Sorin’s YouTube channel is under threat from YT’s algorithms !

[SiliconWizard]

I don't even have a channel I just make comments on videos, and I got a weird message from YouTube about breaking community guidelines. No mention of which comment or which guideline. The feedback system that youtube offers just pops up a text box and a "send" button that doesn't do anything.
Wonderful.

Never had that, but had a number of comments automatically censored (obvious when they disappear just a few s after posting).
One thing that many are aware of now, but just saying just in case, do no put links inside YT comments. Your comment will get removed automatically. YT doesn't tolerate any link whatsoever apparently.
This is unfortunate when you want to prove or illustrate a point with a source. For doing so, just cite the reference but do not make it a clickable link.

[.RC.]

It is a sad state of affairs when to become quickly popular on youtube it seems you need xx chromosomes, and clothing designed to show off your assets.

While the chromosome issue would be a problem maybe Dave would do better with some artificial enhancements and a low cut shirt.

[Fraser]

It appears that Sorin has discovered the source of his Invalid Traffic and found a way to re-establish his income stream……

https://youtu.be/okfSCAJqX6E?si=rqrFhG7f4G4UJ6wg

For those not wanting to watch his video, it is viewers using Ad blockers that he says causes the Invalid Traffic event. He created a long video and asked viewers to switch off their ad blockers. The video saw a huge increase in financial performance and no Invalid traffic warning.

[tooki]

I don't even have a channel I just make comments on videos, and I got a weird message from YouTube about breaking community guidelines. No mention of which comment or which guideline. The feedback system that youtube offers just pops up a text box and a "send" button that doesn't do anything.
Wonderful.

Never had that, but had a number of comments automatically censored (obvious when they disappear just a few s after posting).
One thing that many are aware of now, but just saying just in case, do no put links inside YT comments. Your comment will get removed automatically. YT doesn't tolerate any link whatsoever apparently.
This is unfortunate when you want to prove or illustrate a point with a source. For doing so, just cite the reference but do not make it a clickable link.

Almost. There is exactly one kind of link they tolerate: links to YouTube itself. So linking to another video, playlist, or channel won’t get deleted. Anything else is gone within seconds.

Similarly, using too many numerals (!) will get them deleted, as will various words (many completely innocuous) on secret blacklists.

[Veteran68]

It appears that Sorin has discovered the source of his Invalid Traffic and found a way to re-establish his income stream……
...
For those not wanting to watch his video, it is viewers using Ad blockers that he says causes the Invalid Traffic event. He created a long video and asked viewers to switch off their ad blockers. The video saw a huge increase in financial performance and no Invalid traffic warning.

Yeah I watched this yesterday. It aligns with what many suspected. Advertisers have been beating up Google lately because they're paying for ads that aren't being seen due to ad blockers. YT has made it known recently that they were going after ad blockers, so the timing was certainly suspect when all this invalid traffic stuff started. But why couldn't YT just tell their creators this instead of silently punishing them for their users' behavior? Why treat some creators more harshly than others? Why imply or in some cases directly suggest that the creators are generating invalid traffic through nefarious means (watching their own ads, recruiting people to watch their ads on a loop, etc.) instead of just saying up front that it's due to ad blockers?

Look, I understand that nothing is free. I can't imagine the costs of running YT's infrastructure, so they need a revenue stream, which is primarily from ads. Ad blockers hurt that stream. So I can't blame them for going after ad blockers. But don't punish the creators for something they have zero control over. The way YT has botched their handling of this is abysmal.

As I've said before, I don't mind unobtrusive ads, like banners on a page. I don't mind sponsorship shoutouts within a video. I *HATE* ads that disrupt my experience, such as popups, redirects, or unskippable ads that interrupt a video. Because I consume so much YT, I'm a Premium subscriber. Considering the value I get from YT, it's a pittance to pay and I get the satisfaction of no ads AND the creators get paid from my subscription. It's a win-win for me and the creators as well. But I recognize that for some it's an expense that's hard to justify. I wonder if YT would offer a cheaper version of Premium, say $5/month, with only the ad skipping and not the other features like offline play and YT Music, it would go a long way towards resolving this issue.

[Bicurico]

I wouldn't mind having to pay Youtube to have my channel online. I wouldn't mind paying a small base fee and then a fee based on views.
I wouldn't mind having to see banners or, as mentioned by Veteran68, other unobstrusive ads.
Hell, I would even be ok to receive a weekly newsletter from Google with custom made ads and commercial offers based on my profile (collected by their services like Google, Gmail, Youtube, etc.) if the suggestions would be reasonable and used some real AI.

But having to watch a 20 minute video that is interrupted 3 times with a 2 minute unskippable ad that has a much louder volume is totally unacceptable and even if I wouldn't be using an ad blocker, such an ad would have ZERO chance to convince me to purchase the promoted product or service. Quite the contrary: said product or service would be blacklisted by me.

And no, I cannot afford a Youtube Premium subscription. I live in one of Europe's poorest country, the minimum wage is currently 720 Euro, VAT is 23% and I already pay for the internet access. I don't see value in this subscription, that costs the same as Netflix: with Netflix I get no ads and pay for the production of series and movies made by Netflix. Also, I pay for Netflix to settle the licensing of series and movies made by others. And of course, I pay for the platform (servers, traffic, etc.).

Youtube, on the other hand doesn't produce anything. They only provide the infrastructure.

Also, I dislike the fact that Youtube has a political agenda and as a result filters the content and/or removes monetization of channels they don't like. In Portugal this happend to important channels of right wing political commentators. Sadly, the same does not seem to happen to extreme left wind party commentators. So much for freedom of speech.

Hopefully, Youtube's popularity will decline and new offers will appear.

