that be who own the big G are actually 'very high powers' because although Google is a public company - the fast majority of shares are held by banks and financial institutions, like Goldman Sach$ and Barclay$..I'm sure you don't need me to explain how that goes.

      And if you think FB won't fall under the same 'chill' effect you're dreaming - look who owns them.

      V
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075291].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by defaultuser View Post

      I noticed YouTube talking about their awesome advertising platform and decided to make a little video about it.

      YouTube - &#x202a;Problogger got Banned&#x202c;&rlm;

      Don't you just love that it's a YouTube video that I am posting here?



      lol. I use to sell advertising. I had to sell mediums to peeps that had no friggin need for it....yet somehow I figured out a way a female dominated spa would benefit from a space ad in Mens Fishing Journal...et al.

      My question is rather simple.....what are you basing your facts on?

      Because if I'm YouTube looking for big corporate accounts the first lie I tell them is that 75% of the people actually want to search for the big game.....but would rather watch their Subaru car commercial....lmao.

      Come one man......does anyone really believe that.

      If you search on You Tube for a specific topic like how to make soap...and are subjected to a a 30 second spot on some car commercial....trust me...I'm not engaged, amused....or anything other then pissed off......and just CUZ GOOGLE SAYS IT'S TRUE .....DON'T MAKE IT SO.

      And ask the Warriors. If you are searching for a specific topic on this or that.....you're telling me that 7.5 out of 10 of you are actually looking forward to jerking around watching some unrelated 30 second commercial ???

      Why do I think this sounds like a "sales pitch" from Google to me....because they are having difficulty getting these big players on board.

      Maybe it's just Vinnie.....but when I go to search for something I want to find it......I don't want to listen to why the new Rolls Royce might get me laid if I drop 100K down......sorry......it makes NO sense.

      I don't bite on what google says.....I bite on what they do.

      peace, Vegas Vince
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4189720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author defaultuser
    And if you think FB won't fall under the same 'chill' effect you're dreaming - look who owns them.

    I couldn't resist!

    This is also popular enough that you will probably see a commercial too.

    EDIT: HA! I knew it! An ad rollover!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075341].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dash Evra
    I, for one, agree with the way Youtube is handling things. The IM niche is full with scammers, liars etc... Yes, I know many others are honest people who are giving great advice that have helped a lot of people. But how on earth would YT be able to tell the difference? From what I've been reading here, it sounds like you guys expected them to do some sort of investigation on what the videos are promoting to see if they are legit or not. That's just preposterous. Especially from a service you are getting for FREE. It saves them a lot of time and money to delete all those videos at once. Being one of the top 10 most visited websites, I am sure they have other, bigger things to worry about.

    Youtube doesn't hate internet marketers. It hates spammers and scammers. Sadly, that's the category the IM niche fall into (I am generalize, of course). YT is just protecting its site.

    I am sorry to hear that many people have lost XXX amount of videos and all but I am sure those of you who truly know IM well enough to give people advice will bounce back in no time.

    As for the others, use that as a wake up call that scamming or spamming is no way to build a long term income stream. They are the reason the IM niche has such a bad reputation.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075356].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bahamut1990
    EU has condemned Microsoft to millions of euros a couple times just for not publishing it's windows os core and thus limiting free competition (just google it), isn't what google doing far worse?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075486].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author defaultuser
    I see your point Dash and I agree. Spammers should not be welcome anywhere because they pretty much ruin a good thing 98% of the time.

    But who is determining 'spam'? No matter what your feelings are on the subject, beyond the legal definition, spam is quite subjective. Not to mention the community guidelines for YouTube are pretty loosely worded.

    Take a look at any infomercial. Looks like spam to me. Just a prettier version.

    I always laugh because there are totally UNRELATED ads on the infomercial itself ON YouTube.

    The bigger questions have more to do with using YouTube as a marketing platform. YouTube made 1 billion dollars in 2010 with their ad platform. You should also know that after Google bought YouTube in 2006 not many people thought YouTube would work as an advertising platform at all. There are STILL a lot of people who don't believe it.

    So we know it works, and that it ISN'T going away.

    Have any of you applied for the free adwords credit? Google has now setup call centers to call you and talk to you all about adwords and how awesome it is once you apply. Google is pushing adwords, promoted videos, and the YouTube video targeting tool. They are ready for business! BIG BUSINESS.

    I think Google is shaking the tree trying to scare people off. I think it's working. Hit someone like Problogger and watch everyone else freak out.

    Why put the effort into making videos if they are going to get banned if the wrong keywords are being used?

    What about the people who accidentally use keywords that Yougle (YouTube + Google) doesn't like?

    Googles mission statement is: "don't be evil." Seems like there is a lot of room for interpretation there.

    Don't get me wrong. I *heart* YouTube SO much. The clever tools and bits of interactivity is AMAZING and can give viewers a truly interactive experience that NO OTHER PLATFORM can pull off. It is truly a wonder.

    Don't let this discourage you if you are thinking about making videos. The reason this is happening is a testament to how effective video, and YouTube marketing is.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075546].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author defaultuser
    Oh, and this isn't the first time that Darren has been shot down by a big company.

    ProBlogger is Banned from StumbleUpon

    He was also banned, and then reinstated on Stumble Upon.

    YouGle isn't the only one.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4075611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LynneCarey
    @Tiff Really sorry, and annoyed to hear what has happened to you. While youtube/google can do as they please, and it is all very good that they are trying to clean things up, I think it is only fair to give people a warning to remove videos or a 'please explain'.

    Still... it is extremely frustrating and quite a loss. It is so important to back things up, even if you just have a hard drive for that purpose alone!

    Harlan, just made a post and while I was trying to post a response it was deleted, hopefully, he will come on this thread and make his proposed 'Warrior' revolt here.

    He was saying as a group we need to start tweeting @youtube and protest at Tiffany's account being gone, and we want it back. Just like people did for Problogger.

    I for one would be very happy to do this, because while I am in total agreement YT should be getting rid of scammers, clearly Tiffany is anything but and is responsible for helping a lot of people in what is difficult times.

    So.... I am off to tweet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077048].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DebiJ
      Yep yep. Tweeted, tweeted and re-tweeted. Check. Facebooked. Check. Blog post. Will be done this evening. Viral power is real power. LOL
      Debi

      Originally Posted by LynneCarey View Post

      @Tiff Really sorry, and annoyed to hear what has happened to you. While youtube/google can do as they please, and it is all very good that they are trying to clean things up, I think it is only fair to give people a warning to remove videos or a 'please explain'.

