Re: [videoblogging] Turnhere free videos
It looks like video production is going the way of photography. It will be harder and harder to make a living from delivering high production quality video when it is increasingly in the hands of more people. It also means we'll see larger sums of money traditionally paid to one person be split up between a wider group of people. (i.e. in the example of this startup) Competition is an exciting thing. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: I agree with all of you. $25-100 for 1-2 days work is not acceptable, and debases the market. There are a lot of filler video content work for QA sites being parcelled out that pays appallingly, as I think we discussed before. On the other hand, the proposition that was offered by Turnhere was that you shouldn't spend more than 3-4 hours in total (pre-production to delivery) making each 1 minute video, for businesses in walking distance from your house. They have a checklist, provide all the documents, etc. They don't want anything fancy - just a basic to- camera interview with some cutaways and a clip of the company's signage. So it should work out as $50-70 per hour. They also won't take on newbies or students - they require professional commercial experience. And have QA standards for everything submitted. I'm not sure about the WMV thing. They specify that you upload H264 3000kpbs 864x486, and talk about how they provide iPod/iPhone compatible files to show businesses. Odd that they have a WMV download for their intro webinar. I'm not pimping them - I haven't even signed up with them. The commoditization of video production concerns me because it affects the price and value of genuine creative filmmaking in this arena. But I just wanted to put it out there for discussion and get some of the facts clear. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 21 Jan 2010, at 04:12, Bohuš wrote: Hiya, Just a word of background, I do TV production for a living. Mostly independent stuff, but some broadcast stuff... I've been approached a lot by companies like this, especially start- ups. They want me to find ways to reduce costs, and still deliver a large percentage of what I do to clients. The problem is that I do actually have to make a living off of making video, and that's not going to happen if each one takes a day or two to make and the most I can hope to get is $25-100. It's great if you're on vacation, take a few fun videos, and then get a check for $25... that's great. The problem is when I'm asked to create videos with the same level of production that I usually charge many time more for. You're right... there are a lot of start-ups out there who think that the best business model is to create a venue for other people to do all the work, and then they make their cash off the backs of others. Ebay is a great example of that. They've created this quasi-community (less and less these days) and behave as if they were a store like Amazon (with special quasi-promotions, advertising, etc.), but they don't actually stock anything or even lick a postage stamp. They've made their fortune by creating this virtual market. That's fair since everyone is making a little something, but what do I get out of making a video review for $25-50? It's fine if you're having fun, but how to move to the next level? What affects me now is that many clients who approach me now think that this is the status quo for video production. I love the FLIP camera (I have several of them, after all...), but its ease has made my clients think that all video is just that easy. it's funny how shocked people are when they call me for a gig, and I don't jump at the chance to bring thousands of dollars worth of gear to their $200 shoot. Oh well, these topics have been covered before here so I'll quiet down. I love the video revolution, and I love that more people are using video to communicate than ever, but I don't love opportunistic companies who devalue the industries that they try to exploit. TurnHere.com, who are an agency who match up filmmakers with small businesses, have a new promo going for US Canadian filmmakers. You can offer free 1 minute videos to small businesses, and Turnhere will pay you $200 to make them. It's a very small amount of money, and is undercutting other people who are trying to do the same thing on an individual basis. But the requirements are much lower than your average bespoke video job. It's pretty much video by numbers. Turn up for an hour, shoot an interview with the proprietor, shoot some B roll, cut a 1 minute film, get paid $200. I looked into their business model. I'd want to here from video producers who did a lot of work for them. Seems more like http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia. Ironically, Turnhere's orientation video is a downloading
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Windows Movie Maker---New Version
Good revision. :) I always found WMM 2.1 to be reasonably stable and used it for most of my vlogs. People were always surprised which editor I used. ( http://cookingkittycorner.blip.tv/file/44076/) Previous versions would crash regularly but that was over 5 years ago. As for Comic Sans Serif...I'm not sure that was ever a default font. I think you can blame general bad taste for that one. On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: Aw man. You know what? I'm going to have to disagree with you guys. The same way that Josh Leo can take a $2 camera and take awesome, thought-provoking photos, a video editor can take a not-top-of-the-line video editor and make a really kick-butt video. ...and not to argue, but crappy movies on YouTube can be made with iMovie and Final Cut Pro on their daddy's computer just as easy as they can on Windows Movie Maker... just sayin. I've made some fun videos with Movie Maker, like this set called Kid Vids, some shorts all from one day last summer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitykity/sets/72157606379352536 I'll admit that I was probably over-aggressive to condemn Movie Maker. A talented video creator can make gems out of anything. I guess Im speaking from the experience of teaching many newbies how to edit for the very first time. More often than not, they have a PC...so Movie Maker is what we deal with. It's not the most intuitive program to start with. Hopefully this long-awaited update will bring improvements. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: the coming Broadband limit?
As a Canadian, it seems hysterical to me as well. If bandwidth concerns were in fact misleading than you would expect countries with a lot of competition (e.g. UK) to have ISPs all offering unlimited bandwidth at ultra low costs. The opposite seems to be the case. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near 100GB a month? Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a rather hysterical way. Hmmmattention grabbing but not hysterical. Currentlya single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. Start doing the math based on the things you watch. we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for daily web use. If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure or quality of service as a result. Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, I think this argument is specious. The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These companies are private and can charge 10 per GB if they want. But let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video blogging history/evolution
Ah, the good old Wikipedia Vlogging article. It actually got nominated for deletion years ago due to a lack of reliable sources. I decided to clean it up and begin contributing sources to it and I managed to change the outcome of the vote. Let's just say it was a..uh..thankless job. :) I haven't contributed to it in years though and I agree that it has gone to shit. Pardon my merde. Let us know what you find. oh and watch out for Godwin's Law around this here town. pd On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:26 PM, gintaras.miskinis gintaras.miski...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: Unfortunately, reliability has been a point of contention. Some in this group may remember the dramedy trying to write the wikipedia page for videoblogging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoblogging Newspapers/magazines must write about it for it to be reliable. Makes a certain kind of sense. You got to capture the mainstream to be recognized. It's like a vetting process. Ive also learned that the history of videoblogging is wide and varied depending on what community you look at. This group has its own specific timeline that differs from people who began through Youtube exclusively. I can scan the chapter I wrote in my book if you'd like and email it to you. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Thank you for your reply too. It's an honor for me to be contacted from the book author :) I made some thinking after I had read your shared thoughts and just have to agree: it is sad, that sources, which are not mainstream, cannot be trusted..well, officially. But on the other hand, a year ago, when I was writing a term paper about video blogging evolution I used your mentioned wikipedia link, and this year, I thought that I could use my a year ago written info in the final paper, and when rechecked wikipedia - saw, that most of the facts where different then I had found a year ago...it was experience from practical side on my own.. What connects to YouTube community, I think that those who started blogging didn't feel the real joy of the video blogging start, like felt you people (I guess), who had began from technical issues, and ending with philosophical. In a sense, Youtubers' generation had everything put on the plate.. However, I would be very grateful if you could scan your mentioned chapter and send it to me (to this yahoo mail if possible). You would help me a lot. Thanks again and sorry for my English. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, the trailing ... seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being silly. ;) Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would thoroughly enjoy it. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia streams that make ours look silly. I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay for each separately. Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller footprint... It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... peace, Ron On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a month, but have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature film is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're a AV professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in the ball park. However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian expression, stir up things if you like). I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is bandwidth pollution. Emails with stupid large attachments, videos that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth arrogance is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply if oil is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use it, in spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the pollution it is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time for us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some people used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy garden why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might encourage water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought with substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to spend billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) instead of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for water. I live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window right now are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite bandwidth. It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress properly, think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not more given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the model of I should have as much as I want translates poorly outside of very specific cultural and political economies. On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: I just did another post about this from another communications company but now another big dog in the US is going to start limiting bandwidthAT T...I am telling you all, this is going to stiffle most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, will go awayit's scary.its real scary cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?
For a long time, photos could be considered the smoking gun. If you were told: John is gay. You'd probably ask around before believing it but if you saw a photo that's all you needed. Photos have quickly become unreliable and we've had to go back to the tried and true method of investigative citizen journalism. Photos just don't cut it anymore. You have to see more than one photo from a different source before believing the original photo. The same is happening with video. (See this Microsoft Technology Demonstration video for a peek at what's to come: http://research.microsoft.com/unwrap/rkrf_short.wmv) Photos and videos are now no more trustworthy than a regular story about a fishing trip. It's not so much scary as predictable. inevitable. Until a new method of capturing an event appears that is too difficult to manipulate, (holographic technology?) we'll have to just check multiple sources. BBC, Al Jazeera, Globe and Mail, New York Times, Blogs, Vlogs, etc What Bill said about a photo album of a party is an excellent example of how one source can never be enough. Russia vs. Georgia is an excellent example of how twisted a story can get. You'll want to read about it or hear about it from sources you've grown to trust. However It's never enough to just ask one trusted source. Ask your best friend Sam. The most educated, well informed guy you know and he'll still have a skewed view of things. Read the BBC, a well trusted source and you'll still only get part of the story. Even in the time before photoshopping produced realistic photographs, that photo of John couldn't alone be considered the smoking gun because it could have been John just fooling around, making jokes. There's no reason to fear what technology is capable of. It's more about fearing, or rather, expecting what people have always been capable of. p On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because previously, we didn't have a choice. If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to believe it. However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building with no flames coming from it and only smoke, and then I post that to the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable. Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually happen. So the problem is that there are checks and balances now. The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary. Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were detained in China YESTERDAY! That wasn't possible back in the day. There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible if they keep it up. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture, etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always a spin...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the people who were delivering the news, in whatever form. Now we have all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see, unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it. Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone awayand that's sad... Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: Yes. I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants their information to be accepted and absorbed. This includes the commercials. I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing the video wanted to portray. For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits actual huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major city, they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to show. Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room floor. Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might hit the cutting room floor. I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City, surrounded by high-rise buildings. OR... I could stand inside the park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, and you wouldn't have any idea that I was
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rocketboom and Sony
Congrats to Andrew and all involved! On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a hoax, this online video revolution. I thought it was supposed to be a new media world where you could get unlimited niche stuff for any niche itch. And all the niche content creators were supposed to have an easy time in this new landscape. It was supposed to be the giants who fell. It was a revolution right? So why is it that unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term? I talk about it in my new 39 minute video. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email. But here's my short answer: It's because people don't seem to understand, if they don't pay for the shit they enjoy, someone else is going to pay to have shit spoon fed to them. It's just the way the market works. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just saw this..First off congrats to Andrew and Joanne. Second.this just confirms my belief that online content will become more and more professional (ie, networks creating stuff or making stuff availible online), unless you were one of the first few or you have a strong plan, time, talent, etcindie content or personal vlogging, I don't think will sustain over the long term, not at it's current level anyway. anywayinteresting read! Heath http://batmangeek.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)
amen to that. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more positive note, I think that even if we are forced into a tiered situation, it probably won't last very long. People will be angry and demand more bandwidth. Other companies could rise to the challenge and lay bigger pipes and tubes to meet demand. We may see a temporary information recession, but it's not the end of the world. Comcast and other broadband providers need to simply be transparent. they cant say they have all-you-can-eat service and then throttle back how much you actually get. this is the bait-and-switch method of business. If I'm only going to get 100GB of traffic a month, then tell me that. Broadband companies need to say what they are actually offering so customers can make educated decisions. unfortunately in the US, there is often only one broadband in a region (aka monopoly) This is why we must also have regulation to make sure that one carrier doesn't block certain technologies or websites arbitrarily. They must be neutral about what goes through the pipes. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Things are changing for real.....(?)
