5 Controversial Questions YouTube Bloggers Ask

On YouTube, there are plenty of topics where it’s impossible to give a clear “yes” or “no” answer, offer one definitive solution, or provide universal advice for all creators. Here are some of those topics:

• Should you post Shorts on your channel?  
• How can you make YouTube promote your content?  
• Do keywords and tags help with video promotion?  
• What actions can get you banned from the platform?

Creators face many such dilemmas, and the list could go on endlessly. But this time, let’s try to bring some clarity, at least on the most critical topics.

Should you optimize your video or not?

You've probably wondered: "Why do videos with barely any proper design or effort get millions of views?!"  

The answer is actually quite simple: because viewers watch them.  

If you analyze the videos of some creators with millions of subscribers, you'll notice that they don't put too much effort into using keywords and phrases in their titles or descriptions.

Let’s address the question to SEO: does optimization play a decisive role in making a video go viral?  

No, it doesn’t.  

The role of keywords and phrases on YouTube has long ceased to be a priority—it's not even secondary or tertiary anymore.  

About ten years ago, you could paste tags and keywords into every field of your video’s metadata and climb to the top. But today, it’s  an auxiliary tool, nothing more.  

Even YouTube’s liaison, acknowledge this.

Okay, so does that mean you can skip optimization altogether?  

On the other hand, a large number of creators still optimize their videos, and those videos also go viral. That’s true as well, because the presence or absence of SEO doesn’t determine whether a video will make it to recommendations or not.  

Let’s clarify right away: the only place where SEO in your video setup really matters is YouTube search.

Whether a video appears on YouTube's Homepage depends on your viewers' watch history and the performance of the video itself.

The success of your content being recommended in the "Up Next" section depends on how similar your video's topic is to the one the audience is currently watching, as well as the watch history of that specific viewer.

So, how does YouTube determine topic similarity?  

It does so by analyzing the viewers who have already watched the video and evaluating its metadata. YouTube reviews keywords in titles and descriptions to help recommend content in the "Up Next" section.  

Does this mean optimizing videos is necessary not just for search but also for the recommendation system?  

Yes, but SEO doesn’t play a decisive role here.  

Alright, we get it—it’s still not clear whether you "should" bother with optimization or not. And the truth is, there isn’t a definitive answer to this question.  

Here’s our take, though, and it’s quite straightforward: it’s better to do it than not.  

If optimization isn’t too complicated for you, you enjoy doing it, and it doesn’t take up a significant amount of time—go ahead and do it.  

However, if you’re choosing between spending time on a well-thought-out video topic, creating an engaging thumbnail and title, or hours analyzing keywords, go with the first option.  

From experience, creating an eye-catching title and thumbnail is far more important than a perfectly optimized description or unnecessary tags.  

And honestly, tags don’t hold much weight anymore. Its up to you, you can add variations of typos your audience might make when searching for your video’s topic—that’s more than enough.

Tags do not affect search rankings directly; only the title, description, and what you say in the video influence this.

The only thing worth mentioning is that there are specific categories of creators for whom optimization is more important than for others: beginners and educational content creators. For beginners, doing this kind of work is necessary because their channels lack audience data that YouTube could use to find a potential audience. In this case, the algorithms analyze the metadata.

For educational content, optimization is essential because such videos should ideally show up in search results and gain views from there. This is because the purpose of such content is to answer questions and address the audience’s needs.

Additionally, optimization helps old and underperforming videos start gaining views again. For example, if an old trend resurfaces or another creator’s video on a similar topic goes viral, your video might get recommended alongside it.

One more thing to remember: if a video is gaining views, just leave it alone. Even if you don’t like how the title is named or feel the thumbnail could be better, it doesn’t matter. If the video is performing well, don’t touch it.

Only when you have literally zero views in the past month should you consider tweaking the design or making changes, if you feel like it.

Now let’s return to the post on ex-Twitter from the platform managers. They highlight what truly affects promotion and where to focus your time:

Does clickbait attract or repel viewers?

The question is unclear again because there are too many nuances to consider for a proper answer.  

There are different types of clickbait, and depending on the approach, it can either be an effective promotional strategy or a complete disaster that ruins your channel. Let’s break it into several categories.  

“Black” Clickbait is designed solely to grab attention without delivering on its promises. Its purpose isn’t to provide value to viewers but to lure them in with exaggerated claims that offer nothing real.  

Examples include headlines like “Scientists Shocked by This Discovery!” or “This Left Everyone Speechless!” Often, these are overly vague phrases that don’t even hint at the video’s actual subject.  

