Why I Stopped Making I Tried It Videos And Why You Should Stop Watching Them

For about a year and three months, Alston Godbolt published “I Tried It” videos every single week, sometimes two per week, where he personally tested the make-money-online methods flooding YouTube and reported back honestly on what worked and what was a total waste of time. Then the videos stopped. No announcement, no farewell episode, just silence. Viewers started asking questions on social media, and this video is his direct answer to why the series ended.

This is not a story about burnout. It is a story about a good format getting hijacked by the exact type of people it was built to expose. If you have been watching “I Tried It” videos on YouTube lately and wondering why the quality feels off, or why you keep ending up frustrated after trying the things these videos recommend, you are about to understand exactly what happened and what to do instead.

What You’ll Walk Out With

The real reason Alston created the “I Tried It” series in the first place
Why the format no longer serves its original purpose
How to recognize when a “I Tried It” video is just a repackaged scam
The emotional cycle that keeps people stuck watching these videos instead of building something
What Alston is doing instead and why it is more useful for you
A practical framework for deciding whether any make-money-online video is worth your time
Where to find your actual starting point at finder.platformproof.com

Why the “I Tried It” Series Started

About a year and three months before this video was published, Alston made his first “I Tried It” video. The reason he created the series comes down to lived experience. He was in the exact same position as millions of viewers: looking for something that could bridge the gap, help make ends meet, and actually produce results without requiring a business degree or a big upfront investment.

Once he started finding real success online, he noticed something that genuinely bothered him. YouTube was full of videos claiming that you could make $5 every 30 seconds just by watching ads, or that some new method was going to change your financial life by next Tuesday. He knew these claims were false. He had tried enough of them to know firsthand. And more importantly, the original content creators making those videos also knew they were false. The audience was the only party in the room that did not know.

That gap between what creators know and what audiences believe was the founding problem the series was designed to solve. Alston wanted to sit in the middle ground: not a guru telling you that every method is a gold mine, and not a cynic telling you that every single opportunity online is a scam designed to steal your money. He wanted to test things, report honestly, and help people see what was real and what was not.

The Cycle That Was Costing People More Than Money

Alston describes a very specific pattern that plays out for people who are genuinely looking for a way to make money online and end up in the YouTube rabbit hole. You find a video that looks credible. The creator is energetic, the thumbnail shows a number that feels possible, and the concept sounds simple enough to try. You get excited. You think this might actually be the thing that finally works.

Then you try it. It does not work. Maybe you spend 20 minutes completing a pre-survey for a survey site, only for the site to tell you that you are not qualified for the actual survey. You get no money. You got nothing for that time except frustration. Or maybe you buy a piece of software that promises to be “set it and forget it,” a fully automated system, and it turns out to do nothing close to what the sales page claimed.

When that happens, two things go with it: a little bit of hope, and a little bit of motivation. You do not quit, though. You go back online and start the search again. You find a new video with a new method from a new creator who speaks confidently about how this worked for them and for their clients. You believe them because they sound just credible enough. You try again. It still does not work. The cycle repeats.

Alston is transparent about where this cycle usually ends. People either figure out that making real money online requires creating helpful content and solving actual problems, or they decide the whole space is a scam and give up entirely. Both outcomes represent an enormous amount of wasted time and wasted emotional energy. The “I Tried It” series was built to short-circuit that cycle by showing people faster what was worth trying and what was not.

What the “I Tried It” Format Was Actually Designed to Do

The core job of the series was not entertainment. It was filtration. Alston would find a method circulating on YouTube, test it himself, and then report the real outcome. He tried to include a mix: some things that worked, some things that absolutely did not. The goal was to give viewers an honest picture so they could make better decisions about where to spend their time.

He also tried to be upfront about the economics of the format itself. The people making “$5 every 30 seconds” videos are not actually making money by watching YouTube ads. They are making money because you watched their YouTube video. Alston says he tried to be transparent about that dynamic from the beginning. His version of the content was trying to work against that model, not reproduce it.