Agreed. Sorry Adam but that article was garbage. No references and pure fear mongering. As i read Jay's first post I thought about how we've moved away from uninformed fear mongering arguments about net neutrality. Does anyone remember the Rocketboom highway analogy video? Anyone who's ever tried to do some work at 10 PM in a business traveler's hotel understands how detrimental a lack of network management can be. While some guests are downloading films over bit torrent, others are waiting 30 minutes just to check their email. Network management isn't going to go away. It's useful for multiple reasons. The primary reason being customer satisfaction. However, rules that discourage anti-competitiveness are necessary. Obviously ISP shouldn't be aloud to completely block content, only modify it's priority. i.e. Prioritize VOIP packets while delaying bittorrent packets. The best solution I can imagine would be in the form of network management transparency with the public or a government agency. On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They try this, they won't know what hit them. I like how the article says Canada is a good test case because Canadians are more laissez faire and less politically motivated. Not my experience of Canada so far. They might seem laid back, but poke them with a stick and they're like hornets. And people here seem more reliant on the internet for communication and information than those in countries with greater population density. Britain would be a better test case. People are less gung ho about new technology computers there. Except there are 1000s of ISPs, and they all compete to offer more freedom and goodies. And even in Britain, when 3 mobile tried to do this with internet access on their 3G phones in England, it didn't work and they had to open it up so they could compete with Vodafone O2. AOL died in the UK for much the same reason. Wherever it's tried where there's competition, it won't work. Where I am on Vancouver Island, Telus and Shaw compete pretty aggressively with both rival ADSL Cable services available to most households. Whoever tries to introduce this kind of bullshit will lose most of their customers to a competitor who offers a better deal. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22-Jul-08, at 9:56 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: Another doomsday scenario: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20330.htm *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm surprised it got this far as well, but I still worry.they may not be able to block traffic but I do see the day when we are paying for what we download and I see the Verizon's, comcast, time warner, ATT etc somehow making their own content exempt from the bandwith consumption and making deals with other content providers who only produce professional content and that will all but kill user gen content yeah...I probably spoke too soon: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080716-martin-be-damned- cable-isps-want-network-management-freedom.html Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Should Google Kill Youtube?
Interesting indeed. I couldn't believe how badly they botched Google Video. They never should have had to buy Youtube in the first place. I'm surprised though that Youtube isn't bringing in much money. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very instering article on cnet today http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html?tag=cnetfd.mt The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't know that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because they can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. Read below.. Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it. Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it seemed obvious that Google should be able to generate significant amounts of money from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous communityIn the case of YouTube we might be wrong, he said. We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it. But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different? Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream? Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on YouTube is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it doesn't even matter. Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade. As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained. How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that? Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around. But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time? Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly
Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?
Another thing to definitely consider. but getting back to the topic at hand, i'd summarize the conversation as the following: Mac - It's much more expensive but a better value and you'll be very happy PC - You'll be reasonably happy and have more money in your pocket but you'll have a higher learning curve. On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be a wise choice. This is especially true if you are in a financial situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first place. Or if you're in a situation where wasting your time on downtime would be a greater inconvenience than being out the money. For instance, with AppleCare, the inconvenience on the iPhone might have been $60 had it not paid off. Without it, the inconvenience would have been no phone until the warranty repair turned it around in a couple of weeks (and/or buying another phone). In that case, the potential of losing $60 was lower risk than the risk of being out a phone for 2 weeks. The added bonus of having a new phone in under 15 minutes made the $60 an easy decision. It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a bet and the one that gives you the better odds is the decision of *not* buying extended warranties. Not the other way around. That entirely depends on what you're factoring for. Time is way more important to me than the extra $100 or $200 for bigger ticket items. If I spend $100 to insure against losing both the item and my time, the $100 is a no brainer. Does that mean you should buy an extended warranty for everything? Certainly not. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?
true, but we're talking about notebook computers. I think we would both agree that Mac notebooks are generally much more expensive (though a better value) than notebook PCs available in Best Buy for example. Macbooks start at 1099 USD, whereas Bestbuy Notebook PCs start at half the price. I think it was a pretty reasonable statement. On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Macs are not much more expensive. Sorry to challenge that one! Just do a google search and read some of the posts. (Again, we use both in our office. People on this list have agreed that PC's are harder to use.) iMovie and iPhoto and iTunes come free - and Rocketboom used those tools and so did Beach Walks for well over a year before switching to FCP. You CAN produce a professional, highly edited product using the FREE software. (iMovie 6 is great editor - iMovie 8 not so much but that is another thread). Mac monitors have a more humane flicker rate so you won;'t go insane sitting in front of one all day. Already insane? Fine, get a Mac Mini for only and use your old Dell monitor and keyboard and being able to run Mac and PC on that sweet little box. Macs by default have better video cards. Most PC people I know end up upgrading the default card. Makes sense - most office workers (PC's largest target market) don't need good video cards, they are supposed to be writing Word docs and crunching Excel worksheets all day, so why load up a PC with one? But (snark alert) last I checked, this is a list for video creators. Do you tools support you or frustrate you? Here is a side by side chart: http://www.myspace-modifier.com/macintosh/the-mac-is-more-expensive-thats-crap/# Of course Macs are not perfect. No machine, no company, no person is. I've used them for over 20 years and had great response from them. But then when something goes wrong, I call calmly assuming it will be fixed not ranting that it should never have broken in the first place. (Hint hint - how to get good customer service) This message started off with a comparison from a very old Mac to a brand new top of the line Mac. Yes, you are going to spend some bucks taking that route. But that doesn't mean Macs are more expensive. It means you have champagne taste, and I will be the first to raise a glass to that! I always buy the best computer I can possibly afford at each new milestone, knowing it will last me longer. I still have a 12 G4 laptop and it serves as a great bookkeeping and surf-while-watching-TV machine. We just gave a 6-year old eMac running Tiger to a friend for her 3-year old. The thing only cost $899 when it was brand new, it still looks great and performs just fine if you are not in a big hurry. I rarely choose to rant on this list. It's kinda fun to get out of my box though. :-) Aloha and thanks for listening, Rox On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another thing to definitely consider. but getting back to the topic at hand, i'd summarize the conversation as the following: Mac - It's much more expensive but a better value and you'll be very happy PC - You'll be reasonably happy and have more money in your pocket but you'll have a higher learning curve. On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED]jake%40jakeludington.com wrote: I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be a wise choice. This is especially true if you are in a financial situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first place. Or if you're in a situation where wasting your time on downtime would be a greater inconvenience than being out the money. For instance, with AppleCare, the inconvenience on the iPhone might have been $60 had it not paid off. Without it, the inconvenience would have been no phone until the warranty repair turned it around in a couple of weeks (and/or buying another phone). In that case, the potential of losing $60 was lower risk than the risk of being out a phone for 2 weeks. The added bonus of having a new phone in under 15 minutes made the $60 an easy decision. It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a bet and the one that gives you the better odds is the decision of *not* buying extended warranties. Not the other way around. That entirely depends on what you're factoring for. Time is way more important to me than the extra $100 or $200 for bigger ticket items. If I spend $100 to insure against losing both the item and my time, the $100 is a no brainer. Does that mean you should buy an extended warranty for everything? Certainly not. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http
Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?
