|why, why do you have so many adss. stop the ads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!||retardedpirate66||11/27/10 10:20 PM|
STOP THE ADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANT EVEN WATCH SOME VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE BECAUSE OF ADS. IF U WANT TO KEPP HAVING A BROAD RANGE OF YOUTUBE VIEWS STOP THE ADSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
|Re: why, why do you have so many adss. stop the ads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!||epontius||11/28/10 10:52 AM|
No ads, no YouTube. They pay to keep the servers running and the bandwidth flowing.
If you think YouTube is bad....try watching something on DailyMotion, where everyone's video has ads (like smiley face ads!), in them and on all 4 sides...
|Re: why, why do you have so many adss. stop the ads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!||FatTonyBBX||11/28/10 11:23 AM|
Adverts are placed by the uploaders (or, in cases of copyright infringement, the copyright holders) to earn money. I have plenty of info on a rather thorough blog post here :)
|Re: why, why do you have so many adss. stop the ads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!||paulgr||11/28/10 11:23 AM|
DailyMotion has to be the worst. It has more ads than the Penny Saver at the grocery store.
|epontius||11/28/10 11:31 AM|
|Xelger||11/28/10 11:39 AM|
It's amazing how little people understand about the simple concept of what money does and what cannot be done without it. Everything is supposed to just exist through magic I guess.
|FatTonyBBX||11/28/10 12:02 PM|
Thanks, epontius. I know I seem to be spamming that link but it's a very personal and, I like to think, helpful summary.
If there's only one thing people read, I hope it's this.
|epontius||11/28/10 2:29 PM|
right... that's the part that struck me, being a video professional myself in my day job, I know the effort it takes to shoot and edit video... something everyone seems to take for granted.
|Xelger||11/28/10 2:54 PM|
Truthfully, I just realized this, but this thread was probably only created for trolling. After all, look at the asker's name. The blatant fake rage through caps, bold, and overexaggeration should have also been a dead giveaway. Yeah, I'm slow. Sue me.
|DJTrembleFan||11/30/10 11:31 PM|
Solution, Get adblock plus
|rewboss||12/1/10 6:33 AM|
Solution, Get adblock plus
...and watch as YouTube responds by making ever more intrusive ads in an attempt to make up for the shortfall. If you want to completely ruin everybody's YouTube experience, this is the way to do it.
|DJTrembleFan||12/1/10 6:13 PM|
Wrong, all the ads ruin the YouTube experience, why the hell would I want to watch ads? If I wanted to, i'd watch TV. Thats the main reason I don't watch much TV these days.
|Xelger||12/1/10 6:22 PM|
"all the ads ruin the YouTube experience"Wow, are you seriously saying that YouTube disappearing from the internet is a better YouTube experience? Can you even fathom the complete insanity of what you are saying?
|Xelger||12/1/10 6:26 PM|
Okay, you know what, I asked a stupid question. It's obvious you aren't currently able to fathom what you are talking about, so let me break it down for you.
Google spends millions of dollars daily to keep YouTube running, thanks to the massive server and bandwidth costs required to run a streaming site like this. Let's say that Google eliminates the ads from YouTube. Let me ask you, where will the money come from to keep YouTube running? You obviously have to have some kind of better solution if you are saying the ads have to go. Eliminate the advertising revenue and replace it with...?
|epontius||12/1/10 8:34 PM|
I've noticed that a lot of shows now have things that tie in with website activity and drive traffic to the broadcaster's website... like viewing special clips or entering contests. I'm assuming that DVR's and Tivo's are now making an impact with advertisers who may be hard up to spend money to advertise on a broadcast show when people can just skip the commercials. Driving traffic to the web gives the broadcasters another avenue to put advertising in your face and a way to encourage advertisers to buy space...which in turn helps pay for the creation of new shows.
Now if internet users are also finding ways of avoiding advertising the same thing could be happening.
The downside of course is that this then shifts the burden of offsetting the cost of creating these shows from the advertiser to the consumer. You want an ad free experience you pay up front for it by paying a monthly fee.
Just like premium cable channels like HBO and Cinemax.