      Still... it is extremely frustrating and quite a loss. It is so important to back things up, even if you just have a hard drive for that purpose alone!

      Harlan, just made a post and while I was trying to post a response it was deleted, hopefully, he will come on this thread and make his proposed 'Warrior' revolt here.

      He was saying as a group we need to start tweeting @youtube and protest at Tiffany's account being gone, and we want it back. Just like people did for Problogger.

      I for one would be very happy to do this, because while I am in total agreement YT should be getting rid of scammers, clearly Tiffany is anything but and is responsible for helping a lot of people in what is difficult times.

      So.... I am off to tweet.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078275].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LynneCarey
        Originally Posted by DebiJ View Post

        Yep yep. Tweeted, tweeted and re-tweeted. Check. Facebooked. Check. Blog post. Will be done this evening. Viral power is real power. LOL
        Debi
        Cool, glad I am not the only one tweeting, and I am thinking the blog post won't hurt either.

        Would love to see Tiffany reinstated, and also like to see YT give people a bit of warning, while they are 'cleaning house'.... Anyways....
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rach72
    Have to say that I can see both sides and that G has to keep having 'clean outs' on a massive scale. (I do not expect my account to be reinstated anytime soon and that's OK)

    But I also hate that really good people get thrown out with the trash too, so am off to tweet for Tiff!
    Signature
    For PLR that Kicks Ass and Freelance Writing that'll Rock Your World
    ** New Guide for the Digital Writer**
    101 Writing Tips
    That Separate You From The Pack

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077134].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andy Money
    I had one account hit but that's it so far and it wasn't in the MMO niche, so I don't know.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077207].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ShaneWilliams
      I've had an account flagged and shut down in the past. I will also have to admit that it happened when I was getting started on the net and putting up some promotional marketing vids that if I go back and watch now think ...."wow, this is crap!" Plus they were covered with make money keywords. You live and learn.

      It IS their house and it IS a free platform so sure they can do whatever, whenever they wish, and we have to quickly adapt or leave. There absolutely should be some heavy regulating going on in there but as it's already been pointed out in this thread, there's a ton of stuff that is glorified that falls into the same categories.

      I for one would have absolutely no problem paying for a PRO version of their service. Charge people $20/mo to have more control over their accounts. Anyone who posts any type of advertising material without a PRO account, then shut them down! That step alone would weed out a TON of people because most people doing really cheesy, quick, spammy marketing vids are broke and would refuse to pay. Problem solved.

      Youtube can be excellent for rankings and the platform is super simple. That's why I would be willing to pay. No need to over extend my welcome with the free hosting.

      Oh well.....time to finally get hip to S3 and get all of the content on there...

      It would be awesome for them to have it set up to where if their software flags you it sends you an email with a 24 hr warning to correct the issues or permanently lose your account. Again....that would still clean out a lot of junk because most spammers who toss up a ton of 30 second CPA vids wouldn't be watching their multiple accounts so they would get trashed. The people who DO care about their channel and monitor it would promptly correct the issue and remain in good standing.

      More daydreaming here......
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
    Another fellow marketer in the cooking niche told me he had his account banned because you could hear the radio slightly in the background. Wow..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cash37
    Increase the quality of your videos.

    No more slideshows, folks.

    Time to get on camera and do some editing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077471].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BlondieWrites
    There is no doubt that YouTube needs to clean up. But to just go and delete accounts for no other reason than the words "make money" are in the keywords or title is nonsense (and that's being nice).



    Cindy
    Signature
    WAHM Daily -

    Working from home, work at home moms, make money online, internet marketing, PLR content
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077500].message }}
  • In some ways they've created their own problem by not telling people exact reasons for being banned. That only leads to the videos being re-posted in other accounts.
    If they would give people more information, most would follow the rules, IMHO.
    I've had many videos and accounts banned and very few times was the reason obvious to me.
    Stef
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4077624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stlwebbusiness
    Thanks Harlan for the info. I wonder if they are going to be going after any affiliate type video's too. Or do you think it's just about making money niche?

    JC
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4078938].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Janet Scettrini
    The OP of this thread reads like a conspiricy theorist. Spies inside Google.. lol.. I have spies inside YT itself I guess. They are friends that I worked with in the past in the IT industry.

    Why start the mass panic? Just the type for it?

    J
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079007].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Johnny Slater
    After reading all the posts in this thread one fact seems to come up over and over.

    Here is something that most are forgetting or chosing to ignore...

    Youtube makes their own rules, and can change them or ignore them all they want to, as long as they are not breaking any laws.

    Youtube doesn't owe you anything. They dont have to let you use thier service if they dont want to. It is their right to disable your account for any reason they want, or no reason at all.

    Just because you want to put your videos on their service means nothing. You do NOT have any rights other than the ones that Youtube gives you. You can argue and rant all you want but at the end of the day its their house and their rules.

    If you dont like it thats fine, but acting like they did something wrong is about as useful as an umbrella full of holes. Some of you need to get over your entitlement mindset and realize that all websites have the right to make and break their own rules all they want as long as they are not breaking any laws.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079403].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author terrencewan
    To play it safe, i think the best way is to
    focus on Email marketing, where you built
    your own list and avoid being slam by Google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079476].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author peteranderson874
    I think if you're not doing anything wrong, your account should be fine.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4079519].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Johnny,

      If you look at history you will see that exact thing played out over and over. Take the Gold Rush of the US.

      Towns would spring up all over the place and were filled with a bunch of crooks and theives. This was allowed to stand for a time because those guys spent money in the sallons and the miners bought supplies in the general stores.

      After a while the towns would either die out or grow up. The ones that grew would at some point decide to clean out the bad apples and create a more friendly atmosphere. They would build chuches and schools and get a sherrif to round up or run off all the crooks.

      The internet isn't much different. Sites allow pretty much anything as long as it brings in traffic and gets them noticed but at some point they have to grow up and start policing the bad apples or face being run into the ground.
      Or alternatively -

      The small crooks were OK to carry on for a while because there was no one with the balls to stop them until bigger crooks, with suits, taxes and currency came along.

