• Hi all and welcome to TheWoodHaven2 brought into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming! We all have Alasdair to thank for the vast bulk of the heavy lifting to get us here, no more so than me because he's taken away a huge burden of responsibility from my shoulders and brought us to this new shiny home, with all your previous content (hopefully) still intact! Please peruse and feed back. There is still plenty to do, like changing the colour scheme, adding the banner graphic, tweaking the odd setting here and there so I have added a new thread in the 'Technical Issues, Bugs and Feature Requests' forum for you to add any issues you find, any missing settings or just anything you'd like to see added/removed from the feature set that Xenforo offers. We will get to everything over the coming weeks so please be patient, but add anything at all to the thread I mention above and we promise to get to them over the next few days/weeks/months. In the meantime, please enjoy!

you tube ad blocker

9fingers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
10,414
Reaction score
165
Location
Romsey Hampshire between Southampton and the New F
If like me you have been using the adblocker with youtube in Chrome, you might have noticed a few stutters and the odd ad sneaking through.
After a bit of a search I found a suggestion to remove it from Chrome and re-install. Worked like a charm!
So I thought I'd post it here.

Bob
see here https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... pckk?hl=en
 
As one of the least computer minded people on this site, I just use adaware ad blocker.
Its worked faultlessly for many years.
I once noticed it had blocked 120 something ads in one extended viewing session.
 
I agree with Firefox...... almost clutter-free.

In addition, their e mail client 'Thunderbird' automatically blocks out tracking pixels, unless you choose to accept them.
 
I use ublock origin for chrome, which seems to work very well. I used to use ublock, but that stopped working on youtube and ublock origin seems a lot better. The browser I use (Vivaldi, which is based on the Chromium engine used by Chrome but is built for privacy & configurability rather than helping Google make money) has an option to block ads itself as well as the trackers that are blocked by default, but I've never bothered to turn it on as ublock origin seems so effective.

Having got used to the "Tab Stacks" on Vivaldi, I'd struggled to go back to any web browser without that feature (I currently have 32 tabs open, so having them grouped by topic / site is really really useful!)
 
Incidentally, has anyone found a good way to block youtube ads (presumably with an alternative youtube app) on an android phone? At the moment they open in the official app, which unsurprisingly doesn't block the ads. I imagine there are alternatives out there but haven't got round to searching / reading reviews etc, so I thought I'd ask in case someone had a recommendation.

I don't often watch videos on the phone as the screen is so small, but sometimes if I'm in the workshop I want to re-watch a bit of a video for reference and it's annoying to have to wait for an advert to shut up.
 
I use Firefox to surf (never the tube app) and have the following add ons that are really good

Enhancer for youtube and Ublock Origin

i get no adds at all when online, either in youtube (it autoskips the video past sponsor blurb in videos) and on forums etc
 
droogs":1fwnkpgi said:
I use Firefox to surf (never the tube app) and have the following add ons that are really good

Enhancer for youtube and Ublock Origin

i get no adds at all when online, either in youtube (it autoskips the video past sponsor blurb in videos) and on forums etc

I use the Vivaldi web browser app on the phone; I must admit I've never tried watching a video in the browser on the phone. I might have to try that next time I want to watch a video on the phone and see if the ads disappear like they do on the desktop.
 
Steve Maskery":5prw3k94 said:
Guys, I know they are annmoying, but it's the adverts that help to pay for the free-to-the-viewer films.....

:text-bravo:

:text-goodpost:
 
Yeah but recently youtube have been taking the ...
of a 27 minute I had 18 yeah 18 ad breaks at least half of which were double ads. Made the whole thing unwatchable for me so installed the blocker apps
 
9fingers":1crcqy75 said:
Steve Maskery":1crcqy75 said:
Guys, I know they are annmoying, but it's the adverts that help to pay for the free-to-the-viewer films.....

I did wonder if You Tube senses adblockers in use and penalise the media creators.
Do you know Steve?

Bob

My understaanding, little as it is, is that viewers' responses to adverts accrue credit to the creators. I don't know if it just length of time the ads are watched or whether you actually have to watch them and click on them, but I'm pretty sure that No Ads = No Revenue.

To give you an idea, I've been making YTs since 2016, finally got allowed into the hallowed club of those deemed worthy of earning, and to date have accrued a grand all-time total of £60.11p. They won't pay out until it reaches £100 and then they will deduct tax. I have filled in some paperwork, we'll see if makes me tax-exempt or not. I think I shall have to pay some US tax.

The main problem is that far too few people see my films. I don't need 237 views in the first month, I need 237,000 views, and I don't see any way that that is going to happen. Producing good-quality material obviously isn't enough. I really do wonder why I bother.

Steve, with the post second-jab blues.
 