Unfortunately, people still fall for such titles, and these videos still get views because audiences hold out hope that the shocking claim will eventually be revealed.  

However, the efficiency of this method is long gone. People are increasingly wary of such clickbait, and platforms like YouTube no longer favor it. Back when CTR (click-through rate) was the dominant promotion factor, creators weren’t shy about using this approach without bothering to meet viewer expectations.  

But now, with algorithms prioritizing different metrics, this method no longer works. Even if these videos get views initially, they eventually fall due to a lack of positive audience feedback, which is crucial for YouTube.  

“Gray” Clickbait promises viewers specific value, and the video does deliver on the title and thumbnail promises. However, it uses psychological tricks, where both the design and the content manipulate the audience.  

The video is well-structured and gives the impression of being genuinely helpful, but by the end, you’re left motivated yet unclear on what actionable steps to take.  

For example, a thumbnail might promise a “cheat code” to boost your watch hours. This video is a good example. The introduction emotionally highlights how the cheat helped the creator, but it turns out to be about YouTube’s A/B thumbnail testing—something that might not significantly impact your watch hours.  

It’s seemingly useful, yet ultimately unhelpful.  

You’ve probably noticed videos where you expect solid answers or a list of methods, as promised by the thumbnail, only to find a critique of why others addressing the same topic on YouTube are wrong and how none of their advice works. The real “solution”? A paid course or vague frameworks padded with emotional highs and lows.  

While not being entirely bad (viewers still get some motivation and information), the fairness of such an approach toward the audience is arguable. It’s up to you to decide where you stand on this.  

“White” Clickbait is directly tied to how appealing and informative the design is and whether the content meets viewers’ expectations. This form of clickbait often involves creating a curiosity gap, which is later resolved within the video.  

So, does clickbait attract or repel viewers? The answer depends on how skillfully you use it. One thing is certain—audiences are now far more skeptical of sensational headlines than they were a few years ago.  

As we delve into the types of clickbait, a new controversial topic has already emerged:  

Long or short videos?

Let’s start with a question many of you are asking: should you create Shorts?  

One thing we can say with certainty is that if you’re planning to run a channel exclusively with short videos, there’s absolutely no problem with that. However, if you want to mix long-form and short-form content, it becomes a more complex and nuanced question.  

So, what are the benefits of Shorts?  

• They make it easier to become a famous YouTuber.

YouTube is still putting an enormous amount of effort into promoting the Shorts format. Endless new features, constant PR in every update announcement, collaborations, and more.  

All of this tells us that Shorts are still receiving plenty of advantages and extra traffic from the platform. This is precisely why it’s still easier to grow a channel with Shorts compared to one focused on long-form videos.  

• Shorts are easier to create

Don’t get us wrong, this isn’t about cancelling the effort. The time creators spend crafting amazing short videos truly deserves all the praise. However, it’s still not the same as producing a long, engaging video.

• Shorts is a more flexible content format

With Shorts, it’s easier to experiment, mix different topics, and try new formats. For the most part, the content is tied to trends, and going viral through them is much easier than attempting the same with long-form videos.

• Simplified algorithms operation

Shorts have their own feed and algorithms, which gives your video a chance to appear in recommendations, even if your channel is new or small. The Shorts feed essentially uses recommendation system technologies similar to those for long-form videos, but its algorithms aren’t as narrowly focused on audience interests.  

And since we’ve covered the advantages, it’s only fair to highlight the drawbacks.  

• Weak audience retention

And here it's not about viewing time, because for short videos this doesn't matter as much. Right now we're talking about the fact that Shorts audiences often watch videos quickly, without subscribing to the channel.

• It's harder to build a connection with the audience through short videos

This point is a direct consequence of the previous one: if people interact less with your channel, it becomes much harder to build your brand and create a loyal audience base. In long-form content, this is the foundation of success, whereas in short-form content, achieving this is significantly more difficult.

• It's harder to monetize with Shorts

Payouts for short-form video creators on YouTube are significantly lower, as ad placement in the Shorts feed is less effective for brands, which directly impacts creators’ revenue.  

Moreover, affiliate marketing doesn’t work to its full potential in Shorts because creators cannot include clickable links in the descriptions, which are often essential for collaborating with advertisers.  

Shorts are a good fit for those planning to focus solely on them, targeting trends and a younger audience. However, they can be risky for channels with long-form niche content, where watch time and depth of engagement are crucial.  

The audiences for long-form and short-form videos are fundamentally different types of viewers who rarely overlap.  

Channels focused primarily on long-form content can try using Shorts to increase reach and draw attention to longer videos, but caution is necessary.  