While the series was running at full speed, he was producing at least one video per week in this format. That is a significant editorial commitment. Each video required him to actually try the method, track the results, and then build a video around his honest findings. That is a different production process than recording yourself pretending to try something while running an affiliate link in the description.

How the Format Got Hijacked

Here is what actually killed the series. It was not Alston losing interest. It was not running out of things to test. It was the fact that the “I Tried It” label became a search term that other creators started attaching to content that had nothing to do with honest testing.

Alston watched the same pattern happen that he had criticized in the original scam-style videos. Entire YouTube channels appeared that were dedicated entirely to “I Tried It” content. The videos looked like testing and reviewing, but they were essentially repackaged “$730 per day” type promises with the phrase “I tried it” dropped into the title to grab search traffic. The original purpose of honest filtration was replaced with a funnel to the same garbage the format was designed to expose.

This is not something Alston says happened to every video in the category. He is careful to note that not all of them have been corrupted. But when you search the term “I tried it” on YouTube now, you are looking at a high-competition, low-search-volume term that is flooded with content serving the exact problem the series was built to solve. The signal-to-noise ratio flipped. A viewer doing a fresh search would have no reliable way to distinguish the honest review from the repackaged scam.

When a format built on trust gets co-opted to manufacture trust artificially, the original creators lose the one thing that made their work worth doing. Alston acknowledges that it was exciting and motivating to see the format spread. Starting a trend on YouTube is genuinely meaningful. But once the trend belongs to the bad actors more than the good ones, continuing to participate in it stops helping viewers and starts potentially hurting them. Someone finding his video alongside a dozen manipulative ones may not know the difference.

What Alston Is Doing Instead

He is not stopping content about making money online. The channel continues, and the core mission stays the same: show people that real online income is possible without the lies, without the manufactured urgency, and without funneling viewers into products that do not deliver.

The shift is away from the testing-and-debunking format and toward process content. Step-by-step breakdowns of what is actually working, how Alston’s own business operates, and what the path looks like for someone starting from zero. He says this content is probably more useful anyway. A video showing you exactly how to set up a TikTok affiliate process, or outline a YouTube channel, or build a content schedule on Instagram gives you something you can actually execute, rather than just a list of things not to waste your time on.

That said, he leaves the door open. He asks viewers to comment if they want the “I Tried It” series to continue, suggesting the decision is not completely final. But the honest read of this video is that the format will not come back in its original shape unless the landscape changes significantly.

Not sure which online income path actually fits your skills and situation?

Skip the guessing and the scam-watching cycle. Get a specific recommendation built for where you are right now at finder.platformproof.com.

How to Tell If an “I Tried It” Video Is Actually Honest

Since the format is now saturated and unreliable, here is a practical framework for evaluating any “make money online” video before you invest time in it.

Check whether the creator shows the failure cases

An honest reviewer shows things that did not work. If every method the creator tests turns out to be a winner, they are either extraordinarily lucky or they are not actually testing anything. Alston’s original series included both results because that is what honest reporting looks like.

Look at where the money is actually coming from

This is the key insight Alston keeps returning to. The people telling you how to make $5 every 30 seconds are not making money by watching ads. They are making money from your view. If the primary income mechanism for a “this method works” video is YouTube ad revenue and affiliate commissions, the creator has a direct financial incentive for you to believe the method works whether it does or not.

Ask whether the thing being taught is actually scalable

Survey sites, click-to-earn platforms, and watch-to-earn apps are not businesses. Even if they pay out, the income ceiling is so low that the time cost makes it irrational. Alston spent 20 minutes on pre-surveys just to be told he did not qualify. In that same window, he says, you could have outlined a YouTube video, posted a TikTok, or built out a short-form content piece that compounds over time.

Check how long the channel has been doing this

Entire channels built entirely around “I Tried It” content that appeared recently are a red flag. The format requires time investment in actual testing. A channel uploading five “I Tried It” videos per week is almost certainly using the label as a traffic grab rather than doing legitimate tests.

