YouTube Creators May Lose Verified Badges As Verification Process Becomes Stricter (theverge.com) 45
YouTube is rolling out changes to its verification program for creators, making it tougher for growing channels to earn a checkmark beside their name and removing verification badges from people who don't meet the heightened criteria. An anonymous Slashdot reader shares a report from The Verge: YouTube's current system allows anyone with more than 100,000 subscribers to be verified. Now, YouTube is emphasizing verifying prominent channels that have a "clear need for proof of authenticity," according to the company. This includes traditional YouTubers, musicians, comedians, and artists, among others. Verification is an extremely important feature for creators. It affects which creators get top recommendations when people search for something on YouTube. Channels that no longer meet the criteria and may have their badge removed will be notified today, YouTube confirmed to The Verge. Creators will have the option to appeal the decision before the change takes place in late October.
The criteria for verification due to prominence essentially looks at whether a creator or channel is recognizable enough both in and outside of YouTube that the company needs to authenticate them. The company's authenticity rules are pretty simple: a channel has to be owned and operated by the person or company it claims to be in order to get a checkmark or other verification mark. For example, Beyonce's official channel should get a new artist profile icon and a musical note beside her name to show people that the page belongs to the real Beyonce. Under the new policy, YouTube's team will handle verification on their end, according to a press release. Channels that meet the new requirements don't have to apply for verification as it will automatically be handed out.
The criteria for verification due to prominence essentially looks at whether a creator or channel is recognizable enough both in and outside of YouTube that the company needs to authenticate them. The company's authenticity rules are pretty simple: a channel has to be owned and operated by the person or company it claims to be in order to get a checkmark or other verification mark. For example, Beyonce's official channel should get a new artist profile icon and a musical note beside her name to show people that the page belongs to the real Beyonce. Under the new policy, YouTube's team will handle verification on their end, according to a press release. Channels that meet the new requirements don't have to apply for verification as it will automatically be handed out.
A youtube badge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those without one with be put on the no fly list. It's a demerit on your social credit.
You people should beware of this dystopic shit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that is true. But most channels I watch are being de-verified. What is not known is how verification effects earnings because it is not known to what extent verification effects search results and suggestion algorithms. This is causing a lot of anxiety in the youtuber community.
Re: (Score:1)
the youtuber community.
The next generation of neo-nazis claiming entitlement to their gold stars. Watch out!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I had verification and just checked, and I still have it.
I don't have a thousand subscribers, let alone a hundred times that amount.
So who knows what's going on. Not me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the removal of verification is something they will be doing soon, not that they have already done.
Re: A youtube badge? (Score:2)
To me as a viewer that verified badge already says mediocre sponsored content. It's a sign of quantity over quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Your content must be advertising in and of itself, upon which google can add more advertising. Basically Google will then recommend those advertising channels, you know the fungal cunt brained influencers who get paid to produce advertising as content and then ad their own ads to that. Google is a shit brained lying corporate advertising network, they are truly fucking awful and should be broken up. Have you seen the Youtube home page without logging in, doing it fresh, it is wall to wall advertising as con
Re: (Score:1)
They are sneetches with stars on their bellies. The whole thing is very creepy and disturbing.
A new way not to pay (Score:5, Interesting)
It's another de-monitization: they're cutting down on the number of people they have to pay. YouTube will hide the small player who make oodles of content and basically cut them out of earnings unless they somehow go viral and then manage to sustain that audience.
They've become like an insurance company that God forbid, needs to pay out money from the premia collected.
Re: (Score:1)
Having watched a ton of these dudes (content creators--bullshit term) that my son watches (cause I'm a responsible human) they all mimic each other. The take-away is that they are not "content creators" but instead "look at how I do this!!!!" creators. Nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn't be called content "creators". Let's call them what they are; reality TV rejects that want money without working for it.
Re: A new way not to pay (Score:3)
Youâ(TM)re looking at an awfully slim percentage of YouTube then. There are many content creators who are putting out interesting quality content.
Re: (Score:3)
HistoryMarche is absolutely brilliant (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8MX9ECowgDMTOnFTE8EUJw) - and by the way, it is not "verified".
Veritasium is a great channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium)
There are plenty more.
However, in the PC Hardware and gaming areas, many channels that were great in the past started going down the slope of shit content, riddled with ALL CAPS clickbait titles such as "CPU XYZ... BUT IS IT GOOD FOR GAMING?", with 15-minute-talking-head videos with a couple charts thro
Re: (Score:2)
I just wish I could pay for an ad-free experience in some reasonable way. 12 bucks/month is a lot more than Netflix in the UK. I just want ad free, don't need all the original content.