Thank you Bob,

Although YT decides for itself where the ads are positioned, I can give them a helping to to increase the chances of the ad breaks being in reasonably sensible places. I use Dip To Black as a scene transition quite a lot. so now, every so often, I put a 2 second delay between them. The software recognises the gap and puts the ads there. They might still be annoying, but at least they are annoying in sensible positions!
 
Wow...just looked at the monthly charge to watch YouTube ad-free. Can't help but think that if they charged much less than £12 a month that they'd get more subscribers. How does that monthly charge trickle down to the content-provider ?
 
Ad blockers for You Tube are essential. The "ads pay for this free content" line doesn't wash at all with me - I have no interest in watching advertising drivel and generally people make content to monetise it or for ego or both - that is up to them. They need to attract viewers and hold onto them, and that frankly is their problem, not that of the viewer. You tube is unusable now without blockers. I find it necessary to have an array of ad blockers and different browsers as the battle between blockers and platform has peaks and troughs.

Ads are now used by You Tube as an annoyance to drive monetisation of their "avoid ads" subscription. The circularity is laughable.
 
AJB Temple":10b68a1r said:
.....and generally people make content to monetise it or for ego or both .....

I think that that is a little unfair to many YouTube content producers who are posting for the benefit of others.

It's akin to a poster over elsewhere who stated that most people went into medicine either for the money or the status...
 
I watch very little You tube as I go though their cookies and disable them.This result in me being asked if I accept cookies nearly every time I go onto it, so I don't bother. More often than not on the occasions I am tempted to think something is worth watching I get bored/fed up with the presenter and give up.

I also tend not to use companies who host their instructions etc on You Tube so I am expected to go through the accept cookies process yet again.

If I carry on like this I will ave to change my name to Meldrew.

Is it only me that gas fed up with "legitimate interest" which appears to usually say we can use your data for what ever we want even of you have disabled their cookies. I also tend not to use web sites where I cannot disable Legitimate interest options all at once.
 
I am a computer innocent. Windows 10, bog standard Opera browser. But I have my security settings at medium high, so the computer has to ask me before anything is downloaded or altered.
I ALWAYS reject.
I have Adaware Adblocker, which is a free download, cant be any simpler. Press a button and its yours, and then just forget about it.
https://www.adaware.com/ad-blocker

I can watch you tube all night and NEVER have a single advert bother me. A little window in the top right corner keeps track of how many ads are blocked, it can be 100;s on a long night. :shock:
I've had it for years with not a single hitch.
Some you tube stuff is actually worth watching, dont cut yourself off completely.
But if I go to a site for a single "look up" and I have to accept cookies first, then I just close it and find someone who doesnt want my bank account.
 
Re: you tube ad blocker
Unread postby RogerS » Today, 10:53
AJB Temple wrote:
.....and generally people make content to monetise it or for ego or both .....

I think that that is a little unfair to many YouTube content producers who are posting for the benefit of others.

It's akin to a poster over elsewhere who stated that most people went into medicine either for the money or the status...

Perhaps I am far more cynical than you then Roger. In my experience very few people go to the trouble of making video content without having 'likes' and 'subscribes' well at the forefront of their minds. Monetisation is frequently discussed, and if subscribers grow to economic levels then usually product placement soon appears. As soon as someone requests likes, subscriptions or refers to monetisation of their channel in any way, then that is the signal to me that altruism is not at the top of the agenda.

If You Tube content providers want to make money, fine. But it is essential to identify the target market and ensure it is big enough and that your content is good enough. If neither of those things is evident, then lack of money making will follow.

Things done just to help others do not requirer seek public approbation. It's a bit like charitable giving: somewhat less impressive if the donor feels the need to tell everyone about it. I'm unaware of the medics thread elsewhere to which you refer, but I see nothing wrong with people going to work in order to make money, in any field. Doctors and nurses do a lot of good, but they too have bills to pay and there is no entry requirement to be angelic. Hence I regard that comparison as not relevant to my point.

I'm not having a go at any particular you tube content provider, just pointing out my cynical attitude to "free" services and I tailor my viewing accordingly. Most things are worth what we pay for them, or less. 8-)

Adrian
 
Adrian, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm really not, but I don't exactly understand where you are coming from and I'd like to.

OK, you may think I have a huge ego. I don't think that is true but you wouldn't be the first to accuse me of such. I've also made it clear just what the financial benefits of doing this are. I don't think that even my worst detractors would accuse me of being greedy in that regard.

So, given that you don't want to give me your credit card details and you don't want to undergo the inconvenience of watching adverts, what business model do you propose that reimburses people like me for creating the sort of content consumed and, presumably enjoyed, at least to some extent, by yourself? Who pays for it? Nothing in the world is free. Somebody, somewhere, is spending real hard cash to create the stuff you watch. In my case that somebody is me.