I've heard a lot of talk of Extended Warranties in this thread so I just want to throw in that people should never buy extended warranties. Manufacturing defects will appear within the manufacturer warranty period. The only reason anyone offers an extended warranty is because it's a guaranteed money grab. People buy extended warranties because they believe that the odds are in their favour that they'll save money in the long run. This is categorically incorrect. The complete opposite is true. and if the product you're buying actually *needs* an extended warranty that isn't already provided by the manufacturer? Definitely do not purchase this product. This is of course my own opinion but I thought it was important to throw in seeing that you'll almost never hear anyone say thank GOD i didn't buy the extended warranty because obviously it doesn't work that way. That being said, I can't imagine that Macs actually need extended warranties...do they? On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:50 PM, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same here. I'm a overheating/no second memory slot victim, too. But I had Applecare and after some prodding and tears they did cover the repair (more like a replacement, really). I was *so* grateful for Applecare when my Powerbook fried out. I'd nevernevernever buy another laptop without it. I actually always buy extended warantees for expensive electronics/appliances that I don't plan on upgrading soon. Computers, cameras, dishwashers. Clock radio? Not so much. I think warrantees are always worth it. Peace of mind. Granted, Applecare ain't cheap, but neither is a new computer. Free repair vs $2000? No contest. Bek -- http://www.missbhavens.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, B Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz, I got Good Guys extended warranty (2 yr). Good thing I did, the HD died at the end of 2 yrs. This laptop had the infamous missing memory slot that affected tens of thousands of users..there's a class-action lawsuit. Basically, the cool thin ness violates the Law of Physics (Thermodynamics): the heat kills the logicboard..which creates the missing memory slot bug. Apple refuses to acknowledge this problem.
Re: [videoblogging] Re:From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?
I can agree that purchase one..maybe two warranties on products can be a wise choice. This is especially true if you are in a financial situation where you shouldn't be purchasing the product in the first place. It's just important to remember that either decision you make is a bet and the one that gives you the better odds is the decision of *not* buying extended warranties. Not the other way around. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard a lot of talk of Extended Warranties in this thread so I just want to throw in that people should never buy extended warranties. Manufacturing defects will appear within the manufacturer warranty period. The only reason anyone offers an extended warranty is because it's a guaranteed money grab. People buy extended warranties because they believe that the odds are in their favour that they'll save money in the long run. This is categorically incorrect. The complete opposite is true. I was of this same opinion and am for most products. Having said that, I bought one on a laptop once and it paid off. The laptop died due to a heat issue. I got it replaced without hassle. Because the entire laptop cycle had revved, I got a newer laptop with current features. The second laptop died too and that was replaced by the warranty as well, again with a newer laptop with better features. The lesson learned was I'll never buy Toshiba again, but if I hadn't had the extended warranty, they would have repaired my existing laptop, not replaced it. I also purchased the AppleCare on an iPhone and had it pay off by having the iPhone swapped out no questions asked. I still don't buy extended warranties for most things because in many cases they are overpriced, but in the two cases I've cited here, I'm definitely ahead of the game for buying them. An extended warranty is an insurance plan. They are betting most won't pay off to come out ahead. If you buy it, you're betting it will pay. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] From Mac *TO* PC -- Should I Switch?
I love PCs and I would never give up my Windows Media Center for a Mac but in your case I would still maybe recommend Mac. When comparing hardware, Macs actually do come out cheaper. If price is a big issue, you can find a much cheaper PC notebook and you will probably be quite satisfied with it. XP is a great OS. (and Vista isn't bad, it's just not what it should have been. don't buy into apple's FUD) Just know that you'll be dealing with a slower system if you go the PC route. In the case of Macs, you do get what you pay for. On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a long-time Apple user. I started with them on a II+ with incursions into DOS and Windows, but for almost 10 years now I have been using Apple and editing on FCP. I have been a satisfied Mac user until a couple of years ago when I had various issues with upgrade policies and software glitches caused by upgrades of various Apple programs. I won't go into my list of issues, but in sum I have been less than satisfied with Apple in both depth and candor. I need a new laptop. My 17 PB G4 needs to be upgraded and replaced. I just priced a new MacBook Pro 17 and it really comes out to about $4,000 with AppleCare, some software I'll need, etc,. I took a look at one yesterday and was impressed. With everything but the price. Up until I no longer trusted Apple, I would have gone for it even at that price. I'm thinking of moving to a PC and using XP Pro and possibly Vegas or even Premiere for all my web editing and production. (Pretty much straight cutting, no FX.) How bad can a PC be? There are a lot of people using them. And there is a broader source of support. But I live in the country, about a 2 hour drive or train from NYC, so it is a pain for me to browse around different computer stores to get a hands on feel for screen quality and software options. I'm wondering if I can get any experience of this group... I've never used Vegas or Avid Express and I'm wondering about the difference between that option and Final Cut Express -- I do not need or intend to shell out for Final Cut Pro. Just exploring the options. I'm finding Apple and its store staff arrogant and obnoxious. Is it something I just have to live with? Or do some of the other companies that actually have to compete with each other provide better products and service? Frustrated in the stix... Stan Hirson http://hestakaup.com
Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a Converter, FFMPEG
Try using WinFF. It's a windows front-end for ffmpeg. It's free and easy to use. http://www.winff.org/ According to freevlog, you could alternatively use Streamclip to convert mov files to avi. Here's a tip, it's faster to convert from mov to DV AVI files than to convert from mov to wmv but you'll get HUGE video files and you'll need lots of hard drive space. Additionally it'll be easier to edit those huge DV AVI files in Windows Movie Maker compared to editing compressed wmv video files. Compressed video files require more processor power. Good luck! On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sakuto Sai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, I downloaded FFmpeg-svn-12810.7z but I don't understand how you use it. Do you have to use somethign like Command Prompt or do I require another software entirely? Please forgive my ignorance...I'm new to the whole Vlogging thing. - Original Message From: schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:14:58 PM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a Converter, FFMPEG I found a Windows version here: http://www.videohel p.com/tools/ ffmpeg Good luck! On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, sakuto.no_sai sakuto.no_sai@ yahoo.com wrote: Okay here's my current situation. I use Windows XP, I'm Sixteen, I heading to college next fall and I'm starting a video blog at last this summer. I have a camera that records in Quick TIme Movie files .MOV, but to edit them I have to convert them to .WMV (I guess windows Media Video) and then edit them in Windows Movie Maker. The finish edited video is then made as a .WMV but I want to podcast my blog over Blip.Tv but I haven't a way to convert the finished files into a quicktime of iTunes readable format like .MOV or .MPEG 4. I'm fan of a Video Blogger name Bre Pettis, in his Podcast I make things during Video Blogging Week 2007 he had to convert .WMV files into a .MOV files using a program called FFMPEGX0.0.9X. Well I contacted him, he says it's only for MAcs but told me that there is an FFMPEG that is made for WindowsPLEASE HELP ME! I have no idea where to find such a thing! ~ Brent -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog. blogspot. com http://hatfactory. net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Links | Polls Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity * 4 New MembersVisit Your Group All-Bran Day 10 Club on Yahoo! Groups Feel better with fiber. Everyday Wellness on Yahoo! Groups Find groups that will help you stay fit. Moderator Central Get answers to your questions about running Y! Groups. . __,_.._,___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a Converter, FFMPEG
Streamclip: http://www.squared5.com/ On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try using WinFF. It's a windows front-end for ffmpeg. It's free and easy to use. http://www.winff.org/ According to freevlog, you could alternatively use Streamclip to convert mov files to avi. Here's a tip, it's faster to convert from mov to DV AVI files than to convert from mov to wmv but you'll get HUGE video files and you'll need lots of hard drive space. Additionally it'll be easier to edit those huge DV AVI files in Windows Movie Maker compared to editing compressed wmv video files. Compressed video files require more processor power. Good luck! On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sakuto Sai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, I downloaded FFmpeg-svn-12810.7z but I don't understand how you use it. Do you have to use somethign like Command Prompt or do I require another software entirely? Please forgive my ignorance...I'm new to the whole Vlogging thing. - Original Message From: schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:14:58 PM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to Video Blogging and in Search for a Converter, FFMPEG I found a Windows version here: http://www.videohel p.com/tools/ ffmpeg Good luck! On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, sakuto.no_sai sakuto.no_sai@ yahoo.com wrote: Okay here's my current situation. I use Windows XP, I'm Sixteen, I heading to college next fall and I'm starting a video blog at last this summer. I have a camera that records in Quick TIme Movie files .MOV, but to edit them I have to convert them to .WMV (I guess windows Media Video) and then edit them in Windows Movie Maker. The finish edited video is then made as a .WMV but I want to podcast my blog over Blip.Tv but I haven't a way to convert the finished files into a quicktime of iTunes readable format like .MOV or .MPEG 4. I'm fan of a Video Blogger name Bre Pettis, in his Podcast I make things during Video Blogging Week 2007 he had to convert .WMV files into a .MOV files using a program called FFMPEGX0.0.9X. Well I contacted him, he says it's only for MAcs but told me that there is an FFMPEG that is made for WindowsPLEASE HELP ME! I have no idea where to find such a thing! ~ Brent -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog. blogspot. com http://hatfactory. net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Links | Polls Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity * 4 New MembersVisit Your Group All-Bran Day 10 Club on Yahoo! Groups Feel better with fiber. Everyday Wellness on Yahoo! Groups Find groups that will help you stay fit. Moderator Central Get answers to your questions about running Y! Groups. . __,_.._,___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Fair Use?