      When you get to the part where the towns grew, rather than 'the town' deciding to clean out bad apples, build churches and schools and installing a sheriff to create a more friendly atmosphere.....

      You could instead suggest this -

      New crooks, the type who wear suits, come along and start creating regions/counties/states that contain groups of towns.

      They explain to the existing crooks running the towns that the law-abiding people living in the towns are demanding churches, schools and sheriffs. They explain that although they appreciate the successful ways that the crooks have been making money, it can't carry on being done so openly. The people of the towns want to 'see' that things are changing.

      Things don't actually have to change, but in order for the people to feel content, they need the illusion of working laws and the illusion that the crooks have been run out of town. They need an illusion of democracy so that they feel empowered and safe.

      The crooks in suits present the crooks in cowboy hats a deal, whereby they get to keep their illegal businesses and profits, while they provide protection and cover for the crooks in suits.

      In the meantime they work in unison to make it appear that the crooks in suits and the crook (or stooge/useful idiot) with a sheriffs badge is actually driving the crooks in hats out of town and establishing law and order. Instead, they teach the crooks in hats how to change their appearance and wear a suit so that they don't look like crooks anymore, even though they are.

      They then provide faux services to the people and charge ever-increasing amounts of tax for these 'services'. If the people don't like the new system, the crooks who previously wore hats make bad things mysteriously happen to them, like a big rock accidentally dislodging on the mountainside and squishing the complainer.

      If the people are suspicious, they just send them along to church and get the guy in there to tell them a theory about how it happened.

      ..........

      Sorry for the downright and utter cynicism, but if you're going to present an analogy to explain what youtube are doing, then let's base it on fact more than naive fantasy - no offence intended.

      'The internet isn't much different.'

      Sites allow pretty much anything as long as it brings in traffic and gets them noticed but at some point they...

      ....start acting like dictators and working closely with the other dictators already in place to impoverish and opress the 'little people' and put them in their place. What they do might well be within 'rules' and 'laws', but it's still disgusting, bullying, dictatorial behaviour and it's worth noting that those laws, rules and the majority of the 'business principles' that all of the sheep bleat about were put in place by the same people, just like the 'laws' in those little towns back in the gold rush.

      Perhaps it's time for an internet 'Arab spring' where collectively, we tell Google to go and f*** themselves.

      So you roll out the 'it's their site, they can do what they want.'

      Sure they can. But see my previous points about this - (RE how they are so big, their brand is a verb. With this comes responsibility.)

      But while they have been 'ruling the roost', have we been able to do what we want?

      Perhaps we have in essence, but then why have Google been issuing guidelines as if they were some kind of universal law? Surely by doing so, they are acknowledging that they have a monopoly, they are acknowledging that they have a responsibility?

      Why were so many people wandering into this forum and making statements about what you could do with your website, when it was absolutely clear that they were interpreting Google guidelines as the law? Think about that, it doesn't happen by accident. It happens when a corporation finds itself in a unique position where it is so huge, all-encompassing and monopolistic that the people naturally assume that they have to do what they are told, otherwise they will be biting the hand that feeds them.

      Did you vote for Google to 'rule' the internet? I know that I didn't.

      It's a fact that some peoples businesses will be devastated by their actions. If not, why didn't problogger and his followers just brush it off?

      Why aren't Tiff's followers on here just brushing it off?

      Perhaps it's because no one likes a bully. No one forced them to go and buy youtube. No one forced them to continue to grow it to the point where it comes with a huge responsibility to treat it's genuine users with at least a tad of respect.

      The reason I am bothering to share my thoughts is because I believe that what Google is doing DOES mirror many other things that are happening in the world.

      And it's clear to see that as long as there are large groups of people amongst the little people who will rail against those other little people who call the big people out, who will roll out a ton of cliches put into their consciousness by those big boys and will try and position the big boy in question alongside the little business people and suggest that we are all subject to the same rules, therefore we must leave this big boy business to do what it wants without making a fuss - then we are screwed.

      I'm seriously considering a personal boycott of all things Google, because I'm starting to absolutely despise them and everything they stand for - and that DOESN'T make me anti-business, but rather, anti-monopolistic.

      Hi peteranderson874,

      I think if you're not doing anything wrong, your account should be fine.
      Tell that to the people who haven't done anything wrong whose accounts aren't fine.

      For the record, the few youtube videos I have published are still intact (for now) so I'm not one of the above.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080039].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Johnny Slater
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Sorry for the downright and utter cynicism, but if you're going to present an analogy to explain what youtube are doing, then let's base it on fact more than naive fantasy - no offence intended.
        There is not one drop of fantasy in what I posted.

        Many of the major cities of this country were formed in just the way I described.

        Did you vote for Google to 'rule' the internet? I know that I didn't.
        Google isn't "ruling" the internet, just the parts of it that they own. If major parts of your business depend on Google or any site they own, then you aren't doing enough to look out for your own interests. Marketers need to take some personal responsibility for their marketing methods and assets. If you rely so much on this one company, or any third party service or website, then you aren't doing enough to look out for your business.

        People do need to wake up and stop relying so heavily on other sites to control their traffic. There really is no good reason to rely so much on third party websites for your traffic. Use any means you can to get traffic to your sites but don't rely so heavily on any of them that if one gets taken away that it can seriously hurt your business.


        But while they have been 'ruling the roost', have we been able to do what we want?

        Perhaps we have in essence, but then why have Google been issuing guidelines as if they were some kind of universal law? Surely by doing so, they are acknowledging that they have a monopoly, they are acknowledging that they have a responsibility?
        Google hasn't been acting like they have a uinversal law. They have been acting like they can, and will, decide what they will allow on any service they own.

        Googles websites are not public property. They are private property and the owners have the right to make the rules for using their services. As many of us have said on this forum over the years, 'This isn't a democracy.'

        You keep bringing up the wording of a monopoly. Guess what, legally Google isn't a monopoly until some ruling body says they are. That hasn't happened so legally Google can do pretty much whatever it wants if there are no laws on the books preventing them.

        They do NOT have any "responsibilty" to their users other than the ones laid out in their TOS.

        You seem to be confusing legality with ethics/morality.

        Just because someone thinks they "should" be doing things a certain way doesn't mean they have to.