So what business model do you propose that enables you to watch what you want without parting with any money, whilst enabling people like me to earn a living? I'd really like to know.
 
That's a fair question Steve and I will answer it dispassionately from my perspective. It's not personal - I don't watch your videos except briefly when you post about them on threads such as this, and there is a reason for that. We don't know each other either and my comments were not about you but reflected a growing sense that You Tube has a very clear business model that many contributors don’t appear to understand. There are several strands, not all of which are relevant here, for example a huge one is film clips that are targeted to encourage rental via YT of the entire film. This will make money.

The only way IMO for small contributors to make money from YT is to identify a subject that will interest a LOT of viewers. Skill Builder is an example of this: there is a good supply of content covering topics that many home builders and DIYers and even tradesmen will want to tackle. They get, in short order, circa 80,000 views and build to between 200,000 and 700,000 views over time. They achieve this by giving very clear and accessible advice on many challenges DIY builders face, they deliver credible expertise, and they employ a degree of humour. Content is frequent and production values are well above average.

Contrast this with your content which seems to me to be a niche within a niche. For example, you mentioned I think you have two or three hundred views on your “how to make a horizontal borer drilling machine” over the period of a week or two. This will be of no interest to most woodworkers, as only a very few will have a need to do the thing that your video is aimed at. The woodwork market is itself niche and has a distinct age profile which will be apparent to advertisers. The people in it who want to do horizontal drilling is a tiny subset. You get very few comments, which indicates lack of customer engagement (from an advertiser perspective).

Then there is the crucial “why would this appeal to advertisers” aspect. What is your hook for advertisers? You are not promoting a product, a wide need, a special tool, supplier, wood or anything that provides a useful hook. So even if you had a shed load of views, what advertising would or could be effective? Advertisers cannot see what or who your target market is.

There is no secondary appeal either. So take Rob Cosman for example. He makes stuff, he shows how to do things, he makes and sells tools and he promotes other people’s tools. He is accessible to his market with on-line Q&A sessions, and he mail shots people who subscribe. His secondary market is military veterans, who he tries to provide support to. Love him or hate him, his marketing is slick in his field.

I do watch videos on YT. Mostly about film and music. A lot of wood stuff is noise, nonsense or tedious, so I don’t watch much of it and it has to be something that I want to do. For example, today I have looked for information on lime rendering. If the subject is relevant to me I will tolerate a degree of advertising. For musicians I will like and subscribe if I feel supportive.

The guy building the boat is another good example. He has a story, and he engages with his audience to the extent of having people helping him to fund it and even provide labour. His excellent approach is the story - because it brings people back over and over again. Perfect for advertisers. I watch his channel.

My feeling therefore about YT monetisation is:

Don’t waste time on tiny markets unless you are just doing the videos for yourself
Don’t be surprised if you make no money if you focus on tiny niche interests
You must provide an engagement hook if you want more views quickly – it is essential to show site activity fast, and that means you must know who your target audience is and how to get a response from them
YT is about marketing. You have to sell something (you, product, high appeal tool etc) and get that point over really quickly. This is a big weakness in your videos – for example the drilling jig. You assume (it seems) that people will accept there is a need, but you don’t feed this with examples.
You must tell people what they want and why they want it and you must do that in the first 20 seconds or else they are gone.
Videos follow production trends. Awareness of this is important.

Steve, I wish you well with your videos. But if you want a lot of views, you need to stand back and think “who is my audience, why would they watch, and who will want to sell to them?”.

YT regard you as the product. The other way to succeed is be really pretty and play guitar or try clothes on. The views are in the millions. This is a serious point actually - these people know exactly who their target market is.

Goo luck, Adrian
 
An awful lot of people put videos on YouTube without expectation of a profit. These days, that doesn't stop YouTube interrupting with adds that benefit the content creator not at all. Not a few really talented musicians put videos on YouTube to be paid less than they get from any of the paid for streaming services. I will not feel guilty using my adblocker because it might make Google a bit less well off.
 
I have to say, no-one, not even in Adrian's well-considered response, has actually answered the question.
How do I, me, Steve Maskery, get paid for creating content?

I am forced into the conclusion that I don't, cannot expect to be so and that I am not, in fact, an economically viable human being. The few things I'm good at should be donated altruistically to the woodworking community.

Steve, just go out and get a proper job. We know you have applied for over 1000 jobs, from 70K+ down to Minimum Wage, without success, but seriously, trying to sell your little knowlege, to people who know even less than you do? Really? Do us a favour.
S
 
And Adrian, I think that you have completely missed the point that Steve was making.
 
Sheffield Tony":22orl6g7 said:
... I will not feel guilty using my adblocker because it might make Google a bit less well off.

And sod people like Steve ? Or musicians ? My apologies if I have missed something.
 