WOW! You can tell the creators really love disney movies. If only they loved the company as much. Unfortunately, that's not as easy. What an incredible idea and quite a watchable one too. Something i wouldn't have expected. On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Found this YouTube video on the Slice of SciFi website. 27 Disney films were used to create a tale of Copyright law and fair use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology
Ah, a common misconception. Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say which is the true religion. On the other hand, because I'm not religious I can criticize religion as much as I want. For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a) theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b) there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true. That's perfectly ok. Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their astrological beliefs is just being an idiot. However if I have my own set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat others the same. If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack. It all depends on what you base your beliefs. On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: diveristy and tolerance goes both ways. Heath --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means the online video community is rational and intelligent. If republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't speak freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a human rights and diversity perspective. or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the internet. On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick, What does it say about the online video community that we can't talk about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said and that certain groups need to create niches because of it? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to think a Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is right. The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those representing the republican ideology have done a lot of terrible things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no longer identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two party system, voters must now switch and call themselves Democrats. In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican values, it's that they don't have corrupt values. It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and they may think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like the current republican representatives. In the future, once the party has had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology. So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort zone or an easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As a gay man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube category) dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar situation for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a youtube category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as popular. For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of his videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site. I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless for wanting to do the same thing. Even if they are terrible at writing foreign policy and there's no such thing as god. ...oops On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux supercanadian@ wrote: Hello, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: [...] Given that some conservatives see a huge liberal/leftie bias in the media, even though thats not necessarily so, it seems quite likely that youtube looks like 'the communists are coming' to them. That's actually a good point. What you heard many people once call (and sometimes still call) Communist is actually Socialist. (Which is almost ironic considering the USA's history with the Red Scare, and popularity of Socialism -- USA Liberalism -- in the USA today.) Also, the other one I've noticed
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Higher-Resolution YouTube Videos Currently In Testing
I was just going to say that your messages look better already. Thanks for posting the link. videohelp.com is a great site. On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh I forgot to post a link to forum where this was discovered and discussed at length, people working out what the best format to upload is, stuff like that: http://forum.videohelp.com/topic346256.html Oh and also apologies to everyone that my posts have had annoying line breaks in them for months, I was posting using safari 3 via yahoo groups web interface, which I guess was causing the problem. I didnt notice it until Patrick pointed it out to me, cheers to him for that, I'll use Firefox 3 beta to post and hopefully no more badly formed messages from me. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good :) The fmt=18 ones appear to be h264 .mp4's 480x360, being played through flash. It is possible to download them, they may be the same versions curently being used on apple tv or iphone/ipod touch youtube feature, not sure. The fmt=6 one (of the dog skateboarding at least) appeared to be some sort of higher quality .flv, I havent tried to work out what codec or res. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Some great news, Youtube is taking early steps at providing higher quality videos. By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is actually quite noticeable though not all videos have been converted at this point. About 15% have been converted apparently and new uploads get converted after a few hours. To view the higher quality versions, just add fmt=6 onto the end of any YouTube URL. Using the skateboarding dog as an example you would take the normal URL: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0 and add the fmt=6 onto the end: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0fmt=6 If the YouTube video just sits there loading then that is a sign that the video has not been converted to the higher resolution yet. To really see the difference you should view the video in full screen mode. Note: Alternatively you can add fmt=18 and it will play the high-resolution version when available, otherwise it will play the regular version. Here's a Greasemonkey script (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/23366) that will automatically add fmt=18 onto the end of each YouTube URL. Source: http://cybernetnews.com/2008/02/29/watch-high-resolution-youtube-videos/
[videoblogging] Higher-Resolution YouTube Videos Currently In Testing
Some great news, Youtube is taking early steps at providing higher quality videos. By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is actually quite noticeable though not all videos have been converted at this point. About 15% have been converted apparently and new uploads get converted after a few hours. To view the higher quality versions, just add fmt=6 onto the end of any YouTube URL. Using the skateboarding dog as an example you would take the normal URL: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0 and add the fmt=6 onto the end: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0fmt=6 If the YouTube video just sits there loading then that is a sign that the video has not been converted to the higher resolution yet. To really see the difference you should view the video in full screen mode. Note: Alternatively you can add fmt=18 and it will play the high-resolution version when available, otherwise it will play the regular version. Here's a Greasemonkey script (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/23366) that will automatically add fmt=18 onto the end of each YouTube URL. Source: http://cybernetnews.com/2008/02/29/watch-high-resolution-youtube-videos/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Crossposting Services: blip.tv HeySpread
I've been using the Personal Free service for a few days now and I'm very happy with it as well. On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been using TubeMogul daily for Rocketboom for a couple of months now, its really great. Its super fast too. On Mar 2, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Sheila English wrote: I have a preference to TubeMogul as well. I see they just added Viddler. And though I've not seen anything official, I have a hunch they will add imeem. I've seen that site mentioned on the TM site lately. They added Sclipo, but Sclipo is so niche. If you haven't seen TubeMogul's blog you might want to check that out. Very good information there. Sheila --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, danielmcvicar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the tubemogul! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread. http://heyspread.com/ It supports the video sharing sites listed below but, unfortunately, it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to upload content for multiple video sites? Sites supported by HeySpread: * Sclipo (tutorials) NEW * Sumo.tv NEW * sevenload * youtube * google * dailymotion * blip * metacafe * yahoo * facebook * myspace * vimeo * revver * veoh * vsocial * photobucket * putfile [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Crossposting Services: blip.tv HeySpread
I can't imagine they get many sales with the Order Now button on page 12. On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL! As a geek trying to turn entrepreneur I have great compassion on people building something great and then pondering the how do I let people know about this??? challenge. That site looks like some affiliate marketing service said to the client: we can sell anything! I guess entrepreneurs need to learn to sell and fast before sinking and/or creating more unitended parody sites like this... I feel their pain. Chuck --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jill Golick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took a look at the VideoPostRobot site. Talk about hard sell. I thought they were trying to sell me Ginsu knives for a second there. It's $19.95 but there's something really sketchy about the site. If anyone's tried it, I'd like to hear about the experience.
[videoblogging] Crossposting Services: blip.tv HeySpread
I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread. http://heyspread.com/ It supports the video sharing sites listed below but, unfortunately, it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to upload content for multiple video sites? Sites supported by HeySpread: * Sclipo (tutorials) NEW * Sumo.tv NEW * sevenload * youtube * google * dailymotion * blip * metacafe * yahoo * facebook * myspace * vimeo * revver * veoh * vsocial * photobucket * putfile
[videoblogging] Re: Crossposting Services: blip.tv HeySpread
Ah ha! I found two more. VideoPostRobot (software, not free) http://videopostrobot.com/ TubeMogul (web service, 150 free uploads per month) http://www.tubemogul.com/ On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was looking for other crossposting services and found HeySpread. http://heyspread.com/ It supports the video sharing sites listed below but, unfortunately, it's not free. Is anyone aware of other services that allow you to upload content for multiple video sites? Sites supported by HeySpread: * Sclipo (tutorials) NEW * Sumo.tv NEW * sevenload * youtube * google * dailymotion * blip * metacafe * yahoo * facebook * myspace * vimeo * revver * veoh * vsocial * photobucket * putfile
Re: [videoblogging] Not an example of transparency
lol. pretty smart. On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disgusting. On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/ There was huge turnout at today's public hearing in Boston on the future of the Internet. Hundreds of concerned citizens arrived to speak out on the importance of an open Internet. Many took the day off from work — standing outside in the Boston cold — to see the FCC Commissioners. But when they reach the door, they're told they couldn't come in. .. Comcast — or someone who really, really likes Comcast — evidently bused in its own crowd. These seat-warmers, were paid to fill the room, a move that kept others from taking part. It turns out that Comcast admits they paid people to fill seats: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/02/26/Comcast-FCC-Hearing-Strategy Comcast spokewoman Jennifer Khoury said the company paid some people to arrive early and hold places in the queue for local Comcast employees who wanted to attend the hearing. Some of those placeholders, however, did more than wait in line: they filled many of the seats at the meeting, according to eyewitnesses. As a result, scores of Comcast critics and other members of the public were denied entry because the room filled up well before the beginning of the hearing. Can't these companies just be open about what they want and convince people honestly? One this is clear: Comcast wants http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/15/comcasts-closed-internet/the former — to dictate which Web sites and services go fast, slow or don't load at all. And they're backed by the other would-be gatekeepers http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080219-cable-and-telcos-side-with-comcast-in-fcc-bittorrent-dispute.htmlat ATT, Verizon and Time Warner. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Not an example of transparency
that's a lot of laughing On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lol. pretty smart. so is rigging elections. i know the Kenyans have been laughing for over a month now. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Pakistan Blocks YouTube
A wise man once said: Religion poisons everything. I didn't quite understand what it meant until I tried logging onto Youtube Sunday. I'm calling it right now folks. Worst. Sunday. Ever. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...which, for some mysterious reason, apparently messed up access in other parts of the world, including Italy. ... which is distressing the Pope to no end, because now he can't get his daily fix of 2 Girls 1 Cup reaction videos. Chris
Re: [videoblogging] this is refreshing (Growing gonads)
Amen to that. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/wr_nm/internet_fcc_dc The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said on Monday he is ready, willing and able to stop broadband providers that unreasonably interfere with subscribers' access to Internet content. Yeah, transparency is really the key: Martin acknowledged that broadband network operators have a legitimate need to manage the data flowing over their networks. But he said that does not mean that they can arbitrarily block access to particular applications or services. The hearing, which included testimony from officials with Comcast and Verizon, is aimed at determining what network management techniques are reasonable. Martin called for transparency in the way the companies manage their networks, and in the prices and services they provide. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: we should all enter this one
