popularity with not a single extra cent going to youtube is one hypothesis about our deletion dilemma, but i think someone is hugely angry that we routinely expose the fact that spandex is not actually a protective layer. the idea that it is is planted early and often in children's television, and children are simply unaware that our material is not just for them.
my six year old niece loves our work, but wonders why our heroines don't try harder to avoid the traps. if i can just influence a few thousand 6 year old girls to be on the lookout for such traps it will be a good thing. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Im not claiming things are done fairly, I simply refute the idea that > popularity alone is going to get you kicked off youtube. Its more > likely to get you noticed, so if there is something they object to > about your content they are more likely to notice and go through with > it than if you only had 3 views. And complaints could for a lot, even > ungrounded complaints, because they draw your content to someones > attention and force them to make a decision. > > Just because you think you are PG-13 and there's no nudity or foul > language, doesnt mean your content is immune from people taking > offense. If you suspect your vids are being deleted because they > feature simulated asphyxiation, light bondage etc, then you are > probably right. Again Im not claiming its fair, in an age where much > advertising is designed to trigger 'impure thoughts', where there is a > lot more graphic violence on tv, etc, but taboo's remain and so video > hosting sites still end up censoring content. Sites which communicate > properly with content producers are the best we can hope for, and > youtube has always sucked at that. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "liza jean" <daredoll@> wrote: > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@> > > wrote: > > > > > > That would surprise me somewhat - you sure you werent deleted for > > other reasons? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > as we are PG-13 - no nudity, foul language (unless you count puns) or > > violence - why we get deleted from one single complaint remains a > > mystery. when it first happened i did a little search for TOS > > violating vids and found lots of stuff i wish i had never seen that > > had been up for years. so clearly something else is going on. > > > > http://thedaredolldilemmas.blip.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "liza jean" <daredoll@> wrote: > > > > > > > > we figured this was coming. first two times youtube deleted us > > it > > > > was after we got a million channel views. seemed we were > > required to > > > > upgrade somehow to continue being seen. > > > > > > > > so, i wonder if my money is good with them. wonder if i am > > protected > > > > from being deleted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Ludington" <jake@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know many of you would be opposed to buying ads to get your > > > > content > > > > > noticed, but what makes this auction process different? You are > > > > effectively > > > > > buying an ad. I know Gary V has purchased google adwords to > > promote > > > > some of > > > > > his content, depending on his motive buying placement on > > YouTube > > > > might also > > > > > make sense. If you have a crappy video, no amount of money will > > get > > > > people > > > > > to watch it. Buying an ad can be the only option for a great > > video > > > > to escape > > > > > obscurity. > > > > > > > > > > As for Brooks' comment re: ignoring ads, someone must click on > > them > > > > because > > > > > they pay me quite nicely. This will be no different. Some > > people > > > > will ignore > > > > > promoted videos, some people won't. > > > > > > > > > > Jake Ludington > > > > > http://www.jakeludington.com > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2008 4:44 PM, "@sull" <sulleleven@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > good point. > > > > > but there must be some value in featured spots. > > > > > maybe they have some metrics to share. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Brook Hinton <bhinton@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My eyes automatically... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