I think you sort of have missed something. The musicians, and Steve, are not the ones getting the lion's share of the money anyway. They pay artists less than all the other streaming services. I pay for Spotify, and have paid directly for a number of live streamed performances, it is not just that I'm a tight wad.

The only person I know personally who made money from a YouTube video did it by scything without his shirt in the wake of Poldark. I suspect it wasn't mostly down to his skill as a scythesman. IIRC he got a million views. He's not rich yet.
 
Steve Maskery":s3m0j2l6 said:
I have to say, no-one, not even in Adrian's well-considered response, has actually answered the question.
How do I, me, Steve Maskery, get paid for creating content?

I am forced into the conclusion that I don't, cannot expect to be so and that I am not, in fact, an economically viable human being. The few things I'm good at should be donated altruistically to the woodworking community.

Steve, just go out and get a proper job. We know you have applied for over 1000 jobs, from 70K+ down to Minimum Wage, without success, but seriously, trying to sell your little knowlege, to people who know even less than you do? Really? Do us a favour.
S

I Still think you are worthy Steve. Chin up old bean. I'll be sure I drop a Wigan pie off next time I visit Selston and need to nip to aldi or bouys.

No idea how you take all that heart ache and anguish and turn it on to cash.... Have you considered country music?
 
AJB Temple":2nvxs552 said:
As soon as someone requests likes, subscriptions or refers to monetisation of their channel in any way, then that is the signal to me that altruism is not at the top of the agenda.

I have neither the time nor energy to get fully involved in this thread but just wanted to pick up on this one sentence.

You’ll probably notice that the wording that EVERY YouTuber uses when asking for likes, subscribers etc is almost identical, well there’s a reason for that.

YouTube search out those exact words/phrases and if they are in your content then your videos get a higher rank and better promotion within their algorithms, so while I fully agree that altruism may not be at the forefront, anyone who wants their videos to be seen would be absolutely nuts to NOT add those words whether they are monetising their content or not.
 
Content creators want to generate as much money as they can, consumers want to pay as little money as they can... it's capitalism at work.
 
Gill":1dga4pwd said:
Content creators want to generate as much money as they can, consumers want to pay as little money as they can... it's capitalism at work.

I think you'll find that consumers want to pay as little as possible regardless of the prevailing economics. Trouble is that the majority of people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I would willingly pay more for quality but finding quality is becoming increasingly difficult.
 
RogerS":i275xju5 said:
Gill":i275xju5 said:
Content creators want to generate as much money as they can, consumers want to pay as little money as they can... it's capitalism at work.

I think you'll find that consumers want to pay as little as possible regardless of the prevailing economics. Trouble is that the majority of people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I would willingly pay more for quality but finding quality is becoming increasingly difficult.

I agree. Slightly off topic. I would gladly pay to watch quality UK television. Sport/drama/entertainment but due to “rights issues” I am unable to so and I am forced to watch for free via nefarious means.
 
Steve Maskery":3ip1fy6g said:
I have to say, no-one, not even in Adrian's well-considered response, has actually answered the question.
How do I, me, Steve Maskery, get paid for creating content?
Let me at least try, using some totally reliable figures I will make up as I go along.

Suppose a video about widgets gets 10 000 views and contains 1 advert. That advert may well be promoting a manufacturer of widgets. The advert is potentially viewed 10 000 times. All well and good.

Now out of those 10 000 viewers there are 100 who may be in the market for a new widget and would welcome the advert, whilst 9 900 woud prefer not to be interrupted by the advert. Indeed some of those 9 900 may have a poor or restricted or pay-by-volume internet connection and positively object to having to download the advert.

Where does the economic benefit of placing the advert come from? I suggest it is from the 100 viewers potentially in the market for a new widget. I doubt if the advertiser would sell anything to the others, especially those who resent using their available bandwidth to download the advert.

So it seems to me the advertising system should aim at identifying the 100 potential customers and presenting adverts to them, whilst avoiding annoying the other 9 900. How can that be done? A couple of suggestions. One option would be to simply ask the viewer at the start of the video: are you interested in widget-related promotional material? If so, include the advert, otherwise skip it. Another way would be to let let the viewer decide without having to answer that question for each video they see. They could do that by enabling or disabling their ad blocker.

Apart from making viewers happier this would also make the system more valuable to advertisers since they would know that the people viewing their adverts are indeed potential customers.

So the ball is in YT's court. Either ask the viewer directly at the start of each video, or include an ad blocker in the YT settings. Then charge the advertisers a higher price for a more-targetted audience and pay the content creators more (and only) when their material attracts viewers willing to view the adverts.

There could be added benefit for YT. Info about which type of video prompts me to view adverts could significantly enhance their profile of me and I am sure Google can monetise that.
 
Back
Top