I remember when they used to run cartoons and trailers before movies in the theater instead of commercials.
|oh2||12/1/10 9:37 PM|
Use adblock if you don't like it. Or ask God to eliminate all capitalist morons and corporatocracy from the planet.
|DJTrembleFan||12/1/10 11:09 PM|
Use adblock if you don't like it. Or ask God to eliminate all capitalist morons and corporatocracy from the planet.Haha, finally someone understands
|oh2||12/1/10 11:40 PM|
This platform is riddled with people with zero moral fiber. Don't let it get you down. Somehow they are able to rationalize peddling ads for things nobody wants as long as they get paid for the blood sweat and tears spent making the next facile video aimed at captivating the juvenile masses with ADHD.
|Xelger||12/2/10 10:23 AM|
I suppose most everyone here dislikes computers and the internet. After all, without money, there's no incentive to work, which means nobody is going to upkeep an ISP, or hell, even an electrical plant. Everyone would just have to go back to Amish standards, everyone working their asses off to upkeep a farm just to survive.
So yeah, curse capitalism. We want non-stop back-breaking labor, damn it!
|FatTonyBBX||12/2/10 10:30 AM|
*shrug* I've said it before and I'll say it again; if you don't like the ads, go watch a channel that doesn't have them. If somebody can't spare 15 seconds of their time showing support for a video I've spent hours making, I don't want them watching my vids anyway.
|oh2||12/2/10 8:15 PM|
Oh sorry. I forgot that the only way to make money these days is to sell people crap they don't need or want nor asked to be told about in the most banal manner possible. Admittedly my expectations extremely high. I can understand if it's something you are incapable of living up to.
|epontius||12/2/10 8:17 PM|
and what is it you like to watch?
|oh2||12/2/10 11:16 PM|
@epontius Is that a genuine or rhetorical question?
If genuine, consider the following:
YouTube: The World's Largest Townhall
If you thought it might be a poignant rhetorical question and rebuttal like some people here obviously seem to think it is (regardless of your original intention), you'd probably feel rather abashed if you ever did actually find out. Or at least you should.
|rewboss||12/3/10 12:30 AM|
I think epontius's question was genuine. You complain that you hate ads, and you also complain that YouTube videos with ads on are "facile" and "aimed at captivating the juvenile masses with ADHD". In that case, then, the question of why you even bother with YouTube at all is justified.
As it is, you seem to be saying that you view YouTube as a platform for a form of direct democracy. Which is a use that YouTube can be put to, but not the only use, and not even the use it was originally created for: it's just grown that way.
However, just because you use YouTube for certain purposes does not mean that other uses are somehow less legitimate. Some people use YouTube to show off their dancing skills. Some people use YouTube to watch their favourite music videos. Some people use YouTube to call attention to what they consider abuses of human rights. Some people use YouTube purely for entertainment. Some use it as a social networking site.
Those uses are all equally valid, and it's not our place to make moral judgements on them. As long as these activities are not illegal or offensive to the majority, people have as much right to use YouTube as they wish as you do.
But the fact of the matter is, like it or not, we do actually live in a market economy and bills have to be paid somehow. Ads on videos benefit not just makers of videos, but provide revenue for YouTube. Everything has to be paid for: bandwidth (something in excess of a million dollars a day, I believe, just to be able to let you watch videos at all), staff wages, electricity, maintenance, taxes, rent, the cleaners, right down to the toilet paper and soap.
Contrary to popular belief, YouTube does not have direct access to Google's billions. YouTube is a subsidiary of Google, yes, but is expected to pay its own way. Industry analysts aren't completely sure how YouTube manages to stay afloat, but one thing's for sure: starve YouTube of advertising revenue, and there will no longer be a YouTube to complain about, and no more "world's largest townhall". No more direct democracy for you.
You cannot get something for nothing, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. And just because you want this direct democracy platform but without having to pay for it in the form of having to watch the occasional advert, you're helping to make things worse for everybody else, and for yourself in the long run. Because if everyone starts using ad blockers, YouTube is either going to have to close down, or start showing unskippable mid-roll ads in every video at two minute intervals.
In fact, Invideo ads and overlays can be closed just by clicking the little X. YouTube has now, apparently, introduced a "Skip" button for pre-roll ads.
Do you really want to completely destroy YouTube because you can't handle a minor inconvenience? Or do you actually have a different proposal that will make money for YouTube without ads and which will actually work in the real world?
|oh2||12/3/10 3:41 AM|
If youtube were to go away I would simply find another website. I do not soley rely on youtube for video sharing.
And I certainly did not mean to imply that people do not have the right to post what ever they want on the site. However, youtube does not balance the content that appears on the home page to the anonymous viewer. I've spent quite a lot of time tailoring several different channels' subscriptions to actually get content that is useful and enjoyable to me.
Does it make any sense to you that the largest town hall has to bow to the whims of the largest corporations? There is no "direct democracy" when one party has a disproportionate voice over another. Just because someone is willing to pay you lots of money to do something does not mean it is ethical for you to do it. Nor does using that money to do something nice make the previous action ok.