        I'm not saying that everything that Google does is ok or even right as far as ethics goes, but ethics and legality rarely have anything to do with each other.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080295].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Paul,

          As far as YouTube, Google faces the same problems in maintaining it that we do here, albeit on a much larger scale. Too many people playing too many games that don't fit the vision for the site. It becomes a matter of balancing goals.
          It's a shame that they can't do as good a job as you do here. On that point, the scale isn't the problem - they chose to get as big as they have, they can't use that as an excuse for using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

          Hi Johnny,

          You keep bringing up the wording of a monopoly. Guess what, legally Google isn't a monopoly until some ruling body says they are. That hasn't happened so legally Google can do pretty much whatever it wants if there are no laws on the books preventing them.
          This is where it gets blurry, due to personal opinion.

          You could call me a radical, because in my opinion corporatism has gone so far that corporations make the law - they ARE the law. Therefore suggesting that a corporation isn't a monopoly because the law says so means nothing to me. This particular corporation has so much power and money that laws aren't a problem. Corporate law is a farce in the first place, we can see that all around us. Corporate law should be torn up and rewritten because it's clearly not working. This corporation had a date in St. Moritz, Switzerland this week. Can you tell me what they spoke about?

          They do NOT have any "responsibilty" to their users other than the ones laid out in their TOS.
          As mentioned in previous posts, I don't agree with this statement.

          It's difficult to find any analogies because they are in such a unique position in such a new industry, but it's clear that in other situations, when one business has a clear life/death influence on millions of other businesses, there are usually (or should be) special regulations/laws created to deal with this.

          You can keep coming back with the 'it's a businesses choice whether they rely on Google or not - no one is forcing them to get traffic from Google', but I don't think that that one stands up.

          Look at their world market share just in terms of search and how many businesses there are in the world that have an interest in this traffic - the amount is mind-blowing.

          I can't think of a comparable business/situation in any other sphere where a company has been allowed to gain so much influence in a truly worldwide marketplace. Coupled with this, they have a situation where they can manipulate those SERPs in a whole host of ways where companies that have invested heavily in businesses that do thrive on organic traffic can be pushed out of organic into paid search by the same company.

          My opinion is that this situation should have been given special treatment and they should not have been allowed to become so big across such a broad spectrum of related services.

          In my opinion, the internet is a special case and the businesses that operate within it cannot be adequately bound by the laws created for businesses before the internet was invented, or those made since. They are not working.

          You seem to be confusing legality with ethics/morality.

          Just because someone thinks they "should" be doing things a certain way doesn't mean they have to.
          I'm not confusing them at all. The two things should be completely intertwined, otherwise what is the point of having the laws if they do nothing to uphold ethics and morality?
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080440].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ExRat
            Hi Andy,

            Thankyou. You're saying the same type of things in a different way and those subtle differences (in my opinion) are very important.

            For example -

            What I'm refering to is the mindset - feeling like a helpless victim. That is entirely unhelpful and not actually true, so patting each other on the back and saying "there there, you're right - that nasty Youtube has been horrible to you and you really should feel terrible about it." only re-enforces the negativity.
            Perhaps you need to be more specific about who you feel is expressing those kind of things in the thread and therefore who your advice is aimed at.
            Signature


            Roger Davis

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080481].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
              Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

              Perhaps you need to be more specific about who you feel is expressing those kind of things in the thread and therefore who your advice is aimed at.
              Perhaps I'm just wasting my breath and no-one is actually feeling like a victim. It's possible that I've just misunderstood some of the comments, and you're a clever guy, so if you think I've got it wrong them I probably have. I'll stop wasting everyone's time by talking nonsense and leave the thread to the people who really need it.

              Thanks for the reality check.
              Signature

              nothing to see here.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080522].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Johnny Slater
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            In my opinion, ...
            This is where you and I are differing. You are stating things as they should be in your opinion, and I am stating things as they relate to how it actually is.

            Going by opinion alone I agree with pretty much all you have said, I belive that Google "should" be more responsible in their actions and be more careful not to throw out the good with the bad. However, your opinion and mine really don't matter much in this case.

            Regardless of what we think is the right way to do things Google is still free to do it their own way because it is their business and we don't have the right to tell them how to run their business.

            I'm sure if someone came to you and said they felt you should be doing your business differently because they want to exploit your traffic you would tell them to shove it and you wouldn't let others dictate how you run your business. Opinions aside, Google/Youtube is a business and they will do what they feel is right for them.

            Look at their world market share just in terms of search and how many businesses there are in the world that have an interest in this traffic - the amount is mind-blowing.
            I do get what you are saying. However, all those businesses need to take some personal responsibilty and realize that they shouldn't have invested so heavily on Google for their income.

            There are thousands and thousands of people who make money every day and never even think about Google/Youtube as a source of traffic.

            All the people who are so heavily invested in Google for their income are no different from the people here who rely 100% on WSO's for income. It is never a good idea to put so much of your potential income at the mercy of any one marketing method and anyone who does rely so heavily on any one method should expect at some point to have things dry up on them.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080506].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ExRat
              Hi Johnny,

              we don't have the right to tell them how to run their business
              Yes we do. They don't have to listen or change anything, but it's then up to us what we choose to do about trying to change the situation. But it all starts with discussing how we feel about the way that they run their business, because the way that they run their business directly affects many of us on this forum, in fact it affects many aspects of the forum itself. I see many people who arrive here daily through the SERPs. I don't see the forum advertised on PPC.

              If we stop anyone from talking about it, particularly if we tell people that by doing so, they are playing the victim, what does that achieve?

              I appreciate that the idea of moving on from Google, not depending on them and finding multiple traffic streams is an entirely helpful proposition and a wise one. But I still think that this situation deserves discussion, as long as that discussion is not purely about what monsters they are.

              I'm sure if someone came to you and said they felt you should be doing your business differently because they want to exploit your traffic you would tell them to shove it and you wouldn't let others dictate how you run your business. Opinions aside, Google/Youtube is a business and they will do what they feel is right for them.
              None of us have set out to exploit Google.

              We were exploited originally because our content was illegally scraped and regurgitated in their SERPs while they built a powerhouse around it.

              Then they turn on us and treat us like compliant serfs.

              If I had treated people like that and they remonstrated with me I would listen to them, consider their complaints and act accordingly.

