Is my channel any good? How to judge it without asking strangers
It tends to get typed the same way: be honest, is my channel bad. It is a real question and it deserves a real answer, and the people you are asking are the least able to give you one.
The question is usually typed as "be honest is my channel bad", and strangers are the worst people to ask. What your own analytics already answer, why this guide quotes no benchmark, and the four comparisons that tell you something true.
Why a stranger cannot answer it
When you post a channel and ask whether it is any good, you get opinions from people who watched thirty seconds of one video, know nothing about who it was made for, and will never see the next one. They are answering a different question from the one you asked. They are telling you whether they, personally, would keep watching.
That is not worthless information. It is simply the narrowest possible sample, taken from the group least like your audience, on the one video they happened to open. Your channel is not for everyone, and a stranger's shrug is the expected response from someone it is not for.
There is a harder version of this. The replies you get back are shaped by what is easy to say. Thumbnails and titles are easy to have an opinion about after four seconds, so that is what people comment on. Whether the thing you are making is worth continuing is a question nobody can answer from the outside in four seconds, so nobody answers it, and you come away having learned something about your fonts.
What you are actually asking
"Is my channel bad" is almost never a question about the channel. Underneath it there is usually one of three much more specific worries, and each has a different answer.
Is anyone watching? A question about reach, which your analytics answer directly.
Is what I make worth making? A question about the work, which nobody can answer for you and which your returning viewers answer in the only currency that counts.
Should I keep going? A question about you rather than the channel, and the one most often disguised as the other two.
Working out which of the three you are asking is most of the job. Ask a stranger the first and they will answer the second badly. Ask the internet the third and it will tell you to quit or to never quit, with equal confidence and no information.
Why this guide gives you no benchmarks
You will find plenty of posts telling you that a good click-through rate is some number, or that retention below some percentage means the video failed. We are not adding one, and the reason matters more than the omission.
Those figures vary a great deal with how long your videos are, what they are about, whether they arrive from search or from suggestions, who your audience is and what platform surface they came through. A number general enough to print is averaged across all of it, so it describes nobody. Hold your channel up against it and you will fail a test that was never about you, or pass one that was measuring something easier.
The comparison that works is already on your screen and costs nothing, because it is your own back catalogue. Your videos were all made by you, in a format you chose, for the people you were already trying to reach. That makes them the only fair control group you will ever have.
The four comparisons worth making
All four live in YouTube Studio, under Analytics. Each answers a different question, and none of them requires you to know what a good number looks like in general.
Your videos against each other. Open the Content tab and sort your uploads by views, then by average view duration. Two different orderings. The videos near the top of the second list are the ones people actually watched, which is not always the ones that got opened. The gap between those two lists is the most useful thing on the page: it separates packaging that works from content that works, and those are different problems with different fixes.
This quarter against last. Studio lets you compare a date range to the one before it. Do that across ninety days rather than a month, because one strong video distorts a month badly. Look at which way the line points. A channel improving slowly can read as flat month to month and show up clearly across quarters.
Returning viewers against new ones. The Audience tab splits them. New viewers tell you the algorithm is showing you to people. Returning viewers tell you that people who have seen your work chose to come back, which is the closest thing to an answer to "is what I make worth making" that exists in numbers. A channel with few views and a high proportion of returning viewers may be healthier than the front page suggests.
Your newest ten against your oldest ten. Watch the first thirty seconds of each. Not the analytics, the actual videos. This is the comparison that answers whether you are getting better, and it is easy to skip, because it is the only one that takes real time.
Sorted by views. What your packaging achieved: the title and thumbnail got someone to click.
Sorted by average view duration. What the video achieved once they were there.
A video high on the first list and low on the second is a packaging success and a content problem. The reverse is a good video nobody opened, and that one is much easier to fix.
What "bad" usually turns out to mean
Before you decide the work is poor, check for three other patterns. All three are visible in the comparisons above.
Nobody can tell what the channel is. If your last ten videos would sit comfortably on ten different channels, the algorithm has nothing to learn and a viewer has no reason to subscribe, because they cannot predict what they are subscribing to. This shows up as decent views on individual videos and almost no returning viewers.
The videos are good and the packaging is not. Strong average view duration, few impressions converting into views. The work is fine and nobody is getting to it.
It is too early to say. This one is easy to miss and hard to accept. A handful of videos is too few to show a pattern, so there may be nothing to read yet.
The one outside opinion worth having
There is a version of asking that works, and it is not "roast my channel".
Find someone who watches the kind of thing you make, and ask them a specific question with a specific object. Not whether the channel is good. Ask them to watch one video and tell you where they would have stopped if you were not watching them. Then ask why they stopped there.
That question is answerable. It produces a timestamp and a reason, which you can act on this week. "Is my channel any good" produces a verdict, which you cannot act on at all, and which will make you feel either briefly better or unnecessarily worse.
Your comments are a version of the same thing. The people who left them watched enough to have a view, which puts them ahead of anyone you would ask in a forum.
What to do this week
Open Studio and make the two sorted lists. Ten minutes. Write down which videos are high in one and low in the other, because that tells you whether your problem is packaging or content, and you cannot fix both at once.
Look up your returning viewers for the last ninety days. Not to compare against anyone, just to know the number, so that next quarter you have something to compare it to.
Watch your first video and your most recent one back to back. Be specific about what changed. If nothing changed, you have found the thing to work on, and it is a better answer than any stranger was going to give you.
The honest part
Asking strangers whether your channel is bad is a way of asking permission to keep going, and they cannot grant it. What you get instead is a verdict from someone who has seen almost none of your work. A kind one can send you back to polish the wrong thing. An unkind one can talk you out of a channel that had not had time to show what it could do.
The data on your own channel will not tell you whether the work is worth doing. It will tell you whether anyone is watching, how many of them come back, and whether you are getting better than you were. That is enough to decide with.
Common questions
How do I know if my YouTube channel is any good?
Compare it to itself rather than to anyone else. In YouTube Studio, sort your uploads by views and then by average view duration, and look at where the two orderings disagree: that separates a packaging problem from a content problem. Then check your returning viewers over ninety days, and watch your newest video against your oldest. Those three comparisons answer whether people are arriving, how many of them come back, and whether you are improving.
Should I post my channel and ask people to review it?
A stranger who watches thirty seconds of one video is the narrowest possible sample, drawn from the group least like your audience, and they will answer on the things that are easy to judge quickly, which means thumbnails and titles. If you want an outside opinion, ask one person who watches the kind of thing you make to tell you where they would have stopped watching, and why. That gives you a timestamp and a reason instead of a verdict.
What is a good click-through rate or retention rate on YouTube?
There is no figure that is true in general. Both vary widely with video length, topic, audience, and whether views arrive from search, suggestions or browse. A published benchmark is averaged across all of that, so failing it tells you nothing about your channel. Compare each video to your own other videos, which share your format and your audience and are the only fair control group available to you.
My channel has very few views. Does that mean it is bad?
Not on its own, and often not at all. Check the proportion of returning viewers in the Audience tab: a small channel where a high share of viewers come back may be healthier than the subscriber count suggests, because returning viewers are people who saw your work and chose more of it. Low views with strong average view duration often points to a packaging problem more than a content one.
How many videos before I can tell whether my channel is working?
Enough that you are reading a pattern rather than a handful of outcomes. A common reason a channel looks bad is that it is too early to say, and the fix is to keep the format consistent enough that the next ten videos are comparable to the last ten. Inconsistency is what stops you learning anything, because nothing can be compared to anything.
If this helped, say so. It is how we pick what to write next.
Comments