Re: (Score:2)
Adblocking software costs $0.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work on smart TVs or Android devices though. DNS based blocking like PiHole is ineffective with YouTube.
The closest you seem to be able to get right now is to use a hacked YouTube client with an Android TV box, but it seems sketchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart TVs are for stupid humans.
On Android, watch in firefox with an ad blocker.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried YouTube in Firefox on a TV? It's a terrible experience.
The best you can do is maybe get a Chromecast and cast your phone that way, but last time I checked 60 fps streams don't work with it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably indicative of what teenagers are interested rather than the complete ecosystem of videos. Look, if I was a teenager I'd be watching nothing but crap. He'll grow out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like content creation to me. They make stuff that people watch. Like a box full of styrofoam packing peanuts.
Re: (Score:2)
@Let's call them what they are; reality TV rejects that want money without working for it.
If you say, "reality TV" then the part, "without working for it" is redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong here, but maybe, just maybe, the problem is less that there are no content creators and more that your son enjoys watching those "watch me do (stuff)" channels?
There's actually quite a few very sensible and informative channels out there. Granted, the "hey, look, I'm cool!" channels are more flashy and entertaining if you're not into learning.
Re: (Score:2)
This happened to me a couple years ago, I think. I was monetizing my videos just for kicks and made 4 dollars and a bit over 2 months :) and then Google decided I am not worthy of it, because I didn't have over a gazillion subscribers and a shitload of hours of my videos watched, or something like that. I shrugged, said "fuck you" and went along with my life.
Now they seem to have taken the next step.
Re: (Score:1)
More likely it's because of the number of fake channels with large numbers of subscribers.
Often those channels either rely on posting pirated content or on those bizarre auto-generated nightmare CG videos. The YouTube rules for verification only required them to meet some basic minimal identification like having a registered company somewhere.
Now they are looking at the actual content too they might be able to avoid giving legitimacy to those channels.
Demonetization is it's own, separate problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
''It's another de-monitization:''
By no means. Quality creations require attribution. Creators of quality work want users to know that it's their work. Quality websites want users to know who is responsible for the content. Users want to know where the content came from, the reputation of the creator and if the creator has sufficient skill, education or expertise to create content the reader/viewer/user sees.
Do I need to know who created a video about finger painting, probably not. The creator surely wants
Bzzzzt ... (Score:3)
"Channels that meet the new requirements don't have to apply for verification as it will automatically be handed out. "
So how does that work? Obviously "verification" is not "verification" of identity, but rather (I would suppose) verification that Google makes a shit-ton of money from you. In other words, it is a "Gold Stamp of Profit", or a popularity contest prize.
Maybe Google should do away with the doublespeak and just call it what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, unless you are a celebrity, you will be de-verified. For example the slingshot channel was notified that it will be de-verified. On the one hand, youtube is trying to make verification more meaningful, but at the same time they are taking away a token they have previously awarded to many, many very well-known channels. It is awkward and weird and the new rules for who satisfies verification criteria are vague and subject to interpretation. And of course, youtube reveals little or nothing about th
Re: (Score:2)
''So how does that work? Obviously "verification" is not "verification" of identity, but rather (I would suppose) verification that Google makes a shit-ton of money from you.''
If you shared profit from ads, they already know who you are. Creators just need to make it more clear to users who is responsible for the content they are posting. I would imagine that any users with information in the about tab on their channel, including contact data, get automatically verified.
This is more about providing users w
Re: Bye bye PewDiePie (Score:2)
I still haven't seen any of his videos, I don't know what the fuzz is about.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost nothing.
Did not know verified bade was a thing (Score:1)
I never paid attention to any badge thing. I'm not even sure where to look to find it, or maybe nothing I watch has a badge.
For political stuff, I know anything with a badge can't be trusted since they will not badge any channel pro-trump or Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Veritasium has a "verified" tickmark to the right of the channel name.
HistoryMarche does not.
YouTube began screwing creators before this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
''This is just another step in the direction for Google/YT in order to just keep the top content creators that indirectly make money for Google.''
Why is that? You do realize that if a video is demonetized that Google doesn't profit either. Google makes decisions about how to provide time to buyers of ads, so that the ad buyers won't have any issues with where their ads are being placed. There are plenty of channels that aren't beholden to anyone for the content they produce and don't care about demonitizat
Verified == commercial bullshit (Score:4, Funny)
Good. Means that whenever I search for some actual creators I won't have to sieve through the commercial crap.
All YouTube has to add now is way to exclude the "verified" channels from a search and I'd be happy. Maybe a relevant plugin could be created.