              If I hadn't treated people like that, but they were people that used my FREE and PAID services which made me vast amounts of money, then I would still not act in the manner they have (closed ears, arbitrary terminations, zero discussion or user input etc.) so please stop projecting Google's appalling behaviour onto me, you should know me better than that by now.

              Edit - (you added some more to your previous post, just as I tend to do every time I post because new things pop into my head and I prefer to be impatient and share 'real-time' thoughts, with additions.)

              I do get what you are saying. However, all those businesses need to take some personal responsibilty and realize that they shouldn't have invested so heavily on Google for their income.

              There are thousands and thousands of people who make money every day and never even think about Google/Youtube as a source of traffic.

              All the people who are so heavily invested in Google for their income are no different from the people here who rely 100% on WSO's for income. It is never a good idea to put so much of your potential income at the mercy of any one marketing method and anyone who does rely so heavily on any one method should expect at some point to have things dry up on them.
              I'm not disputing any of those things, but adding a caveat to them.

              The caveat is that due to the size and reach of Google's businesses such as search or youtube, it is inevitable that many people will become highly invested in those areas, in a way that severely damages those investments when they are cut off one day without warning, particularly if Google suddenly changes the rules it has clearly been operating by for a good length of time.

              And that in itself is why I am repeatedly referring to the problem revolving around them being too big in the first place. I'm not saying that they shouldn't (or that they don't need to) take the action that they have, sometimes they are forced to for logical reasons.

              What I am saying is that they should never have been allowed to get so big because this was bound to happen and I'm also saying that because they were allowed to get so big, they should show some social responsibility in terms of helping people to deal with the changes rather than doing the very opposite and on the basis that they are doing the opposite, they should not be allowed to get away with not showing any social responsibility.

              I don't think the majority would object if the authorities said, 'we got this wrong, because the internet is a new phenomenon. Google needs reining in for normal order to be restored.'

              But they never will because now they are in each other's pockets. Google has what the authorities want (power, wealth, reach and data) and the authorities have what Google wants (over-riding authority and stolen wealth).
              Signature


              Roger Davis

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080544].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                Hi Andy,
                Perhaps you need to be more specific about who you feel is expressing those kind of things in the thread and therefore who your advice is aimed at.
                Perhaps I'm just wasting my breath and no-one is actually feeling like a victim. It's possible that I've just misunderstood some of the comments, and you're a clever guy, so if you think I've got it wrong them I probably have. I'll stop wasting everyone's time by talking nonsense and leave the thread to the people who really need it.

                Thanks for the reality check.
                Are you trying to play the victim now? :confused:

                I fail to see how thanking you, pointing out that saying the same things in a slightly different way is beneficial (IE you were right, but it's clearer when explained) leads you to say that you 'got it wrong', are 'wasting everyone's time' and 'talking nonsense'?

                I think that your contributions do the opposite of those things as you are clearly a clever guy too and also way more successful and experienced than I am.

                Similarly for Johnny, Paul and anyone else I'm conversing with here.
                Signature


                Roger Davis

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080563].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
                  Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                  Hi Andy,


                  Are you trying to play the victim now? :confused:
                  Not at all, I just don't want to get into an endless debate about why I have my opinions and who they may not be suited for. It's the exact thing I was talking about - I can empathise with people feeling the pinch of Youtube's changes but I don't want to get drawn into going around it.

                  I have a stinking cold right now so perhaps my energy level is just low and I can't be bothered to have a discussion I would normally like to have. I know you're one of the people who I would happily bounce off so I'm sure it's me.

                  I just feel like I've said everything I wanted to say and if that's not enough for people to get where I'm coming from then I should probably stop talking.

                  It's not about you.
                  Signature

                  nothing to see here.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080608].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Johnny Slater
                Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                I appreciate that the idea of moving on from Google, not depending on them and finding multiple traffic streams is an entirely helpful proposition and a wise one. But I still think that this situation deserves discussion, as long as that discussion is not purely about what monsters they are.
                See, we actually agree.

                I've been stating my opinion based on the facts, just as you have been doing. I think that while we agree on most points that the back and forth of the small degrees of where we do disagree add value to the discussion, although I'm sure we both do get a bit too wound up stating our case from time to time.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080754].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Roger,
              It's a shame that they can't do as good a job as you do here. On that point, the scale isn't the problem
              Scale is an aspect of anything like this. Consider the challenges they face...

              We can read most forum posts in a matter of a few seconds. If the thread title doesn't match the content, we can tell that quickly. Video posters can, will, and do use descriptive text that is often misleading, and the only way to find out for sure is to watch the video all the way through.

              I suspect the folks monitoring YouTube have far more units to deal with than the mods here, on a per person basis.

              There is more motivation for people to keep their reputations intact here, since they don't get multiple chances to operate under their own names. Sure, some people cheat, creating fake IDs, but they're always going to have to hope they don't get caught. The behavior that requires tends to create other problems for them. And, for many people, it's just not feasible to use an anonymous account name.

              Many people use multiple IDs on YouTube as a matter of course, and most folks there don't have any direct interaction with their viewers. It's not nearly as important to have great name recognition, so they are more free to play fast and loose.

              While any large forum or social network is going to collect its share of psychopaths, stalkers and trolls, few of them are even in the same league as YouTube for outright crazies. And crazies multiply.

              The key thing, though, is the medium itself. Human time is much more expensive, by any measure, than machine time. The kind of judgment people here are suggesting would require massive amounts of human time, watching each and every video to make sure someone wasn't hiding the trash behind a few well-chosen cover pieces. Or using speech recognition to translate the videos into more rapidly parseable units, which has its own challenges of context and connotation.

              Very different processes, with different challenges.

              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080643].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                Hi Paul,

                Very different processes, with different challenges.
                I agree. I don't agree that this changes anything though, in terms of the points that I am making.

                There is more motivation for people to keep their reputations intact here, since they don't get multiple chances to operate under their own names. Sure, some people cheat, creating fake IDs, but they're always going to have to hope they don't get caught. The behavior that requires tends to create other problems for them. And, for many people, it's just not feasible to use an anonymous account name.
                So Google should give them less opportunity to create multiple IDs, in line with the successful model tested by the Warrior Forum. They are already using mobile numbers to try and stop the problem with gmail, I see no reason, with the vast amount of intertwined services that they offer and their reach and finances and data-mining and sorting capabilities that their job is any harder than yours due to the scale or the differences.

