Irritations when viewing YouTube

[Re6/6]

Does anybody experience irritating and intrusive adverts when viewing most YouTube material? 

 

I get these persistent ads several times whilst viewing and find that the only way to continue is to go to 'history' and start again. Trying 'X' them they just won't go away and allow me to continue viewing.

 

Could it be an issue with my desktop or is this the way of things?

[SamThomas]

No, it's the way of things unless you take out a subscrition & line Googles pockets.

 

It was only a matter of time - think about it - no company in the world is going to invest the amount of time, money & resourses for no return are they ?

 

A good business model if you have the clout - give people a "free" resourse for a few years, corner the market & then start charging in as many ways as possible.

[John M Upton]

An armada of adblockers does deal with most of the adverts.  I have managed to get rid of the really intrusive ones that used to randomly play mid video which were the worst.

[57xx]

There are plenty of adblockers and browser plug-ins that sort them out very efficiently. Anytime I watch Youtube on my tablet using the app, I'm reminded just how good the browsers blockers are (the blockers don't work on the Android app).

[Siberian Snooper]

If I watch YouTube on the firestick, I get a lot of ads, I get fewer, if I use my tablet and Chromecast.

 

 

[Metr0Land]

I watch on my desktop using Firefox browser and adblocker plus which cuts out most of the rubbish

[Phil Parker]

The adverts pay for the service and the content creation. If you don't want the ads, stump up for the paid version, or don't use it. After all, I bet you expect to be paid for your work, why shouldn't everyone else?

[simon b]

Another vote for adblocker plus, been working well for years. It's still free, but worth giving a small donation when prompted as I find it a must have service.  

[JohnR]

As of January 2021, YouTube reserved the right to put adverts on all content uploaded to its platform. Before then, only those content creators who were in the YouTube Partner Programme (and consequently had reached 1000 subscribers and 4000 hours of watch time in the previous 12 months) ran adverts - they received a % of the fees.

 

But with adverts now running on ANY video, YouTube is obviously making more money.

[SamThomas]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

The adverts pay for the service and the content creation. If you don't want the ads, stump up for the paid version, or don't use it. After all, I bet you expect to be paid for your work, why shouldn't everyone else?

That is fair comment Phil.

 

However, the way many of the adverts intrude is somewhat unprofessional. Personally, I don't really watch YT enough to warrant taking out a subscription.

 

Look at it from another angle - if you were paying to advertise your product/service & then your target audiance paid to not see your content you would not be too happy ?

[Phil Parker]

4 hours ago, SamThomas said:

Look at it from another angle - if you were paying to advertise your product/service & then your target audiance paid to not see your content you would not be too happy ?

 

If you aren't happy then stop advertising on YouTube. It's that simple. However, lots of firms have chosen to advertise there, so presumably they are happy with the "unprofessional" service offered. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

If you aren't happy then stop advertising on YouTube. It's that simple. However, lots of firms have chosen to advertise there, so presumably they are happy with the "unprofessional" service offered. 

 

They're probably not happy with YT's 12 bore scattergun approach to advertising, I'm sure they'd prefer a targeted campaign, which would therefore cost more money, so they lump it, the economics of it must make it worthwhile, but you don't have to be happy with something to subscribe to it.

 

Mike.

[Reorte]

People are no more morally obliged to watch adverts on YouTube than they are to stay sat in front of the TV during adverts and not go and make a cuppa instead.

[SamThomas]

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

People are no more morally obliged to watch adverts on YouTube than they are to stay sat in front of the TV during adverts and not go and make a cuppa instead.

That is very true, although the approach on TV does not tend to arrive completely unannounced like it does on YT.

 

Anyway, adverts on the TV are a waste of time in the Thomas household as we "timeshift" nearly everything we watch & use the FF button.

 

About the only times we are effected by adverts on the rare occasions that we do see them is if the "celebrity" doing the adverting is disliked then we avoid the product/service.

[kevinlms]

48 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

That is very true, although the approach on TV does not tend to arrive completely unannounced like it does on YT.