What the fuck?? An interminably long psychedelic fly-over of Jupiter?!? *rolls eyes* Fuck you Chris. On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Artsy people watch 2001: A Space Odyssey over and over and over and when you ask questions about what the hell is going on, they roll their eyes. I could watch 2001 over and over and over again, but I'd seriously have to take the scissors to that interminably long psychedelic fly-over of Jupiter (or wherever the hell it was supposed to be). The rest of the movie - even the inscrutable stuff - is great fun. :) Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I am confused. i think we both agree that transparency is necessary. On Feb 16, 2008 12:38 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible though. Patrick, you are always interested in facts...which is great. I feel you're now tending towards the passionate. Please go back and read my last email. Its disrespectful for the broadband companies to tell its customers that its unlimited and then its not. Its respectable to actually have transparent limits so customers can make a choice. I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation? absolutely incorrect. you do not blame the customer. what bad business practices. if you say all you can eatthen its all you can eat. don't get all moral on us now. If an all you can eat buffet has problems with people eating too much...then they should advertise all you can eat for one hour. Patrick, why is this so confusing? Broadband companies have consistently oversold their capacity. hey we got everything you want. dont go to our competitors. we let you have as much as you want! Now they've shown their network vunerabilities. One solution is to blame the customers who are just using what was sold to them. Another solution is to lay down clear and reasonable limitations that is transparent (not hidden behind an asterisk in small writing). If the limit of 100GB of bandwidth a month, then say so. Im sure most customers will be fine. And this then allows other companies a reason to offer more to be competitive. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Irresponsible? No more irresponsible than a local all you can eat restaurant crying foul if 5 out of 100 guests were to eat 50% of the food served. All the while, slowing down service for the rest of the guests. Would it be that 'evil' for the restaurant to ask guests who have had one serving already to go to the back of the line when two people present themselves at the buffet at the same time? Zero limits may be allowable for a period of time but when restaurant traffic is increasing by 40% every year, eventually Mom Pop will have to place limits or cry foul. This isn't irresponsible, it's very reasonable. The amount of money they are making is irrelevant. They are trying to maintain quality of service for their guests and they're not about to double the size of their restaurant for the greedy 5% when they can place reasonable limits on them. Of course there has to be transparency but an asterisk will do if we're only talking about 5% here. I don't need to visit an All you can eat but you can't shove stuff into your Purse restaurant. An All you can eat(*) restaurant will do. Of course if something isn't actually unlimited it has to be mentioned somewhere. No one would argue that the contrary is acceptable. I do find it surprising that you would call bandwidth limits irresponsible though. I'd say the 5% using 50% and expecting to get away with it forever is irresponsible. Even disrespectful. If you wouldn't do it to a Mom Pop business, why would you do it to a large corporation? On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time. you are correct Patrick. very good point. Lets put aside Network Neutrality, discussion around monopolies and vertical integration. US broadband providers have advertised unlimited bandwidth. Hey we got a great deal...please use Cable and not DSL (or vice versa) Then when 5% of their users actually do the all you can eat, they cry foul. This is HUGELY irresponsible on their part. These companies need to not blame their users, or punish everyone by limited certain technologies. If they cant offer unlimited bandwidth, then they should openly advertise the actual limits that we are purchasing so we can make informed choices as consumers. So far, its only secrets that the public must uncover themselves through independent tests. As Charles Hope (and Canadian Charles) advocate, this will allow competition to rise...and consumers to support the businesses they want. Companies that blame their customers are creating their own demise. Like RIAA suing their music fans. even if you think you're right, you're wrong. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Jay, what you have to realize is that these aren't false limits. In fact, bandwidth limits are usually false in the other sense. They limits purposely allow for too much bandwidth knowing that not all users will reach the limits or at least not all at the same time. Additionally, there will always be a 5% that uses more bandwidth than the general public. Of course an ISP is going to upgrade it's networks in preparation for increased usage but it isn't going to do so solely for the 5% of users who are using 50% of the bandwidth. How can you argue that it doesn't make sense to charge these users more money? This is what bandwidth limits do, they allow you to pay more if you want to use more. I'll also point out that bandwidth limits do not fall under net neutrality. In canada, I have no doubt that Rogers places their VOIP phone service packets ahead of regular internet traffic. I think it's great. It allows people in Ontario to experience cheaper telephone services with high call quality. Innovation would suffer without this ability. If our health care board wanted to set up long distance surgery with specialists in other provinces or countries, I think it would be great to be able to be able to use the 2nd tier and ensure a low latency connection. A second tiered internet allows for things like this. If it's anti-competitive, let the courts deal with it. Don't just stifle it completly just in case when there's absolutely no evidence nor is there even reason to believe the internet would slow down. Who would you rather use 50% of your bandwidth, people who aren't paying for it, or people who are? In what scenario would you get a faster network? In what scenario would there be reason to invest large amounts of money in making your clients happy? They're not going to improve their network to make 5% of their clients happy who aren't paying a penny more than the other 95%. They're going to improve it for those paying more. They're also not going to allow the 95% to deal with a slow connection. Because of Comcasts bandwidth management, your videoblogs (that aren't distributed via torrents) load faster. Rogers manages torrent traffic in Toronto and I don't experience a connection that is any slower than when I am traveling to the states. Bell Canada (when i was using it last year) didn't manage torrent packets and it wasn't any faster. You shouldn't legislate out of fear. Especially when it stifles the economy and innovation. On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any business sense. this just might be where you and I disagree. I contend (as does most of the industry) that tomorrow's 95% will be today's 5%. Broadband companies MUST expand the network. Putting false limits based on bandwidth now stifles innovation. again, i think we just read the situation differently. It makes more sense to place limitations or charge more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently, they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make a lot of sense. as i said, as a customer, Id love to hear what these companies have in mind. so far, all their thinking and decisions are being made behind closed doors. they are not encouraging our trust. If the limit is 200GB each month. I can live with that. but the dark part of me imagines their accounting offices crunching the numbers to see what the pain point is. how much will people pay and not complain? ever look at your bank/credit card fees? (probably not...too small) But Patrick, I will be positive like you. we'll wait and see. lets remember this conversation when the details come out. As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better infrastructure. cool. then there's nothing to worry about. we just trust them. (have they earned your trust?) Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers, there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same speeds. sounds good. is this in writing somewhere? All anyone wants is a set of standards and guideliness that we can all depend on. right now, its all
Re: [videoblogging] HD quality on YouTube
I've heard that you can actually upload a video in flash format and it won't get transcoded. It'll maintain whatever quality in which it was uploaded. On Feb 13, 2008 11:19 AM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This link is NSFW, but anybody have any ideas how to get higher bitrate encodes out of YouTube. The video quality is amazing compared to everything else on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/nudisthdtvcom Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Verizon... Old News but frustrating...
Sounds like you're well within their terms of use. Could it be your location? I would speak to my neighbors to find out if they're getting more reliable connections from different providers. On Feb 12, 2008 10:33 AM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.wireless-weblog.com/50226711/ verizon_wireless_unlimited_evdo_data_plan_is_limited.php I'm getting kicked offline continuously these days. I wonder if this is affecting me. I'm not using much bandwidth, but I sure am doing more than checking email and surfing the net. I'm connecting to my host server and uploading 50+ MB weekly. I'm not DL much, as it's too friggin' slow out here in the sticks. I'm online constantly developing my sites and my connection is on nearly all the time. I don't think I'm using the internet inappropriately. From the Man: Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine–to–machine connections or peer–to–peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services and/or redirecting television signals for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one hour, could typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a month. For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term. Verizon Wireless Plans, Rate and Coverage Areas, rates, agreement provisions, business practices, procedures and policies are subject to change as specified in the Customer Agreement. Last Update 03/15/07 link: http://b2b.vzw.com/broadband/bba_terms.html; I guess it's time to ditch Verizon. Anyone have any suggestions for cellular internet? A friend told me about Alltel. Perhaps Chad will be better to me than the 'can you hear me now guy. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: While I respect what he's saying, because he's the one with the company that deals with the business end of making money off of people that make videos, I don't think lack of content is the problem here. The problem *now* is what I've BEEN saying the problem is, which is that without a way to figure out whether suburban males with lawns that are likely to buy a lawnmower are tuning in to your show, you can't sell advertising to lawnmower manufacturers. To say that there isn't enough content for companies to advertise on doesn't take into account that there's tons of content that NOBODY wants to advertise on because of lack of perceived ROI. That's what's so funny about this video boom. People are rushing to make a site where people are going to get on the bandwagon and upload UGC and they think they're going to make all this money from it, when in reality, they don't know JACK about video, they don't know JACK about building, growing and maintaining an audience, they don't know JACK about creating, advertising or moderating a social site... All they know is that there's gold in them thar hills! :D Get them a pan. There's CONTENT being made every single day, just on youtube alone. The point is that none of it's monetizable because you can't tell
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Excellent post Richard. I didn't realize some net neutrality bills being pushed allowed for that. Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard H. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pat, I believe you're absolutely correct that the networks are going to need to be smart and take into account different data types and route/shape accordingly for the networks to be efficient. Net neutrality as originally conceived in the Markey amendment allowed for that. Here's the deal/misunderstanding. According the the original Markey Bill (it's not clear yet what the new one specifies) networks CAN discriminate based on data type - so ISPs can totally manage traffic by taking into account the nature of the data type - they could NOT discriminate based on data origination (they could not, for example, give more bandwidth within the network to CBS vs me). About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, gets the same priority as a phone call from one ATT executive to another), then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building lines through public right aways and such. However, the internet with cable and dsl is not treated that way. This is why you only have one choice of ISP if you use one company's dsl lines, and same with cable. Remember with dial up when you could use different ISPs? Very very non-competitive, and surely one reason why there is so little build out of high speed lines in the US compared to other first-world countries - no motivation to do so, when you have a service monopoly on the lines already built. ... just explaining what may be some misunderstanding about what network neutrality is, and why it came into being ... Richard On Feb 13, 2008 11:29 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. On Feb 13, 2008 11:49 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Sorry about that. Try this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286741569864053.html Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:43 AM, David Meade wrote: that url doesnt work for me. On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]tim%40frenchmaidtv.com wrote: Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts Here's an update from the Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/3dzjbr Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com [Non-text portions
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to) build better networks for those paying for it. If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise, they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more now before we all become the 5%. NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it. Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS would probably be illegal) As for anti-competitive stuff. The article that began this discussion talks about how an ISP blocked Vonage but was forced to stop. Of course I wouldn't be in favour of this being legal. On Feb 13, 2008 3:01 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't it still be better for ISPs to be able to offer preferred service over a 2nd tiered network to those willing to pay for it though? For example, if vonage wanted to make sure they were offering high quality phone service, they might be willing to pay more. or if a hospital wanted to perform operations by distance using robotics (telesurgery?) and needed to ensure they had a reliable connection. This would encourage innovation, investment and competition. agreed. They do charge for higher bandwidth now. ( i pay extra for a higher upload speed) I can see them charging for bandwdith caps as wellbut this will certainly stifle innovation and commercialism. Can you imagine having a bandwidth cap, going to a website, and having to make a decision if you want to load the page/video/audio? every click becomes a decision so new players will likely get less play. (ask anyone who uses satellite internet with a monthly 1000mb traffic limit) It's hard to believe ISPs would slow down the internet for everyone else just because certain companies want better service. Comcast is already demonstrating that the opposite is true. TV networks are offering shows via torrents but Comcast is willing to slow them down in order to provide better service for the general public. what is NBC tells Comcast, yo, we'll pay you 50million each year to give us higher priority. (also, can you slow down ABC?) If an ISP started sending packets to the end of the line for anti-competitive reasons, wouldn't this be against the law anyway? great question. I know of no law saying that Comcast cant do that now. They are private company and can do anything they want. (i hope im wrong so please double fact check me) Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