I remember the time when web searches were done with Altasvista until some new cool search engine showed up, called Google. It is time for a replacement...

[tooki]

As I've said before, I don't mind unobtrusive ads, like banners on a page. I don't mind sponsorship shoutouts within a video. I *HATE* ads that disrupt my experience, such as popups, redirects, or unskippable ads that interrupt a video. Because I consume so much YT, I'm a Premium subscriber. Considering the value I get from YT, it's a pittance to pay and I get the satisfaction of no ads AND the creators get paid from my subscription. It's a win-win for me and the creators as well. But I recognize that for some it's an expense that's hard to justify. I wonder if YT would offer a cheaper version of Premium, say $5/month, with only the ad skipping and not the other features like offline play and YT Music, it would go a long way towards resolving this issue.

With as much YT as I watch, Premium would definitely be worth it. Yet at this point, I refuse to do it because it simply feels like a shakedown: paying for Premium feels like paying a bully to stop beating you up. If Google behaved like an upstanding citizen I’d be much more inclined to give them money. But their obnoxious behavior and complete lack of accountability to anyone is, IMHO, not deserving of monetary reward. So instead I spend the money on merch from my favorite channels.

[Fraser]

Louis Rossmann produced a video in which he discussed the YouTube business model. He stated that, in his opinion, it is a disastrous business model that no one will wish to repeat as it simply does not make serious money for the business. The income is from advertisers who are a very fickle lot and if they think their adverts are not being watched, or effective enough, they will just walk away. YouTube must cost an absolute fortune to operate so it is little surprise that they are trying to keep their advertisers happy. Louis thinks YouTubes days in its current format are numbered but I know nothing about that. As has been said, it seems wrong to punish content creators for the actions of their viewers, especially if they are not told why they are being punished. Sorin has asked his viewers to turn off their add blockers when watching his content and it seems to have worked as his loyal fan base wish him to get as much income from his efforts as possible. He is a nice guy after all !

In case of interest, the link to the Louis Rossmann video, though I must admit that I no longer watch his channels (a link to this video popped up when looking for Sorin videos !)

https://youtu.be/DMaFH4KzOVg?si=yBE87Hz-I983I0SD

[SiliconWizard]

If Google behaved like an upstanding citizen I’d be much more inclined to give them money.

That's the funny thing about Google/YT. People expect Google to be an upstanding corporate citizen, maybe because it gave away everything from GMail to GMaps to YouTube for decades.

When was the last time anyone said that Shell was being a schoolyard bully for charging money for the gasoline it dispenses? Or that Costco was being miserly and greedy by still charging money for their hotdogs?

Google did this to itself

Yes, but that's been the whole online business model. That's how it worked. There would never have been any Google or any of the other big ones without this freebie model. They grew this big thanks to this freaking model. They can't get out of it this easily without making a LOT of people angry. I mean, really a lot.

[gabiz_ro]

I'm not sure Sorin explanation is 100% true based on that video.
Asking viewers to disable adblock but nobody knows what percentage of them comply to his request.
Implying a long video ,maybe 4-5 times longer than usual, if ads are included at time period result is more ads that will result in increase of money gain so that spike on his graphic should be cut in 1/4 at least.
Talking about content, failure on repairs, may attract and determine viewers to watch entire clip.
I remember reading on comments, other creator Learn Electronic Repairs asking something similar but don't remember to see if he get an answer.

Maybe my memory tricks me but Sorin said some time ago that doesn't want donation on YT and his channel is for learning others not for monetization.

And yes, punishing them for something that is out of their control is not fair.

[ebastler]

I'm not sure Sorin explanation is 100% true based on that video.
Asking viewers to disable adblock but nobody knows what percentage of them comply to his request.

Not only that, but he is also basing his theory on one little spike in a very noisy curve. I would like to see more data before jumping to such a conclusion.

Also, how would this approach make sense from Youtube's perspective? Putting pressure on users (to disable their adblockers) by punishing the creators does not make much sense in the first place, since Youtube can nag or block the offending users directly. But let's assume that they want to take this approach: How is this scheme supposed to work, i.e. affect user behaviour, if they keep it a secret?!

I am not ready to buy into Sorin's theory at this point.

[AVGresponding]

I've moved as much of my viewing as possible away from YT to Odysee because of this.

The adblock argument is mostly bullshit; most views are on mobile these days which is harder to adblock so most people don't bother. As Bicurico pointed out, interrupting a vid with an unskippable ad with super-compressed sound is more likely to turn someone off from a product than on to it.

Some people use YT Premium, and some allow the ads, there should be space for people that want neither; limit the video resolution or framerate for them, perhaps.

[tooki]

If Google behaved like an upstanding citizen I’d be much more inclined to give them money.

That's the funny thing about Google/YT. People expect Google to be an upstanding corporate citizen, maybe because it gave away everything from GMail to GMaps to YouTube for decades.

When was the last time anyone said that Shell was being a schoolyard bully for charging money for the gasoline it dispenses? Or that Costco was being miserly and greedy by still charging money for their hotdogs?

Google did this to itself

That's not what I meant.

What I mean is that I refuse to willingly hand over cash to a company that operates like a thug: it doesn't listen to viewers (which, in the case of Premium, are customers), offering no meaningful customer service to them. It doesn't listen to content creators, offering no meaningful customer service to them if they're not among the top 100 or so. (Even channels big enough to have channel managers frequently encounter radio silence as soon as they have any real issue.) The way they handle copyright strikes is borderline criminal.

I have no problem with charging for a service. It's that even if you pay, they're a scummy company that I do not want to give money to. And that the methods used to make you choose to pay feel like outright bullying.