                This is a company that can afford to send cars down the majority of streets in the world to map the world out and put it online so that I can zoom in on my Auntie's holiday home in Hawaii. This is a company that allows me to zoom in on planets light years away and find previously unseen markings on the planet's surface that look like Shrek - and I can do these things for free.

                This is a company that appears to know what I am thinking and what I want to buy before I have even realised it myself.

                As we can clearly see, no one is forcing them to accept all manner of videos. They chose to keep it broad when they bought it. They are now trying to narrow it down and doing a terrible job of it.

                I think the opposite to your conclusion. I think that your job is much harder, taking everything into consideration.

                How would I feel if you terminated me forever, with no comeback, recourse, discussion, or chance to apologise if one of your (hypothetical) algorithms disliked one thing in one of my posts here?

                I would feel angry, and more.

                So that's why you don't operate that way. That's why you would at least discuss it with me, or at the very least warn me before permanently banning me forever.

                Why? Because you are capable of doing the job with a sense of social responsibility.

                Google apparently are not. And bizarrely, you are making excuses for them.

                While any large forum or social network is going to collect its share of psychopaths, stalkers and trolls, few of them are even in the same league as YouTube for outright crazies. And crazies multiply.
                I think that you get (relatively) as many, and as broad a selection of loonies coming here (just look at me!) I just think that you do a much better job of moderating them and I think that you utilised a clever system of member moderation where you provided incentives for the users to attempt moderation by working hard to maintain a community spirit.

                How many massive, well thought out replies have you written to people who clearly deserve little explanation?

                As for the scale, I don't buy it. Whatever you can do, Google can afford and find and train a multitude of Paul Myers clones or Warrior Forum mod clones to do exactly the same job, if only they could be bothered, which they can't.

                The key thing, though, is the medium itself. Human time is much more expensive, by any measure, than machine time. The kind of judgment people here are suggesting would require massive amounts of human time, watching each and every video to make sure someone wasn't hiding the trash behind a few well-chosen cover pieces.
                Again, I respectfully disagree. They do not need to watch every video.

                They have been attacked before by trolls with videos set up to appeal to children that suddenly switched to porn halfway through. It was in the news - I think it was anonymous who did it.

                They did what they needed to do. They appealed to their users to help them get rid of the menace, exactly as you would do here if things got out of hand.

                With a massive audience who are already sifting through and watching the content, they have a massive set of eyes to do the heavy lifting, with their own motivations for cleaning it up (to protect their own children coupled with a sense of social responsibility (hey, that word again!))

                As for the human/machine time thing, perhaps the Warrior Forum now has a satisfactory cost vs profit system based on a highly successful WSO system, in comparison with Google's youtube. I don't know. I do know that when I first arrived here, WSOs were free. It has not always been this way. But presumeably Allen utilised people who had successful businesses elsewhere and found ways to get them to contribute to the forum's eventual success. Good for him!

                Are you trying to tell me that this would be harder for Google? Well in that case, they shouldn't have been stupid enough to buy a loss making business like youtube which is based on a poorly conceived business model! But they wanted to. They weren't scared of the intial losses. Why? Because they want to monopolise at all costs.

                I hate to disagree with you Paul, but I enjoy doing it in an instance like this where I can say that I think you are mistaken, on the basis that YOU have proven by your actions over time in this forum that youtube doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of justifying their behaviour.

                In my opinion, they are entirely capable of handling this problem in a much better way without much inconvenience. Based on what I have learnt from these discussions, I can only conclude that they cannot be bothered and that the reason for this is because they have been allowed to get too damn big and powerful for their own boots and consequently they can't be bothered to give a damn about their user base.

                Andy,

                Get well soon mate. When you've got a cold, you're like a bear with a sore head.



                Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

                This discussion went beyond my reasonable skills to post without getting bird flu.

                So take care.

                This thread needs to be vaccinated - they're dropping like flies!
                Signature


                Roger Davis

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080784].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
                  For anybody that is interested in the big picture as opposed to the victim/entitlement/monopoly/evil/etc views that have dominated the discussion so far (that's not a bad thing, it's just been the main focus) here's a good place to perhaps start your journey towards understanding the dynamics of what is going on.

                  I alluded to this in a previous post, but this tidbit is perhaps a better window into what is happening. It might be a good read for some of you.

                  "Almost all YouTube views come from just 30% of films."

                  "YouTube have revealed that they rely on a small proportion of established video producers to bring 99 per cent of traffic to the site."

                  Almost all YouTube views come from just 30% of films - Telegraph

                  ~Bill
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080907].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                  Roger,
                  Google apparently are not. And bizarrely, you are making excuses for them.
                  There is a difference between excusing a thing and understanding it. I don't think they require excusing. It's their property. I do believe that understanding the situation accurately is useful in determining a practical response.
                  So that's why you don't operate that way. That's why you would at least discuss it with me, or at the least warn me before permanently banning me forever.
                  You are a civil and rational person, and you're not ripping off the members. Those things cannot be said about everyone.

                  That, however, points out another significant difference between a site like YouTube and pretty much any discussion forum: In a forum, the moderators are also members. On the whole, we know the people who use the sites much better than the folks who maintain video sites.
                  As we can clearly see, no one is forcing them to accept all manner of videos. They chose to keep it broad when they bought it. They are now trying to narrow it down and doing a terrible job of it.
                  They grew, they learned, and they changed their strategy. I don't see the problem.
                  How many massive, well thought out replies have you written to people who clearly deserve little explanation?
                  None. Not a single one. Ever.

                  I have posted quite a few lengthy treatises in response to such people, but they're not actually intended for the benefit of the person prompting the comments. They're intended for all those other people reading along who are open to a better understanding of the process. If the person whose comments were the basis for the reply also benefits, they deserved the explanation, whether I knew it at the time or not.
                  They appealed to their users to help them rid them of the menace, exactly as you would do here if things got out of hand.
                  So, they have member moderation. What a novel concept.
                  I can only conclude that they cannot be bothered and that the reason for this is because they have been allowed to get too damn big and powerful for their own boots and consequently they can't be bothered to give a damn about their user base.
                  Oh, they care about their user base. Just not the parts that are likely to create ongoing problems. Just like I don't care how much I inconvenience link spammers or trolls or those who would advertise in the discussion sections. Why should I? They are destructive to our real community.

