Network Standards

[Nolan Westmore]

If anyone has been around here for more than 5 seconds, you'll know that Freedom! accepts almost any channel. As a result, we are bombarded with spam from new YouTubers among other things.

I propose that the network see itself attain some standards for admission to not only cut down on spam, but to also make the network more attractive to sponsors. Nothing makes the network look better than accepting a channel with zero subscribers!

Here's my proposal to help get things better.

Subscriber minimum: 50 or 100.
-----To stop people from showing up with no subscribers and no direction. As a network, we can't help people who don't even know where they want their own channel to go.

View minimum: 1000
----- Prove that their channel has some substance that would benefit the network.

Running time: 2 months or greater.
----- See the point I made about subscriber minimums.

C-G strikes: None.
----- This should be obvious.

Avg views/vid: 20.
----- Just so the 1000 views they got on that one video isn't a fluke or faked. See the point about view minimums.

Avg watcht/vid: 30%.
----- Just to make sure they're not using a view bot that gives 5 second watch times as a way of getting into the network. Call it the safety cushion from spam.

Finally - Have a verified working Paypal address.
----- This way we get around people complaining that they didn't get their payment for the silly reason of an incorrect Paypal address. This can be done by asking them to prove that Any.TV sent them $0.01 USD or a value of a ridiculously invaluable currency, such as the Australian dollar.


I think that the network needs to save itself from itself. These nearly non-existent standards that the network sets for itself help in us getting a bad rep by people who have no idea what they're doing.

 

[TwilightPrinze]

If anyone has been around here for more than 5 seconds, you'll know that Freedom! accepts almost any channel. As a result, we are bombarded with spam from new YouTubers among other things.

I propose that the network see itself attain some standards for admission to not only cut down on spam, but to also make the network more attractive to sponsors. Nothing makes the network look better than accepting a channel with zero subscribers!

Here's my proposal to help get things better.

Subscriber minimum: 50 or 100.
-----To stop people from showing up with no subscribers and no direction. As a network, we can't help people who don't even know where they want their own channel to go.

View minimum: 1000
----- Prove that their channel has some substance that would benefit the network.

Running time: 2 months or greater.
----- See the point I made about subscriber minimums.

C-G strikes: None.
----- This should be obvious.

Avg views/vid: 20.
----- Just so the 1000 views they got on that one video isn't a fluke or faked. See the point about view minimums.

Avg watcht/vid: 30%.
----- Just to make sure they're not using a view bot that gives 5 second watch times as a way of getting into the network. Call it the safety cushion from spam.

Finally - Have a verified working Paypal address.
----- This way we get around people complaining that they didn't get their payment for the silly reason of an incorrect Paypal address. This can be done by asking them to prove that Any.TV sent them $0.01 USD or a value of a ridiculously invaluable currency, such as the Australian dollar.


I think that the network needs to save itself from itself. These nearly non-existent standards that the network sets for itself help in us getting a bad rep by people who have no idea what they're doing.

You have my vote! This should indeed be better!

 

[Deleted member 45146]

Yea Freedom! is one of those networks that truly accepts any small channels. I agree that there should be some standards put in place.
I don't think having a minimum requirement of 50 subs or you know at least 20 or something is that bad tbh.

 

[Nolan Westmore]

I'm not proposing these standards to keep those underneath me out of the network. Given the channels that I currently operate, I too would be disavowed by the network.

It is important for the network to see that many small channels that join the network are rather parasitic and will utilize their services more than they should for their own benefit with that minimal to the network.
Those that contact support dozens of times and non-coincidentally get few views would be costing the network more money than they're literally worth the network.

Having only people that are willing to try to solve their own problems first and actually be committed to their channels would be a time and money saver to the network.

 

[KrazyK Gaming]

You aren't looking at this from a business point of view in my opinion.

By saying "If you have under this many subs, you can't get in." you're allowing another company to take those people in which in turn generates them profit and advertising.