 

YT ads often arrive mid sentence, then continue exactly where they left off. So purely on a timer base and not at logical gaps, such as a change of scene.

[Reorte]

2 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

YT ads often arrive mid sentence, then continue exactly where they left off. So purely on a timer base and not at logical gaps, such as a change of scene.

They can be made to go at a manually-determined time; I've seen videos that very deliberately set themselves up for an advert, so it must've been under the control of the creator when that happens.

[DLT]

What annoys me is the appearance of an advert (sometimes two) for the next video that appear before the end of the one you are watching.  They cover most of the screen and I can't find a way of removing them.  Or is there?

 

[57xx]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

People are no more morally obliged to watch adverts on YouTube than they are to stay sat in front of the TV during adverts and not go and make a cuppa instead.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Also, anyone who clicks "Skip Ad" after 5 seconds, deprives the "content creator" of their 0.1p for viewing the ad. Ads are only one stream of income, things like endorsements, sponsorship, merchandise, Patreon, gifting etc give the bigger channels their income.

[Reorte]

10 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Also, anyone who clicks "Skip Ad" after 5 seconds, deprives the "content creator" of their 0.1p for viewing the ad. Ads are only one stream of income, things like endorsements, sponsorship, merchandise, Patreon, gifting etc give the bigger channels their income.

I prefer the latter sort of path - I pay directly to a selection of sites / channels / whatever I like to visit. Not all of them, but I regard it as an "if everyone did that it would average out," paying something towards the most frequented and getting through ads as quickly as possible elsewhere (I'll probably get RMWeb silver when it comes out for this reason).

[SamThomas]

I often "donate" by means of the "buy us a coffee" approach.

 

In the past I have taken out subscriptions for various sites but find that I don't use them as much as I could, that's just me, so they are not cost effective (for me).

 

Don't forget that many forums/sites would be thin with content if it were not for those who contribute in non-monetry terms.

 

I'd be quite happy & willing to occasionally contribute to RMW if there were a "buy us a coffee" facility, but not a full subscription as a lot (probably most) of the addition resources available have little interest to me.

[Reorte]

10 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

I often "donate" by means of the "buy us a coffee" approach.

 

In the past I have taken out subscriptions for various sites but find that I don't use them as much as I could, that's just me, so they are not cost effective (for me).

 

Don't forget that many forums/sites would be thin with content if it were not for those who contribute in non-monetry terms.

 

I'd be quite happy & willing to occasionally contribute to RMW if there were a "buy us a coffee" facility, but not a full subscription as a lot (probably most) of the addition resources available have little interest to me.

Which is I believe the idea behind the lower-cost silver option that'll be appearing some time.

[Phil Parker]

19 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Don't forget that many forums/sites would be thin with content if it were not for those who contribute in non-monetry terms.

 

But without the servers etc. that keep the site running, they would be non-existant. It doesn't mater how "valuable" anyone's "wise words" are, someone still has to pay a bill somewhere along the line. I suspect that if we only published comments that other people would actually pay money to read, RMweb would be about three pages long.

[AY Mod]

48 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

I'd be quite happy & willing to occasionally contribute to RMW if there were a "buy us a coffee" facility, but not a full subscription as a lot (probably most) of the addition resources available have little interest to me.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If I want to be patronised I'll just play my "Reese-Mogg Speeches" tapes.

[SamThomas]

5 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

But without the servers etc. that keep the site running, they would be non-existant. It doesn't mater how "valuable" anyone's "wise words" are, someone still has to pay a bill somewhere along the line. I suspect that if we only published comments that other people would actually pay money to read, RMweb would be about three pages long.

I'm well aware of the costs of running any services on the internet, I was merely pointing out another POV.

[SamThomas]

5 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If I want to be patronised I'll just play my "Reese-Mogg Speeches" tapes.

Not trying to be patronising at all Mr York.

just saying that I would be quite happy to contribute towards the costs of running RMW in proportion to the resourses that I would access.