                  Do you think we don't occasionally nuke someone for a ton of one-liners who might have become a useful contributor at some point? Of course we do. But the damage that would come from giving every one of those people the benefit of the doubt would be much more significant.

                  Google is brilliant at creating platforms. With the odd exception of Orkut, which is apparently wildly popular in Brazil, they're not so good at creating communities.

                  Machines moderate platforms. People maintain communities.
                  I hate to disagree with you Paul, but I enjoy doing it in an instance like this where I can say that I think you are mistaken, on the basis that YOU have proven by your actions over time in this forum that youtube doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of justifying their behaviour.
                  I understand the problem in ways that most people never need to learn. Part of that understanding comes from the experience of moderating forums. Part comes from having seen what happens when you try to assign tasks to humans that are better handled by machines. Spam filtering is a notable example. The most effective spam filtering systems have minimal human interaction, relative to the volume of content processed. Even they depend to a significant degree on "member moderation," but not in the one-to-one, individual judgment sense.

                  YouTube is going through the steep part of the learning curve. That's exactly the point at which the most mistakes will be made. It sucks to be behind that boulder when Sisyphus runs out of steam, but it's a necessary part of the process.


                  Paul
                  Signature
                  .
                  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080946].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                    Hi Paul,

                    Thanks for explaining.

                    I understand your points and have to bow down to your superior experience and understanding of this. Concepts of platforms and communities and their differences make sense to me, but I would need a deeper understanding of them learnt from those who work with them in order to engage in mental arm-wrestling about how to manage them and problem-solve.

                    I'm going to spend some time pondering what I have learnt from all of this, as that's the logical course of action and it's interesting and useful, hopefully.

                    Youtube are still monsters though, because I need some big guys to fuel my shoulder-chip.

                    Hi Bill,

                    this tidbit is perhaps a better window into what is happening. It might be a good read for some of you.
                    It was, thanks.
                    Signature


                    Roger Davis

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4081013].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
                    You know what I find interesting about this whole conversation? What has
                    happened to YouTube is really no different than what has happened to many
                    other avenues in our live.

                    For example.

                    Just recently, I had to go to DMV to get my drivers license renewed. In NJ
                    the process is a real pain in the ass. I have to bring all these points with me,
                    which includes a birth certificate, marriage license, SS card and so on.

                    When they first initiated this process, my birth certificate was issued from a
                    hospital. Guess what? They won't accept them anymore because they are
                    too easily forged. So now they only accept ones issued from the city hall
                    with the raised seal. I won't even get into what a nightmare it was for me to
                    get one of those 4 years ago because (you guessed it) I didn't have the
                    proper paperwork to prove that it was me. Talk about a catch 22.

                    If you recall, back in the good old days, all you had to do was mail your
                    application in with a check and you got your new license.

                    I asked the clerk at DMV why all the red tape.

                    Her answer?

                    You can blame it on 9/11.

                    Point is, as with everything in this world that I can think of, the scum of
                    this planet ruin it for all the good people because, when they break laws,
                    spam, or whatever, and things get out of control, companies, agencies,
                    sites, whoever, have to take drastic action to preserve their property and
                    sanity.

                    My problem with what YouTube/Google does is in the way that they do it.

                    Fine, they want to disallow certain types of videos even though at one time
                    they were allowed? No problem.

                    1. Tell us FIRST that they're going to be removed. Give us a chance to at
                    least move them to another host.

                    2. Don't post inflammatory messages on our videos that give our customers
                    the impression that we're some vile crooks, spammers, scammers or God
                    knows what.

                    How do you think it looks to our customers when they see that message
                    posted on our squeeze pages? It certainly can't make them think that
                    we're somebody that they're want to do business with.

                    My problem with YouTube/Google is not their policies and policy changes
                    (it's their site and they can do what they want with it) but their attitude
                    towards the people who helped get them to where they are.

                    When somebody like Tiffany Dow (who has to be one of the most above
                    board people I know) gets a whole account yanked and has to put up with
                    the vile messages posted on what's left of her videos, something is very,
                    very wrong.

                    Having said all this, I don't, nor have I ever relied on YouTube/Google for
                    my income...at least not any significant portion of it.

                    If we want to send a message to them, it's simple...stop using their services.

                    If enough people do this (not likely I know) maybe they will at least start
                    to treat people with a little more respect instead of making them feel like
                    the scum of the earth.

                    I don't think it's too much to ask for...no matter how big you may be.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4081058].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author batchos
        You're right this same thing is happening in almost every area of our lives right now. You've have to see it though as a cleansing. What seems like a violation of other people's humanity is merely the pendulum about to swing back the other way. History does repeat itself! You're not cynical, just ahead of your time. Of course, waiting for the ordinary guy to see the reality can feel like an eternity. In fact, the wave of change will wash him away with his mindset intact. Keep the faith, man.

        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        And it's clear to see that as long as there are large groups of people amongst the little people who will rail against those other little people who call the big people out, who will roll out a ton of cliches put into their consciousness by those big boys and will try and position the big boy in question alongside the little business people and suggest that we are all subject to the same rules, therefore we must leave this big boy business to do what it wants without making a fuss - then we are screwed.

        I'm seriously considering a personal boycott of all things Google, because I'm starting to absolutely despise them and everything they stand for - and that DOESN'T make me anti-business, but rather, anti-monopolistic.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4107935].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    Sounds like the classic - problem, reaction, solution in play. Except we're told that their actions are the response to a problem we have that means they need to do it.

    We have all the power we need, we just keep giving it to them and then wondering why they use it against us.

    When you look at it, if you're already creating useful videos and just using Youtube to share them then it doesn't actually take much time/effort to do that so you don't have a lot to lose. If you decide that you want a piece of their pie and start creating videos explicitely to get traffic from them then you're giving them power and stand to lose when they take it.

    There are definite points where they've changed their policies and terms to exclude what they used to allow, but it's naive to think that they weren't eventually going to tilt the system to focus on their business model and not ours.

    Sure it's not good for video marketers, but hey - life goes on and there's much worse stuff going on in the world, so let's just adapt to the change and get on with things.

    lining up to call them nasty names and play the victim doesn't help anyone.
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080088].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Andy,

      You make some good points, until this part -

      lining up to call them nasty names and play the victim doesn't help anyone.
      That's an interesting and rather simplistic, possibly unhelpful way of interpreting what people are doing/saying.