If you start creating independent short-form content, you’ll attract an audience primarily interested in Shorts. They might subscribe to your channel but then ignore your new long-form videos.  

YouTube could interpret this as a negative signal: the creator’s core audience doesn’t want to watch their new content, so the videos must not be good, and thus, the algorithm will reduce their visibility.  

Shorts can only work as a promotional tool if they act as teasers for larger videos. While vertical videos in this format will have less reach and bring in fewer new viewers, it’s still worth trying—with care.  

Now, what’s next on the list?  

Do YouTube's rules help or complicate bloggers' lives?

Over the past couple of years, the issue of censorship on YouTube has become quite acute.

For example, during the 2020 US elections, YouTube actively removed videos that mentioned false election claims, even if such videos were not supporting these assertions but merely discussing them. This led to accusations of excessive censorship, as content began to be deleted and censored indiscriminately.

Later, YouTube loosened the reins regarding political content, at least in its statements, but there are other aspects to consider:

• Medical topics: The platform's policy towards rather dangerous alternative medicine is understandable and commendable, however, this still doesn't help avoid errors when a video was created for educational purposes but still underwent censorship.
• Financial topics: In an effort to protect viewers from fraudulent schemes, algorithms often censor educational videos, even though the author's goal might have been to expose scammers, for example.
• Controversial and “shady” topics: Here it's completely unclear because while esotericism seems to be an ambiguous topic often limited in reach, it can also apparently be promoted if it's popular.

Moreover, if your content does not directly violate the rules but hovers somewhere on the edge, YouTube will silently start limiting your reach. No one will send a notification that the topic is ambiguous, and you'll have to guess for yourself what the platform didn't like about your content.

For content moderation, YouTube uses not only algorithms but also external evaluators, that is, quite real people, experts in various fields.

However, this process sometimes leads to errors when content that does not violate rules is still blocked.

For example, news videos that simply report a fact about something ambiguous but do not spread this information can be mistakenly removed for policy violation. But despite all this, videos with completely unacceptable content can freely exist on YouTube.

In summary, the presence of rules certainly has advantages, such as viewer safety and attractive conditions for advertisers. But there are also disadvantages, such as ambiguity of censorship; constant risk of losing monetization and overall imperfection of algorithms that search for content violating rules.

And we're only talking about community rules - there's also copyright!

The Content ID system, which is designed to find matches and track content theft, causes many disputes.

There is a concept of fair use, which allows using excerpts from other videos or tracks in one's content under certain conditions.

However, this does not prevent the automated system from sending complaints or deleting authors' videos, even if they violated nothing. And appeals do not always help solve the problem.

Because content rights holders can unilaterally demand the deletion of an author's video containing their content, even if all fair use conditions were met. And they couldn't care less, and YouTube does not try to argue and can only advise bloggers to go to court with the rights holder.

And there are absolutely no specific lists of rights holders who can remove your video for using something from their materials. Only by trial and error.

In total, regarding copyright, you can also highlight pros and cons.

Positive aspects are that the system protects rights holders from theft, including us; certain types of licenses are distributed here, which allow us to use even unrestricted content in our videos; and, of course, system automation, which does not force us to sit and manually search for thieves.

But the disadvantages are also significant: frequent errors in the Content ID automated system; vulnerability of small bloggers who find it difficult to dispute claims from large authors; and also all restrictions on copyright directly affect the reduction of creativity.

After all, bloggers who make, for example, film reviews or analyze musical compositions, are not threatened by earnings from their own content, but only endless claims from Content ID.

And the most pressing question:

Do algorithms promote or push down authors' videos?

For everyone who thinks that YouTube only loves specific authors and doesn't love you, we have an honest answer right away: YouTube loves money, in everything else it doesn't care about us. Whoever brings in the cash gets views, reach, and everything they want.

From this emerges a certain class inequality: algorithms can more actively promote content aimed at mass audiences, to the detriment of niche channels. This makes the platform ideal for popular topics but difficult for highly specialized channels.

Since today YouTube most values retention on individual videos and on the channel overall, even despite the fact that niche channel audiences are more engaged, they lose out to those who simply have more viewers.

In general, we're being pushed down by quantity, while we try to compete with quality, whereas the majority of the audience spends time watching easily consumable mass content.

Therefore, you can't say that YouTube intentionally sidelines some authors; it's just interested in promoting those who help it retain as many viewers on the platform for as long as possible.

And, by the way, if you're interested in understanding in more detail how YouTube's algorithms are currently structured and what changes await them in the new 2025 year — we have a whole article about this. We recommend checking it out