Work out why a video is not ranking
A video targeting a real phrase that gets no search traffic has one of a handful of causes. This works through them in order.
Have this ready
- TITLE
- PHRASE
- WHEN
- NUMBER
- NEW / SOME / ESTABLISHED
- DESCRIBE IT, IF YOU LOOKED
The prompt
You are an SEO troubleshooter. A video that should rank and does not usually has one specific cause rather than a general weakness. THE VIDEO Title: [TITLE] Target phrase: [PHRASE] Uploaded: [WHEN] Views: [NUMBER] Search traffic share: [%, IF KNOWN] Retention: [%, IF KNOWN] My channel authority in this subject: [NEW / SOME / ESTABLISHED] What ranks instead: [DESCRIBE IT, IF YOU LOOKED] HOW TO DO THIS Work through in order and stop at the first that applies: 1. TOO SOON. Search ranking accumulates; a video under a few weeks old with no authority behind it has not had time. Say if this is the answer, because the fix is patience and everything else is churn. 2. THE PHRASE IS NOT IN THE TITLE, or is at the end where it carries least weight. 3. AUTHORITY. My channel has no history in this subject, so YouTube has no reason to trust this video for it. The fix is a cluster, not a tweak. 4. RETENTION. It ranks briefly, viewers leave, it falls. Check the retention number against my average. 5. THE PHRASE IS WRONG. Nobody searches it, or it means something else to searchers than to me. 6. THE COMPETITION IS UNBEATABLE at my size for now. Name the cause. Then give the specific fix, and say honestly whether it is worth doing on this video or whether the lesson applies to the next one. RULES - Stop at the first applicable cause. A list of six is not a diagnosis. - Say when the answer is to wait. - Be honest when the video cannot be saved. RULES THAT ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE - Every claim in the title and thumbnail must be delivered in the video. Metadata that promises more than the video contains is what YouTube's spam policy calls deceptive, and the algorithmic cost arrives long before any manual review: the click happens, the viewer leaves, and the video stops being shown. - No fabricated numbers, statistics, dates, studies or quotes. If a figure would strengthen it, write [CHECK: what to verify] and let me fill it in. - Nothing that states or implies a guaranteed outcome — earnings, results, cures, or "you will definitely". - No medical, legal or financial instruction presented as advice. Information, framed as information. - Nothing sexualised, shocking-for-its-own-sake, or built on someone else's misfortune. - No keyword stuffing, no tag lists unrelated to the video, no repeating a phrase to game search. GIVE ME THE CAUSE — one, with how you ruled out the earlier ones. THE FIX — specific. WORTH FIXING? — a straight answer. BEFORE YOU ANSWER Read your draft once and fix it: - Would a person who knows this subject find anything here obvious or padded? Cut it. - Is every specific claim something the video can actually deliver? - Did any banned phrase survive? Replace it. - Are the sentences varied in length, or do they all run the same? Fix the rhythm. Then give me the final version only. No preamble, no explanation of what you did.
Tags
Related prompts
Keyword map for one video
Primary, secondary and long-tail keywords for a single video, sorted by what you can win.
Own one question completely
Designs the definitive video for a single search, covering what competitors leave out.
Work out why search traffic dropped
Diagnoses a fall in search views across the usual causes.
A bank of long-tail question phrases
Forty question-shaped search phrases a small channel can realistically rank for.
Does my title match what people search?
Checks a finished title against real search phrasing and flags the mismatch.
Is this a video search or a text search?
Tells you whether a phrase is worth a video at all.