The common carrier idea you mentions sounds like a great idea it would be great to have more transparency. Even enforced transparency if it makes sense to do so. Does it have anything to do with net neutrality though? Should you be fighting for this instead of net neutrality? It seems like if this isn't possible, net neutrality is a bad but necessary plan B but not something anyone should truly set their sights on. So you're saying if Comcast is sending torrents to the back of the line, another ISP can't open up beside comcast to offer the opposite using the same infrastructure? That's bad. On Feb 13, 2008 2:48 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Internet traffic has double in the last two years and bandwidth usage has increased by 40% each year. Why allow companies to charge for usage, manage traffic, and invest in new technology when you can kill competition and force the entire internet to slow down because of 5% of users? The creator of BitTorrent is even opposed to net neutrality. This article does a good job of highlighting the problems ISPs are facing as bandwidth use increases. No one here seems to be able to offer a solution to these issues. i see several of us giving solutions (richard especially) I think you simplify the problem though. What happens when even Grandma is using daily skype, video iChat, and downloading movies every night from iTunes? suddenly we all become that 5%. So these companies should be thinking of how to expand their network, rather than limiting usage, or denying certain technologies. if they want to raise their rates or shape traffic, these conversations should be done out on the open. if these companies didnt have regional monopolies, i would just go to another competitor. A solution is to treat broadband companies as common carriers. This recognizes that the internet is a public good which everything depends on...so there should be a level playing field. Broadband companies would get heavy tax breaks (ie SUBSIDIES), and would be guaranteed a yearly rate of return (like most water/electric companies get). This is not a new practice. In return, there would be heavy investment is expanding the network and open access to these lines. People who want to get rich will get rich. The people who want free speech and competition online, get free speech and competition online. Currently, broadband providers are pretty much a monopoly. Usually just one or two carriers in each area. They are investor owned, so do not have to share any info with the public. they also can do pretty much what they want just by adding some legalese in their TOS (or not). Carriers, like Time Warner, are also content creators. They own HBO, CNN, etc. so its like the old days of Hollywood where studios made the movies, the also owned the movie theaters. It was common for Warner Brother theaters to play just Warner Brothers movies. Called Vertical integration, or a monopoly. The studios eventually had to sell their theaters. Independent film and theaters could then flourish. I dont want rules. I want everyone, including companies, to be free. But there must be a level of transparency and guarantee that the network is also open. I crave the day when Comcast, Verizon, Time/Warner voluntarily say, we promise to not slow down anyone's traffic even if it competes with our own media. Suddenly we have a conversation amongst a company and its customers. everyone feels good. Instead, its silence, and mystery, and their lawyers affecting laws with lobbyists. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Net-Neutrality
Yes, they may be making enormous profits but they're not going to upgrade their system for 5% of users. That just doesn't make any business sense. It makes more sense to place limitations or charge more for special cases. In Canada there are bandwidth gaps but they're really high. I've never reach mine, nor do i ever even worry about it. (or have ever heard of anyone reaching theirs) Apparently, they have the same in the UK. These aren't evil practices. They make a lot of sense. As for 2nd tiered internet, there's no reason to believe the internet would slow down. Why would an ISP accept money from NBC and slow down traffic for the general public. Once again, comcast has already demonstrated that this is unlikely. (seeing as they slowed down NBC torrents so that people could surf and read email faster) With a second tiered internet, NBC could pay more to be routed through better infrastructure. Considering Blip and Youtube already pay for high bandwidth servers, there's a good chance they and other startus would have the cash to pay for this higher tier so your videoblogs would most likely download faster. At the worst, they would probably download at the same speeds. On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd have to disagree on bandwidth caps. If you use a lot of bandwidth, you should pay more for it. This will encourage innovation and competition in ISPs because they'll have to (and have money to) build better networks for those paying for it. i know you like objective proof, Patrick, so can you point to me where broadband companies are not making enormous profits already? you're text reads as if these companies are barely keeping afloat and need help. If your grandmother wants to download movies every night. Why do I have to deal with a slower network. She should have to pay more and therefor the ISPs can spend more on upgrading the network. Otherwise, they're not going to do it for the 5%. Better to begin charging more now before we all become the 5%. hmmyou keep acting like the current network is as fast as it can be...so we must limit. again, lets see some numbers showing that broadband networks arent already making huge profits to reinvest in infrastructure. i have no doubt that rates will keep going up anyway. NBC wouldn't tell comcast to send them to the front of the line because then everyone would ask for the same thing. Are NBC, CBS, etc *all* going to be at the front of the line? ISPs will have to create a second tiered service in order to make the extra cost worth it. Your videoblogs would still transmit fine but NBC would be able to ensure better quality at a higher cost. (and asking to slow down CBS would probably be illegal) its called the highest bidder. If TimeWarner is a private company, they can do what they want. and currently where are there any rules saying that my videoblogs need to transmit fine? what is the definition of transmit fine? 56k 128k 512k where is the standard? you assume the these broadband companies work in good faith. recent history shows that they seem to only become transparent when forced to in a court of law (as you showed in the Vonage case). again, i want s all to be happy and free...but usually you got to fight for what that means. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Re: National Protests of Scientology by Anonymous this Sunday
I was out and about Sunday around town and saw about two dozen people wearing masks scattered around the city throughout the day. Two walking by during brunch, a few on the subway, a few on the streets here and there. It took all day before it this thread clicked in my head and I realized what they had all been doing. On Feb 10, 2008 12:08 AM, Andrew Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a reminder about 11am on Sunday around the world. Would love to see some footage from anyone who can make it out. Ive been reading the forums and here in NYC it looks like its going to be huge, I cant believe how many people are participating. Andrew On Feb 7, 2008 7:42 PM, Andrew Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This Sunday there will be an amazing protest of Scientology by the Anonymous group. If anyone in the US can make it out to capture some footage in your own locale and would be willing to sync up, please email me off-list. Thanks! Map of Protests around the country http://harbl.wetfish.net/cosplay/ Anonymous makes it on to NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18764756 The anti-Scientology group Anonymous told NBC11 Monday it expected more than 300,000 people to join protests worldwide on Feb. 10th at 11am. The campaign is going amazingly -- swimmingly at the moment. We are in the organizational stages, a woman who would not give her name told NBC11. We are having members of Anonymous from all over the world join the protest at their local church of Scientology at 11 a.m. local time. Other people claiming to be members of Anonymous told NBC11 that the actual number of Scientology protesters worldwide will not reach 300,000. The actual number of people who show up for the rallies could be much less, they said. The group members said out of the 24 time zones, there are 17 that have Churches of Scientology. Of the 24 time zones there are 17 that have a church located in them and we believe our protesting is happening in 15 of those 17, said the group member. We have a map that people can log in to and say what protest they're going to at the current moment. At last count we expect 300,000 at all the protests. Everyone in the world is invited. We're trying to get support from local organizations. Anonymous claims the Church of Scientology forces members to have abortions as well as sign over their bank accounts. We think it's wrong that they have tax exempt status, the member told NBC11. We want to to see if we can get that looked into by the IRS -- who ever we can gain the ear of. Are they really a religious organization or a business? The member of Anonymous said her organization is attempting to change its approach because it first gained attention as a group of hackers and pranksters. The group said it now plans to engage in activities that fight against Scientology, but are not considered illegal by the U.S. government. The member told NBC11 that she is not an actual hacker herself, but rather someone providing other means of support to Anonymous. The member said Anonymous is planning to hold large monthly protests against Scientology at its churches each month until May. She said the group is drawing up plans for more protests after that. The group member said Anonymous would hold another large protest two days after church founder L. Ron Hubbard's birthday on March 15. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Comcast officially admits to throttling bandwidth use
Wrote something inspired by the day's discussions on which we can all mediate.. Religious beliefs, Conspiracies, Idiot. Always ask for proof. On Feb 10, 2008 4:04 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is evidence for all of those things, often not a single smoking gun, but plenty all the same. And I concede that there is obviously some indication of how some net providers would like to behave in future. What I am suggesting is that Ive yet to see a decent explanation of just why the indy video producer, or the person that wants to watch, need to be crushed in order for corporations to reap large profits. Im quite sure they can go about putting big media content on the net in various ways, without needing to hamper others in order to be sucessful. Any signs that coprorations, or governments for that matter, see the people as 'the enemy' needs to be balanced witht he fact that they derive their power and profit from people. If they fear people, its because they need people, and whilst they often get away with going too far, there are limits. Its not that I trust all will be well in future, or that everyone has our best interests at heart, its that I dont believe that crying wolf now is good. If there were an actual vlogging movement that had a leader, would you want him or her going on talkshows and telling the world how the little guy is being crushed? That would make me groan and whilst it may stirr a minority to the cause, would it not cause the masses to write that movement off as paranoid? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please show me the evidence that Big Oil and the Big 3 were creating an exponential profit situation with the stubborn refusal on CAFE standards and greenwashing of Global Warming. Please show me the evidence that Big Media was creating a oligopolistic market with their sponsorship of politicians and legislation. Please show me the evidence that Big Insurance was creating a medical system that trades profit for people's health. Please show me the evidence that Big Power has been stymying renewable energy. It's not easy to find that evidence, Steve, although I bet you'd agree that all of those things were happening. I'm not talking about some nefarious plot against vloggers. I'm talking about control over markets and the flow of information and a profit motivated quid pro quo between like institutions. It's just business. Cable companies want more profit. Big media will pay more for transmission of content than independent producers will. Look at the TV market - it's dying. People are moving to the internet for media. Right now they're accessing free content, or content that does not move ad revenue to the establishment media. If you don't think that issue is being worked on, and that big players are not trying to win more marketshare, I think you're crazy. The best way to gain control over a market is to use your strategic advantages. In this case, I'm suggesting that the strategic advantage that is being leveraged is money. They are competing with independent content creators who have no capital assets. influxxmedia can't afford (probably can but is not willing to) to pay a few hundred bucks to have a website coded. I can't afford a decent boom mic. I'm sure this list is saturated with people that are in a similar boat. It's simply good business to raise the barrier of entry into the market. This is not quite the argument that the Comcast situation is bringing up, but it is closely related. Content like ours will be capped and managed, and there will be a new web based cable media subscription service that will exist outside of the caps. I've had this argument before on other topics, and the evidentiary request has been thrown at me before. Take Iraq, for instance... October 2001, I made the argument that we would be going into Iraq, and that we would enter into a perpetual war situation. I said that we would be there for decades and that the invasion was designed to control the flow of Oil coming out of Iraq. Where do I find evidence of that? Dismissal of my arguments based on lack of evidence were very common. The establishment line was always swallowed and mine was always spit up. Giant corporations don't care. They don't like people. People are problematic. I believe that giant corporations look at people as the enemy. The needs of people negatively impact their profit. It's not some kind of nefarious plot, it's just business. I don't have any evidence that Comcast is trying to gain control over the flow of information. How could I get that information? I make my argument based on the fact that
Re: [videoblogging] Remember when someone here said something about paranoia ...