Find Your Starting Point

The reason so many people stay stuck in the cycle Alston describes is that they do not have a clear answer to the question: what should I actually be doing? Without an answer to that, every promising YouTube thumbnail becomes worth clicking. Every new method feels like it might be the one that finally fits.

The Finder tool at finder.platformproof.com gives you a direct answer built around your skills, your schedule, and your current situation. Instead of watching another hour of testing videos, you get a specific starting point matched to what you already have available. That is the faster path to your first dollar online, and it does not require trusting a stranger with a trending thumbnail.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Alston start the “I Tried It” series in the first place?

He was in the same position as his audience years before: desperate for a way to make ends meet and trying every method he could find online. Once he found real success, he watched people around him fall for the same scams he had recognized were worthless. He wanted to create a resource that sat between “everything works” gurus and “everything is a scam” cynics, showing honest test results for real methods.

Did any of the methods he tested actually work?

Yes. The original format was intentionally mixed, showing both things that produced results and things that absolutely did not. That mix was part of what made the series useful. An honest review has to include both outcomes. Alston says that creating helpful content and solving problems is the core of what actually works online, but within that there are specific formats and platforms that produce results faster than others.

What happened to the survey sites and click-to-earn apps he tested?

They did not work in any meaningful way. He describes spending 20 minutes on a pre-survey, being rejected before even reaching the actual survey, and earning nothing. He also mentions platform glitches where clicking would generate pennies on the dollar or produce no payout at all. These are not edge cases; they are the normal experience for most users. The time cost alone makes these approaches irrational compared to building even a small content presence on TikTok or YouTube Shorts.

How can you tell the difference between an honest “I Tried It” video and a repackaged scam?

The most reliable signal is whether the creator shows failure. Honest testers publish the videos where the method did not work alongside the ones where it did. If every single method a creator tests turns out to be a winner, that is not testing. Also check whether there are affiliate links or product promotions attached to the methods being “tested.” A creator with a financial stake in you believing a method works is not a neutral reviewer.

Why do so many YouTubers keep making these videos if the methods do not work?

Because the video works even when the method does not. A creator making a video about how to earn $5 every 30 seconds watching YouTube ads earns money from your view, from your click to their affiliate link, and from the watch time you contribute to their channel. The method being real is not actually required for the video to be profitable. That is the structural problem Alston keeps pointing back to: the creator’s incentive and the viewer’s interest are not aligned.

Is Alston going to bring the “I Tried It” series back?

In this video he says he is pulling back on the format and asks viewers to comment if they want it to continue. The core reason for stopping is that the format has been co-opted by the same type of content it was designed to expose. For the series to be useful again, the signal-to-noise ratio in that search category would need to improve significantly. In the meantime, his channel is shifting toward process-based, step-by-step content showing what is actually working.

What kind of content is Alston creating now instead?

Process content. Detailed breakdowns of how to actually build an online business step by step, covering what works for him and what the realistic path looks like for someone starting from scratch. He says this type of content is probably more useful than the testing format anyway, because it gives you something executable rather than just a list of things to avoid. If you want to see what this looks like in practice, his channel at alstongodbolt.com is where the current content lives.

What is the most important thing someone in that desperate cycle should do right now?

Stop watching videos about methods and start figuring out which specific direction fits your situation. The cycle Alston describes, where you try something, it fails, you lose motivation, and then you go looking for the next thing, is driven by the absence of a clear personal direction. The time you spend on a pre-survey that rejects you could instead go toward building a short-form content presence. The key is knowing which platform and format to focus on given your skills and schedule. That is exactly what finder.platformproof.com is built to help you figure out.

Sources

Alston Godbolt, “I Tried It: Why I Stopped Making I Tried It Videos And Why You Should Stop Watching Them” on YouTube (https://youtu.be/WwFNXek_-WE)
alstongodbolt.com: original “I Tried It” series archive
finder.platformproof.com: platform and income-path matching tool

Helping 1 million working adults make their first $3,000 online with the skills they already have. Alston Godbolt, Platform Proof.