This is so inherently detectable, though, I’m amazed it worked for so long and that it’s still working now. Likely a consequence of offloading as much of YT onto the client side as possible, because if you’re doing anything server side how hard is it to require that the ad has at least downloaded before streaming the video?
The Spotify ripper “zotify” has an undetectable “realtime” mode that does basically what OP suggested. Instead of downloading every track as fast as possible, it pretends that it’s actually streaming and listening to them. Obviously it takes a lot longer to rip a whole album, but it’s a good idea.
I think Spotify ripping isn’t big enough that it’s actually needed at this point, but it’s good that they considered the potential for it.
I always thought the reason they don’t take any action, is exactly because adblockers would then work as the guy above described.
Companies posting ads would eventually become aware, that a not insignificant portion of viewers don’t even see the ads they are paying for. I don’t see how this won’t cause a backlash… i guess youtube calculated that in and thinks it’ll be worth it any way.
Good point, if you’re counting ad impressions and billing accordingly then it’s better to simply lose the impression than bill the customer for displaying a “ghost ad”.
However this is exactly what’s happening to sponsors with SponsorBlock, their section gets skipped and nobody knows (well, the channel owner knows from the watch stats, but does the sponsor demand those stats, do they only pay for clickthroughs on the referral link, I have no idea how the YT sponsor ecosystem works)
They don’t need any other information than referral link clicks/signups and video views, one of which they have metrics on, the other is public information. A SponsorSkip user is equal in their eyes to a person who isn’t interested in the product.
Not a bad idea, but if possible, you want to skip loading the ad altogether, which is – to my understanding – what currently happens.
This is so inherently detectable, though, I’m amazed it worked for so long and that it’s still working now. Likely a consequence of offloading as much of YT onto the client side as possible, because if you’re doing anything server side how hard is it to require that the ad has at least downloaded before streaming the video?
The Spotify ripper “zotify” has an undetectable “realtime” mode that does basically what OP suggested. Instead of downloading every track as fast as possible, it pretends that it’s actually streaming and listening to them. Obviously it takes a lot longer to rip a whole album, but it’s a good idea.
I think Spotify ripping isn’t big enough that it’s actually needed at this point, but it’s good that they considered the potential for it.
I always thought the reason they don’t take any action, is exactly because adblockers would then work as the guy above described.
Companies posting ads would eventually become aware, that a not insignificant portion of viewers don’t even see the ads they are paying for. I don’t see how this won’t cause a backlash… i guess youtube calculated that in and thinks it’ll be worth it any way.
Good point, if you’re counting ad impressions and billing accordingly then it’s better to simply lose the impression than bill the customer for displaying a “ghost ad”.
However this is exactly what’s happening to sponsors with SponsorBlock, their section gets skipped and nobody knows (well, the channel owner knows from the watch stats, but does the sponsor demand those stats, do they only pay for clickthroughs on the referral link, I have no idea how the YT sponsor ecosystem works)
They don’t need any other information than referral link clicks/signups and video views, one of which they have metrics on, the other is public information. A SponsorSkip user is equal in their eyes to a person who isn’t interested in the product.