Kid Rock Starves To Death MP3 Piracy Blamed May 17, 2000 LOS ANGELES–MP3 piracy of copyrighted music claimed another victim Monday, when the emaciated body of rock-rap superstar Kid Rock was found on the median of La Cienega Boulevard. How many more artists must die of starvation before we put a stop to this MP3 madness? asked Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). MP3s of Kid Rock's music were so widely traded and downloaded by Napster users that he was driven back to the mean streets from whence he came, dying bankrupt and penniless in the gutter. When found by police, the 28-year-old Kid Rock, born Bob Ritchie in Detroit, was still clutching the cardboard Devil Without A Place To Sleep Or Anything To Eat sign that had been his trademark ever since the rise of Napster's MP3-sharing software bankrupted him in January. Rosen said the RIAA would prosecute the music-piracy firms that are responsible to the fullest extent of the law. Napster killed Kid Rock, there's no doubt about it, Rosen said. As soon as that web site went up last October, people stopped buying his music. It's not surprising, either: Why would anyone in their right mind pay $12.99 for a CD with artwork when they could simply spend seven hours downloading the compressed MP3 files of all the album's songs onto their home computer's desktop, decompress it into an AIFF sound file, and then burn the data onto a blank CD? If we don't do something, this technology is going to destroy the record industry, said Nathan Davis, vice-president of Atlantic Records, Kid Rock's label. Just imagine if the oil-change industry allowed the public to have direct access to oil and oil filters, enabling them to change their car's oil themselves without going through Jiffy Lube or Kwik Lube. People would stop going to oil-change shops, and the entire industry would collapse. We can't let that happen to us. The home page of the web site Napster, which has cost numerous rock stars their lives. According to post-autopsy analysis of Kid Rock's stomach contents by the L.A. County coroner's office, his last meal consisted of newspapers, cigar butts, old CD liner notes, and the partial remains of sidekick Joe C., who had been missing since May 15. Thus far, relief efforts on behalf of afflicted artists have met with little success. In January, Metallica, System Of A Down, and Powerman 5000 teamed up for a concert tour known as Us Aid, but the rockers were forced to cancel when concertgoers at the kickoff show in Tempe, AZ, showed up with MP3 recording equipment. An all-star fundraiser CD featuring Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, and Korn was similarly scrapped when an individual known only by the user name [EMAIL PROTECTED] acquired a promotional copy and made it available to millions of fans over the Internet. This is exactly the kind of thing we've been warning our fans about, James Hetfield, the lone surviving member of Metallica, told reporters during a press conference at Hollywood's Grace Church Homeless Shelter. First, they found Madonna dead of a crack overdose in the alley behind Liquid. Then my best friend and bandmate Lars is killed by cops during a botched hold-up of a liquor store. Now, Kid Rock dies of starvation like a filthy dog in the street. My God, people, didn't we learn the lesson of Elton John? John, the British rock star who went bankrupt in 1976 before private ownership of music-pirating cassette decks was made illegal, died of exposure on a Welsh moor that year after creditors repossessed his clothing. On Jan 24, 2008 6:31 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay ... this is a few weeks old. Maybe seen by many. Worth a repos ... Monday, December 31, 2007 by: Mike Adams On the heels of the RIAA's recent decision to criminalize consumers who rip songs from albums they've purchased to their computers (or iPods), the association has now gone one step further and declared that remembering songs using your brain is criminal copyright infringement. The brain is a recording device, explained RIAA president Cary Sherman. The act of listening is an unauthorized act of copying music to that recording device, and the act of recalling or remembering a song is unauthorized playback. The RIAA also said it would begin sending letters to tens of millions of consumers thought to be illegally remembering songs, threatening them with lawsuits if they don't settle with the RIAA by paying monetary damages. We will aggressively pursue all copyright infringement in order to protect our industry, said Sherman. In order to avoid engaging in unauthorized copyright infringement, consumers will now be required to immediately forget everything they've just heard ... MORE :-) http://www.newstarget.com/022437.html Permission is granted to make copies of this story, redistribute it, post it and e-mail it (please provide proper credit and URL) as long as
Re: [videoblogging] It begins...
Just because the article uses the word tiered service doesn't mean this is in any way related to Net Neutrality. In Toronto, Rogers provides internet services and charges different prices based on the amount of bandwidth you want. i.e. If you're only going to surf email, you get Rogers Ultra-Lite Internet or if you're going to watch Youtube videos you'll want Rogers Lite Internet. It means I don't have to pay as much and certain people can still leave bit torrent download/upload 24/7 at 400 KB/s and pay an appropriate amount for that level of bandwidth. There's no discrimination of packets in either of these tactics. Period. This has *nothing* to do with Net Neutrality. Yes, this does however have everything to do with TV over the internet but it's a method of ensuring that bandwidth can be appropriately distributed across their customer base and allows them to invest in better technology for customers that are interested in IPTV etc. On Jan 17, 2008 8:35 AM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Information Super Highway 1996-2008 RIP Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Heath wrote: So it begins... http://tinyurl.com/393qmk NEW YORK - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman said Wednesday. The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages with unlimited downloads. Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for up to 50 percent of network capacity. Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high definition. It was not clear when exactly the trial would begin, but Dudley said it would likely be around the second quarter. The tiered pricing would only affect new customers in Beaumont, not existing ones. Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., the world's largest media company. Heath http://batmangeek.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
is proper acknowledgment not a fair request? I'm surprised you think this is the issue. Of course it's a fair request. The problem Andreas is the way in which you requested the acknowledgment. An apology in order and you have yet to offer one or address the issue. That would have cut this thread short. It's that simple. On Jan 17, 2008 12:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that very telling Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site. When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No edit, No effects, and I enjoy it. To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge. With that said, I have a couple concerns. I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of the word we throughout the document. I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory to the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) We do not believe in artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.. I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/ I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/ My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto. I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially outlines. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the document, I just kept seeing we throughout the document and felt I was either in or out... no gray area. I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were original setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that took the fun out of it. After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world... brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with better tact. Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. I don't want to remove my Lumieres. I will just debate within myself if I'll do more and if I do create others, will I share with the Lumiere site. It's too bad really... in my
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Or you could try enjoying video in a whole new way. at your local gay video dance bar. http://www.sfbadlands.com/ On Jan 17, 2008 3:19 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 17.01.2008 kl. 16:05 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So how about Lumish... stuff that is inspired by and deeply related to Lumiere, but may break a rule here or there. Go nuts. For something somewhat related that predates my own lumiere videos: http://blandlands.com/ -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Andreas, We should totally start up a Videoblogging 'Burn Book'. Roxanne is too gay to function. Robert Scobble made out with a hot dog. On Jan 12, 2008 7:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rox, I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to both of us. The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78 different people. You can jump straight to the videos at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an amazing repository of creativity. - Andreas Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned about Lumiere from Rupert. I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/ Love, Rox -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Rox Lumiere for Rupert
lol, i'm sorry. I don't even know what that meant. I bring nothing to this discussion. Please carry on. On Jan 14, 2008 4:39 AM, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas, We should totally start up a Videoblogging 'Burn Book'. Roxanne is too gay to function. Robert Scobble made out with a hot dog. On Jan 12, 2008 7:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rox, I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to both of us. The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78 different people. You can jump straight to the videos at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an amazing repository of creativity. - Andreas Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned about Lumiere from Rupert. I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/ Love, Rox -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us. The last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents very often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably benefited from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or wrong, just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster because of this) Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become faster, not slower. No one here is dead on. Net neutrality is a complicated issue. All i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are trying to crush us. On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to users who were, in there own words, abusing the bandwith. So how much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be an abuser. Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it walks and quacks like a duck Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that the tiered internet concept changes the way content can be received. So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for NBC, Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, it matters how the traffic cops route their information. I have no problem with people making money. I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money. Good for them. I'd like to do that some day too. I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene amounts of money leveraging their economic might against people like me and smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against them. The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just that. It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information by end users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem inferior is unacceptable. My understanding is that it would work like this: Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not make them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be pushed into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow like a raging river. Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the tremendous assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant subscription cost that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the time in unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will push the costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game. That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I watched bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned into eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now the move is to actually limit access to information by the enduser if the content provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic treatment. This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated to to a trickle while NBC would get the raging river. That's what the big scare is from people who steadfastly support Net Neutrality. Nobody's saying that bandwidth should be free, only that it should be treated the same by those entities who route the traffic. I hope this makes sense, and I hope that someone will either support me on this or check me. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 31, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: Ron, let me start by saying that you've given me something to think about regarding personally types. However, though we may communicate differently, there's still something to be said about reasoned arguments. For example, I fail to see how an internet lacking in net neutrality would crush this community. For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure blip.tv and youtube have paid higher costs for better bandwidth from the start. Are you saying that their business model wouldn't allow them to continue to pay for better bandwidth in a tiered tiered service model? I don't think so. You're ignoring the fact that blip and youtube are also out to make money. If blip.tv or youtube