And I think the small banner ads that can be closed can be acceptable, as are static image ads next to the video. Video ads however are highly intrusive. But beyond the technical side of things, you should not be able to pay to effectively brainwash people into a cult around your company and it's products and services.
If youtube cannot pay for the costs of their current service without violating Google's own rules against doing "evil", they should scale back their service and seek out alternatives. There are technologies that have existed for years that could offload the demand on their own servers immensely and distribute it across their user base. And I for one would not be against paying a fair price to have the ads disappear or have access to higher data rates.
I would say that the real value in youtube is the how interactive it is and how content from everywhere is aggregated into one place. But as soon as it becomes centered around big institutions and interests and not around its individual users it loses its value.
|Xelger||12/3/10 8:34 AM|
"I for one would not be against paying a fair price to have the ads disappear"That's actually a pretty interesting idea. Maybe YouTube should incorporate the ability to pay for some kind of "premium account", so that those accounts get no ads (and possibly a few other perks). That sounds fair to me, especially since NetFlix is able to provide a streaming-only service for $8 per month.
However, even if the staff considered it, they have so many other projects and fixes in the works that it would probably be a low priority that wouldn't be implemented for years. :/
|FatTonyBBX||12/3/10 9:05 AM|
Another video site? Like Blip, which by default has 30 second adverts before and after each video.. metacafe or vimeo which are all laden with adverts... see where I'm going with this? ;)
The idea of paying to remove the adverts is an interesting idea that'd benefit YouTube no end, but you're forgetting the reason the adverts are there in the first place - the money goes towards YouTube partners, and removing the ads removes the revenue earned for creating videos. Even ignoring that, the already tentative relationship YouTube has with the larger companies like SME which means occasionally copyrighted material can be left online with adverts running alongside them would be severed even further.
|rewboss||12/3/10 9:32 AM|
Does it make any sense to you that the largest town hall has to bow to the whims of the largest corporations? There is no "direct democracy" when one party has a disproportionate voice over another.It wouldn't, if YouTube was literally a townhall. But that phrase was used as a metaphor: it is not a townhall, it is a video sharing platform. It just so happens that politicians have discovered the internet as a way to appeal to a very important demographic: people who are going to be old enough to vote in the next election, or at least the election after next.
But I'm not sure that YouTube "bowing" to any "whims". Advertisers don't have editorial control over YouTube. YouTube asks of their partners that they make sure their videos are attractive to advertisers, or at least doesn't scare them off, but if you apply for partnership and your videos aren't "advertiser-friendly", you don't get deleted, you just don't get partnered.
No, but what unethical action are you referring to? Making us watch ads is annoying, perhaps, but hardly unethical. Promising people they will never need to see another advert again and then forcing them to watch three in a row is unethical, unless it's a genuine glitch. Supermarket chains conspiring to force farmers to sell their produce at less than cost and then retailing them at inflated prices is unethical. You seem to have a vague beef against capitalism generally, but you're a bit thin on specifics. Later on you imply that YouTube is being "evil" by serving up ads. I would counter that if this is your definition of "evil", your life has been either very blessed, or very sheltered. It's an annoyance and an inconvenience, but it doesn't deny you of anything.
Earlier on, you were advocating the use of ad blockers. The thing is, though, ad blockers would block the little banners and companion ads, but not pre-rolls and mid-rolls. As I said: If everybody starts using ad blockers, YouTube will respond with more intrusive ads. You may consider this to be "unethical" and "an evil", but consider this: YouTube would have been forced into this by your actions in denying them advertising revenue, effectively trying to get for free something that you would normally "pay" for (not with money directly, but with time). In the same way that rail companies have to make honest passengers pay higher prices in order to make up for the shortfall created by fare-dodgers and vandals, or supermarkets charge higher prices to compensate for revenue lost through shoplifting, so ultimately you're making honest users "pay" for your behaviour -- which is hardly ethical.
This is a wider issue, and has to do with the way the societies we live in operate. The law says that within certain limits, this is okay (and doesn't amount to "brainwashing"). If you want this to change, you're going to have to make very fundamental changes to the way our societies operate, the way we regulate industry, possibly even the way our entire financial structure operates. This isn't going to be easy -- Russia's tried this twice (from capitalism to communism, and then back again) and each time it's been a disaster and caused great suffering.
But until this changes, this is the system we have to work with, and this is the system which is currently keeping most of us fed, housed and clothed. This is the system YouTube has to opering within and use to stay in business.