Plus, it's rough starting a channel with no idea, resources or anything of that sort. I worked my way from 0 subs to about 48 before I decided maybe it was time to reach out and try a partnership. If I had been turned down by Freedom! because of the fact I didn't meet some dumb minimum requirement, I'd be highly upset and go find someone else who was willing to take me in and help me out.

The more people you have working for you (in Freedom's! case, us) the more money you're going to make while your "Employee" is working to represent you.

 

[slizerbladez]

While I do agree with @KrazyK Gaming 's point about Freedom! operating from a business perspective, I do feel that imposing at least some kind of quality control would be beneficial.
A lot of the very small channels that I have seen joining up are only in it to make a quick buck. They see YouTube as a vehicle for profit only. By only accepting channels that have the dedication to make content that is enjoyable and also well received I think Freedom! would be a better place.
Although, if you were the owner of a subnetwork, I suppose you could impose your own requirements for joining, and so distance yourself from the less favourable channels.

a value of a ridiculously invaluable currency, such as the Australian dollar.

It is pretty ridiculous how low it is. Everything's getting a little too expensive around here.

 

[Qwerts]

As far as i'm aware there is a minimum standard in place at Freedom where it requires you to have 33 views a day in order to be partnered, however the Freedom forums are free for anyone to roam. I left my old channel at 470 subscribers to head in a different direction playing a different game. All because I don't have subscribers or viewers, does not mean I do not know the direction that I am heading in. Although some of your points could be tweaked to be good.

 

[Nolan Westmore]

As far as i'm aware there is a minimum standard in place at Freedom where it requires you to have 33 views a day in order to be partnered, however the Freedom forums are free for anyone to roam. I left my old channel at 470 subscribers to head in a different direction playing a different game. All because I don't have subscribers or viewers, does not mean I do not know the direction that I am heading in. Although some of your points could be tweaked to be good.

At the Freedom! network, there is a listed requirement of 33 views per day (1000 per month), but it immediately tells itself off by saying it's not really a requirement.

 

[fattmat]

While I'm glad that freedom gives people a fighting chance, they should have a little bit of quality control for the people they admit into here. Spam is commonplace at times when they don't understand protocol. I don't understand why some new people don't consider following the rules for not linking videos, or linking their sub4sub mantra. If they made it stricter to start talking in the forums, I'd be game.

 

[YodaMan509]

You aren't looking at this from a business point of view in my opinion.

By saying "If you have under this many subs, you can't get in." you're allowing another company to take those people in which in turn generates them profit and advertising.

Plus, it's rough starting a channel with no idea, resources or anything of that sort. I worked my way from 0 subs to about 48 before I decided maybe it was time to reach out and try a partnership. If I had been turned down by Freedom! because of the fact I didn't meet some dumb minimum requirement, I'd be highly upset and go find someone else who was willing to take me in and help me out.

The more people you have working for you (in Freedom's! case, us) the more money you're going to make while your "Employee" is working to represent you.

I agree with this post but a lilquality control would be nice but im brand new to youtube and probly wouldnt qualify for the requirements posted wich would leave me aearching for another network or have me doin it like i was without any input /sugestions from fellow youtubers i get not all people that join freedom are people i or others might not want to be asociated with but thats the same with any comunity i say let em in and weed them out later threw a little bit more strict rules or activity requirments for example if i joined as partner but havnt used forums or ever even got in touch with freedom admins or members within a set time say 30 days and i dont meet a minimum requirement such as the ones nolan sugested within a set time limit then said person could be asked to leave and youtube channel unlinked but yes i do agree some form of quality control is needed

 

[Cajun Tinker Belle]

Some type of control I think would be great. I am on this forum a lot and lately I have been seeing tons of very very small channels thinking because they now have joined the network that they will all the sudden get a lot of subs and make a lot of money, it saddens me really. If you want it, then work hard for it. The network is here to help steer you in the right direction for your channel. Putting in the hard work will ultimately make your subs and you wallet grow..