      Explaining different viewpoints and explaining why it's dangerous to line up and position yourself as a victim or to allow yourself to be a victim and then explaining how to adopt the mindset of refusing to be a victim, can help.

      Throwing in the 'playing the victim' cliche is as good as telling everyone, 'you're too small, you're chickenfeed, you don't have a voice or a choice.'

      That doesn't help either.

      If problogger and his followers can get Google to do a 180 and allow him special privileges, why can't Warrior Forum or the internet marketing community in general?

      Sure it's not good for video marketers, but hey - life goes on and there's much worse stuff going on in the world, so let's just adapt to the change and get on with things.
      Is that all that you popped in to say? Is that your two-penneth-worth?

      Are you like myself, currently unaffected by this? Well what about those people that aren't? What about when the same type of behaviour hits an area that does affect you, or you do care about?

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke.

      You're a good man, Andy. But you're championing doing nothing.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080134].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Roger,
        Perhaps we have in essence, but then why have Google been issuing guidelines as if they were some kind of universal law? Surely by doing so, they are acknowledging that they have a monopoly, they are acknowledging that they have a responsibility?
        Non sequitur, sir. What they were doing was saying, "This is how we want things done on our property."

        As far as the SERPs, they're saying, "This is our vision of what we think will best serve the users of our search engine. If your site doesn't fit these guidelines, we won't interfere with you. We simply won't list your site."

        People who talk about freedom of speech rarely mention that other right: Freedom of association, which includes the right to choose not to associate with someone. Or the notion that freedom of speech does not mean compelling another party to pay to promote speech of which they don't approve. Yes, those are American constructs, at least when referring to the First Amendment. But Google is a US-based firm.

        Google doesn't rule the Internet. Google has influence, based largely on the fact that the market chooses them from among the available competition.

        Basing your business too heavily on the SERPs is a gamble. Anyone making that wager should admit what they're doing, and not blame the people running the engines for their efforts to keep those SERPs useful, which is critical to their own business model.

        Many people have been saying for years that you should not rely too heavily on SEO for your business. Some of us pay it so little attention as to make it irrelevant to our businesses.

        As far as YouTube, Google faces the same problems in maintaining it that we do here, albeit on a much larger scale. Too many people playing too many games that don't fit the vision for the site. It becomes a matter of balancing goals.

        That's not always as easy to do as it is to demand.

        Andy,
        We have all the power we need, we just keep giving it to them and then wondering why they use it against us.
        Just felt this was worth repeating.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080275].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        You're a good man, Andy. But you're championing doing nothing.
        Thanks. But that's not what I'm advocating at all - in fact, just the opposite.

        Doing nothing changes nothing, what I'm championing is people taking back their power and being aware of when they're handing it over to others.

        Google can only hurt your business to the extent that you base your business on them. The same for Youtube.

        I'm not saying that they're not worth leveraging, just that we need to understand that when you decide you want some of the value that their business creates - you're accepting it on their terms - which may change.

        It's the reason that many people will never show up on the Dragon's Den asking for money they desperately need to grow their business - because by accepting that money you're giving away some of your business. Some people are ok with that arrangement and risk, some are not.

        There's no right or wrong - each is a choice.

        But you need to be clear that YOUR business has only YOU accountable for its success or failure.

        It's easy to set up a business that's rides on the back of another - but if you then have the rug pulled out from you - it's not anyone's fault but your own.

        Sure it's not nice when it happens, but it's also not about you - or your business. It's about their business.

        I do benefit from both Google and Youtube but if either of them disappeared overnight it wouldn't bother me because I know I don't control them and have never thought that my business relies on them. I would just change my focus and move on.

        As far as playing the victim is concerned, I'm certainly not saying that helping people understand what's happening and adapting to make your susceptibility to their changes isn't a good idea - I think I've already said that I think it is.

        What I'm refering to is the mindset - feeling like a helpless victim. That is entirely unhelpful and not actually true, so patting each other on the back and saying "there there, you're right - that nasty Youtube has been horrible to you and you really should feel terrible about it." only re-enforces the negativity.

        Let's get real here - Unless we own Google we have no right to expect anything from them. They're a profit-making company that has its own agenda and goals.

        We see lots of newbie IMers lying and cheating people out of money all the time in their desperation to make a dollar. We seem to be able to accept that this happens and understand why that is - they're just doing what they thought was a good idea within their own mindset.

        We'd like to think that as people and companies become more successful that the desperation gets replaced by inspiration and they revert to more socially responsible practices but it's all still people and they come in all flavours.

        The only point I want to make is that you can only be a victim when you choose to be one. Yes other companies can screw you around when you start to rely on them for your business - that should be just a sign that you've lef your guard down and need to make your business model a bit more robust rather than an excuse to go in to pity mode.

        There will be people who think this Youtube stuff is bad literally just because they make money selling people the idea that using youtube to make money is a business model to aspire to.

        Hopefully all the IMers who have been slapped by Youtube will have been using videos of their own which they still have and can still deliver to their intended audience.

        So - sure, complain to Youtube and show that they've caught the wrong fish by accident when testing their new net, but don't kid yourself that you need them to be successful or that you have anyone but yourself to hold accountable for whether you create the success you desire or not.

        Andy
        Signature

        nothing to see here.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080382].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    This discussion went beyond my reasonable skills to post without getting bird flu.

    So take care.

    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seobro
    Youtube is a very negative place anyway. A person will post a video of a computer error. He will say, "OK every time I run this program it will crash my pc. Hey, can you help me? What am I doing wrong? I need to understand this program."

    He will get answers.
    "Get a mac."
    "The problem is you are a moron."
    "Why don't you get a job flipping burgers instead of using programs."

    I have found that you tube is a toxic environment full of people that are pure poison. Google allows this to go on. Most of the videos are copy written content that belongs to producers of anime movies. Audience is teens boys that are very angry.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4080712].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Heidi White
      Originally Posted by seobro View Post

      Audience is teens boys that are very angry.
      Ah, so what affiliate product sells to this demographic? :rolleyes:

      I'm just sayin'

      Personally, what I fail to understand is why anyone would want to watch the Game Play of someone else - I mean to say!

      As far as comments go - I never read them, unless they are on one of my videos - usually so I can decide whether or not to delete them.