If you're talking about P2P networks, there are massive problems with that -- the risk of individuals manipulating files and throwing viruses out into the system is top of the list. But it wouldn't make that much difference, because unlike P2P networks, where files are distributed as they are, YouTube videos have to go to YouTube in order to be transcoded into the correct formats (a variety of formats in a variety of resolutions). This is the whole point about YouTube: without this, we're back to the good old days of downloading a video file and hoping that we happen to have a player that will play that format (and if we don't, we're out of luck). So everything has to be uploaded to YouTube anyway, transcoded, and downloaded back into the network.
What is true is that YouTube most heavily promotes monetized videos, therefore advertiser-friendly videos. But I don't think it's fair to conclude that therefore individual users are being squeezed out just because some videos have ads on them. YouTube still features user-generated content, from schoolgirls singing into their hairbrushes to wacky conspiracy theorists, from comedy sketches to serious documentaries, from music to political discussion. It's centrally administered but not centrally edited. You don't need to watch the videos YouTube is promoting: you can take a little time to find things that you enjoy watching, and see what people who make things you enjoy also enjoy watching, and create your own little network, with your own channel profile as a kind of "hub".
|Xelger||12/3/10 9:56 AM|
That last paragraph there, rewboss, is exactly how I use YouTube.
|oh2||12/4/10 6:02 AM|
@FatTonyBBX re. monetizing videos:
This kind of system could easily be adapted for youtube.
I'll get back to you later rewboss. Lots to respond to and deserves a good one I think ;) But one thing I'd like to say quickly: I wouldn't say that I'm anti-capitalist per se. However I believe the public's freedom should not only be protected, but promoted. And generally the greater the capital interest, the more likely it is for the public's interests to come risk. As you say, it's a far larger issue than just youtube, but youtube is as the forefront of technology and social media, and if anyone is in a position to help bring about progress, they are. I'd hate to see that opportunity wasted.
|rewboss||12/4/10 6:35 AM|
ozelectro, you're suggesting charging people to "like" partner videos? Do you have any idea what impact that will have on the community?
|oh2||12/4/10 7:44 AM|
No,not at all. That would indeed be incredibly stupid xD I'm suggesting they add a tip jar. Nothing would have to change for non-paying viewers. But people who wanted to pay would have an extra button or something.
Payment systems could vary from a set increment per tipped video to dividing a pool of money each month like the system used by flattr.
|rewboss||12/4/10 9:39 AM|
A sort of honour system membership fee? You don't see any potential drawbacks with this method?
|FatTonyBBX||12/4/10 9:58 AM|
Tip jar = donate button = hardly ever, IF ever used.
|FatTonyBBX||12/4/10 9:59 AM|
Anyways, regarding the ads there's a real great quote by DeStorm in an old thread on advertising. He nails my view in an extremely intelligent way.
To the viewer who bought me here,
As a content provider who works sometimes 20 hours a day on a video. Coming up with original material twice a week and providing free useful advice and tips on a secondary channel....I personally feel ppl who come to watch my videos shouldn't mind sitting through a 15sec pre-roll, especially if they know it helps support our continued work. I'm sorry this bothers some but if myself and other content providers removed our pre-rolls there would be a lot less videos for your enjoyment because we would have to find other means to generate income to make these videos. Then you would complain about how rare an artist posts or the videos lacking budget quality.
All I can say is if you enjoy an artists work be patient and support him or her. If you feel their hard work is not worth 15 extra seconds of your life then you're given the choice to stop watching. I do appreciate everyone who watches my videos but when I work from sun up to sun down to bring my viewers the best damn work I possibly can it baffles my mind some can complain about 15 seconds.
In my lifetime I've worked 30 jobs to date and I will say by far, though I love this the most, it is the most time consuming and challenging. Well that's my 2 cents...gotta go! its 8am and I have to start on a new video :-)
"The difference between an viewer and a fan is...a viewer watches while a fan supports. I'm here for the fans"
|Xelger||12/4/10 12:05 PM|
"I believe the public's freedom should not only be protected, but promoted."It's funny how, in this context, "public" does not include the video creators. Apparently, they are not allowed the freedom to make money from their creations the way that they want to, because they forfeit their rights as human beings the moment they upload anything to YouTube. In the end, that's the bottom-line argument that keeps this thread alive. The thing everyone forgets is that YouTube does not put the ads on the videos. They merely give users the ability to put ads on their videos, but the final decision is the individual creator's. Anyone who hates the ads so much should be yelling at the partners for adding them, not YouTube/Google.
|Bobtabiin||1/14/11 10:24 AM|
Dude, if you say get rid of ads and you become a youtube partner, you won't be earning any money. And also no youtube! :(