Youtube channel critique ideas

[DuVulcha]

So I am thinking about starting a youtube channel about my journey growing into the world of air rifles. Like things I have learned that I wish I knew earlier and reviews from someone who isn't a insider. One of the things that has always rubbed me kind of wrong is watching review videos where the camera is facing only their face the entire time and doesn't actually show the distance. So I am messing around with the format and placement and wanted the opinion of actual shooters. When I am doing actual reviews I plan on shooting from a table with a lead sled to give the air rifle the best possible chance. But this is more, is the layout of this shooting portion good or do you think I should change this? But other than this, what would you as a shooter like to see in a video that you really aren't seeing right now?

Youtube Test Run

 

[FelixS]

So I am thinking about starting a youtube channel about my journey growing into the world of air rifles. Like things I have learned that I wish I knew earlier and reviews from someone who isn't a insider. One of the things that has always rubbed me kind of wrong is watching review videos where the camera is facing only their face the entire time and doesn't actually show the distance. So I am messing around with the format and placement and wanted the opinion of actual shooters. When I am doing actual reviews I plan on shooting from a table with a lead sled to give the air rifle the best possible chance. But this is more, is the layout of this shooting portion good or do you think I should change this? But other than this, what would you as a shooter like to see in a video that you really aren't seeing right now?

Youtube Test Run

Nice! I suggest a close up camera as well. I subscribed

 

[MLE]

Best of luck.

In general I'd like to see more unbiased critiques. It seems like every airgun youtuber give exclusively rave reviews; not every airgun can be the best airgun ever made, right? It's a symptom of sponsorship, and it makes it impossible to know the truth. If you can set honest, realistic expectations for your audience, you'll have yourself a collection of lifelong viewers.

 

[Avator]

You might want to look a bit deeper in YouTube's policies.
I know that Rick (owner of the GTS Forum) has had issues with YouTube not wanting to host some of his airgun related review videos. I don't know the whole story for the reasons. I only know what he has reported. I do know that there are many, many airgun reviews on YouTube so I don't know why he has trouble at times. He does alot of his stuff on Vimeo now.
I have personally posted casting videos on YouTube without issue.

 

[Reeg]

Perhaps a camera located near the target so we can see the shots hit without the shakes from the scope cam? Good luck with it, as other have said, please give us the good, the bad and the ugly, as you see it.

 

[Vana2]

Most airgun reviews are shallow glossies where the youtube content creator reads off the manufacturer's propaganda, reminds you to "like and subscribe" then shoots a couple of poopty groups, claiming how fantastic the gun is while making excuses for the results.

It should be easy to do better - unless you are just trying to get rich quick off of youtube. In that case, you have a lot of competition.

A proper review takes a lot of time to break in the gun and get to know it's idiosyncrasies.

My biggest pet peeve is the reviewers who "test" a gun in windy conditions and expect you to believe that the hits all over the target are not the guns/pellets/shooter's fault.

I can read the manufacturer's sales literature myself. A review should cover things like ergonomics, operation and performance. Some baselines (velocities for different weight pellets) are useful.

The questions I have when reviewing targets that were shot are...
- Was the barrel cleaned?
- Is the gun broken in?
- Distance to target?
- Was the target realistic or "cherry-picked" from a bunch of poor ones?
- Pellet brand/weight tested that shot well.
- Pellet brand/weight tested that shot poorly.
- Were the pellets sorted?
- Was the group shot from a magazine or single loaded?
- Was a proper rest used?

Missing this kinda information casts a lot of shade on the results. And I often wonder at the skill and qualifications of the shooter.

If you really want to write good quality reviews, please keep in mind that are competing with AI created bullcrap videos that youtube is is being flooded with.

Probably the most difficult thing about writing reviews is dealing with suspicious old guys like me!

Good luck!

 

[DuVulcha]

Most airgun reviews are shallow glossies where the youtube content creator reads off the manufacturer's propaganda, reminds you to "like and subscribe" then shoots a couple of poopty groups, claiming how fantastic the gun is while making excuses for the results.

It should be easy to do better - unless you are just trying to get rich quick off of youtube. In that case, you have a lot of competition.

A proper review takes a lot of time to break in the gun and get to know it's idiosyncrasies.

My biggest pet peeve is the reviewers who "test" a gun in windy conditions and expect you to believe that the hits all over the target are not the guns/pellets/shooter's fault.

I can read the manufacturer's sales literature myself. A review should cover things like ergonomics, operation and performance. Some baselines (velocities for different weight pellets) are useful.

The questions I have when reviewing targets that were shot are...
- Was the barrel cleaned?
- Is the gun broken in?
- Distance to target?
- Was the target realistic or "cherry-picked" from a bunch of poor ones?
- Pellet brand/weight tested that shot well.
- Pellet brand/weight tested that shot poorly.
- Were the pellets sorted?
- Was the group shot from a magazine or single loaded?
- Was a proper rest used?

Missing this kinda information casts a lot of shade on the results. And I often wonder at the skill and qualifications of the shooter.

If you really want to write good quality reviews, please keep in mind that are competing with AI created bullcrap videos that youtube is is being flooded with.

Probably the most difficult thing about writing reviews is dealing with suspicious old guys like me!

Good luck!

I am definitely going to incorporate a lot of this. I am like you. I am making this because a lot of the stuff you see on these reviews, I cant tell if this was really shot at 50 or hundred yards. Also, I don't know if you cherry picked rounds. I want it to be as real world as possible. Like (when possible) you should be able to see me open the tin for the first time, load a mag, and go. Because almost no real world situation are most people hand loading every shot. I was thinking of adding a few other shot angles, like maybe a drone shot to show distance, and maybe set up a go pro near the target so you don't have to see my shakey cocking lol. But thanks so much for the input.

 

[uncdav]

Get a quality microphone. Nothing makes me "pass" quicker than poor audio. Just my 2¢.

 

[beerthief]

So I am thinking about starting a youtube channel about my journey growing into the world of air rifles. Like things I have learned that I wish I knew earlier and reviews from someone who isn't a insider. One of the things that has always rubbed me kind of wrong is watching review videos where the camera is facing only their face the entire time and doesn't actually show the distance. So I am messing around with the format and placement and wanted the opinion of actual shooters. When I am doing actual reviews I plan on shooting from a table with a lead sled to give the air rifle the best possible chance. But this is more, is the layout of this shooting portion good or do you think I should change this? But other than this, what would you as a shooter like to see in a video that you really aren't seeing right now?

Youtube Test Run

I like the video i see the shooter , range and the closeup target shot all on one screen .
i assume the target cam will be much sturdier

 

[Reeg]

Get a quality microphone. Nothing makes me "pass" quicker than poor audio.

With a good quality windscreen/muff. I think that the fluffy ones (e.g. "dead cat") work better than foam.