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent traffic is actually being hindered? Once again, this is still not evidence that TV networks are trying to crush us. Obviously. btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents. i also frequently travel to different areas of the US for work. I've never noticed that it's slower in Canada. On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many partners including NBC. Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping for a while now, let them tell you how bad it is. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us. The last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents very often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably benefited from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or wrong, just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster because of this) Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become faster, not slower. No one here is dead on. Net neutrality is a complicated issue. All i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are trying to crush us. On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to users who were, in there own words, abusing the bandwith. So how much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be an abuser. Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it walks and quacks like a duck Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that the tiered internet concept changes the way content can be received. So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for NBC, Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, it matters how the traffic cops route their information. I have no problem with people making money. I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money. Good for them. I'd like to do that some day too. I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene amounts of money leveraging their economic might against people like me and smaller entities like Blip that are trying to compete against them. The tiered internet scheme to replace net neutrality does just that. It allows the ISPs to limit the freedom to receive information by end users. It limits access to information by the user. Limiting my access to information by choking off traffic that ISPs deem inferior is unacceptable. My understanding is that it would work like this: Verizon Wireless, my ISP would say that Blip traffic does not make them as much money as NBC's traffic. So blip traffic will be pushed into a tiny little trickle so that NBC's info can flow like a raging river. Given that blip is a small start up, and doesn't have the tremendous assets that an NBC has, NBC could afford a giant subscription cost that blip could never hope to cover. This happens all the time in unregulated markets. Big players who can afford it, will push the costs up, pricing smaller competitors out of the game. That can happen at the transition end, and already did. I watched bandwidth triple as the Information Superhighway was turned into eCommerce. Things have settled on that end a bit, but now the move is to actually limit access to information by the enduser if the content provider doesn't pony up big money for preferred traffic treatment. This means that all of us on this list, would be relegated to to a trickle while NBC would get the raging river. That's what the big scare is from people who steadfastly support Net Neutrality. Nobody's saying that bandwidth should be free, only that it should be treated the same by those entities who route the traffic. I hope this makes sense, and I hope that someone will either support me
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
This discussion is primarily about whether or not TV networks are trying to crush bloggers. and like I said, net neutrality isn't a simple issue. With a saturated market, ISPs have less reason to invest in new technologies. Additionally, it would be difficult to fight against spam and hacker attacks within the confines of net neutrality. Just an argument to say that there are dangers on both sides of the issue. Let's stick to the topic at hand. On Dec 31, 2007 12:45 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become faster, not slower. Some of us don't want to hang our hopes on likely and probably when our access to information and freedom to disseminate it hang in the balance. Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
The question isn't whether or not Net Neutrality is good or bad, it's whether or not TV networks are using net neutrality to crush this community. That's what I mean when I say we should stick to the topic at hand. On Dec 31, 2007 1:11 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pat You said last time I checked neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents very often to distribute content I was simply pointing out that there was an error in that statement, because bittorrent has many deals with content partners to distrubute content. And on a side note it could be very useful to vloggers who are working on HD projects to use torrents to distribute their content, as a matter of fact it's probably the best way right now. The fact is that Comcast traffic shaped, they lied about it and then when they were caught, they danced around it. They did the very thing they and all other ISP's said that they wouldn't do. They treated traffic differently for different entities, thus violating the principles of a Netural Net. And if given the chance they will do it again and if they can make money by doing it, you can belive that they will. And let's remove youtube and blip and so on from the equation, becaue what about a guy who is paying for his own bandwith? Like a lot of people do, I doubt that they could afford to pay to get priority traffic. And as far as Canadian ISP's were going I was just basing that on the various articles I have read from Cnet, Wired, etc who have talked and written about ISP traffic shaping. Glad to hear you arn't affected. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you're saying that thanks to Comcast...NBC's torrent traffic is actually being hindered? Once again, this is still not evidence that TV networks are trying to crush us. Obviously. btw, I'm Canadian and I use torrents. i also frequently travel to different areas of the US for work. I've never noticed that it's slower in Canada. On Dec 31, 2007 12:31 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, bittorrent does have a distrubution deal with many partners including NBC. Talk to people from Canada whose ISP's have been traffic shaping for a while now, let them tell you how bad it is. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: This isn't evidence that big corporations are trying to crush us. The last time I checked, neither NBC nor videobloggers used torrents very often to distribute content. i.e. this community probably benefited from this move. (i'm not saying I think comcast was right or wrong, just saying that the transmission speed of vlogs probably got faster because of this) Nor is there reason to believe that the internet as we know it would slow down. It would likely only speed up for certain services that pay more. blip.tv and especially youtube would probably become faster, not slower. No one here is dead on. Net neutrality is a complicated issue. All i'm saying is that the debate is not evidence that tv networks are trying to crush us. On Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM, Heath heathparks@ wrote: You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to users who were, in there own words, abusing the bandwith. So how much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be an abuser. Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it walks and quacks like a duck Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: I'm no expert on net neutrality, but my understanding is that the tiered internet concept changes the way content can be received. So the people who control the pipes can relegate the blips and revvers to the slow lane to pave the way for blazing access for NBC, Viacom, TW/AOL, etc. It doesn't matter how much Blip's paying for their bandwidth, it matters how the traffic cops route their information. I have no problem with people making money. I have no problem with people making obscene amounts of money. Good for them. I'd like to do that some day too. I do, however, have a problem with people that make obscene amounts of money leveraging
Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both right' but I think this was an example of truthiness vs. critical thinking. I have no doubt that the majority of this community is capable of the latter. They're just less often heard. It was interesting to see my original argument take human shape in Ron's email. It was even more interesting to hear Jake's response. These are the kinds of responses that are often lacking from our heated threads. Much of what Scoble is referring to might have been avoided had the community stood up for itself when confronted with these kinds of conspiratorial opinions. What do we want more? A long list of 'People who hate and/or pity this group' or rational, evidence based discussions? On Dec 30, 2007 5:18 PM, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great post, Jake. I wish we could talk. I'm sure it'd be far more productive. This is not a very efficient way to communicate, and there's a lot left out that takes too damn long to write, and then there's even more spaces open for misunderstanding. I'm going to bow out now. Cheers, Ron On Dec 30, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Jake Ludington wrote: I've been offline for a bit and I'm not trying to drag this thread out further, but felt like I should respond: Jake You obviously care about distributed media. You want to help people do that. So your beliefs have something to do with being on this list. I want to help people get from whatever their vision is to something approximating that vision, whether that's something as simple as recording video from their webcam or something complex like figuring out the right tools for some grand video project. It is my belief that everyone who wants to make video (whether it be for their family and friends, or for everyone on the planet) should be able to harness all the tools available to do so. So I suppose in that sense, my beliefs come into play. I do not, however, have any kind of us versus them agenda, because it is also my belief that the corporate machine being raged against here is equally entitled to making video and distributing it however they want to. I don't have to like the end result, but I vote for what I like by watching it or tuning out. I, want help with media. That's why I'm on this list. I get the sense that many people are on the list for this same reason, in spite of the original thread all this discussion evolved out of. I think you are missing an important point. the Corporate Media would like to coopt this space to make it stream profit to them. Then my interests and the Corporate Media (as described by you) have something in common. I enjoy making videos. Sometimes making videos means streaming profit to me. When I get paid for doing something I enjoy, it means I have more freedom to continue doing that thing I enjoy. If by co-opting this space, you mean Corporate Media want to distribute videos via RSS, rise to the most popular spots in iTunes, We are basically stealing their profit by giving people another outlet for their media consumption. This is where you get off track a bit... Every person on the planet has a finite amount of time to do anything. We all make tradeoffs and choices about how we spend that time - especially the time allotted as free time throughout the day. Networking programming competes with sporting events which compete with the arts which in turn compete with taking the kids to soccer practice, which competes with millions of other options like podcasts, videoblogs, etc. How much has Youtube taken from their bottom line? YouTube and the rest of the video sharing sites are taking from Corporate Media's bottom line by leveraging the expensive content created by Corporate Media. If you look at what is consistently among the most viewed shows on YouTube, etc., it's stuff uploaded from places like Comedy Central, ABC, NBC, etc., not from indie content creators. I personally think it's a lousy deal for the content creators for Joe Smith YouTube user to upload Corporate Media content and the content creator get nothing for it. YouTube makes ad money (even if it's less than a penny per view). The creator gets nothing. If you set aside WHO the content creator is, it's not a real stretch to empathize with the content creator who makes money from making content when someone else is making money from their efforts while they get nothing. TV is going down the toilet. TV was never great, it was merely the most available option. But this is a subjective argument because I can list at least 10 people I know who ask me if I saw television show X last night when I run into them at the coffee shop. It's naive to
Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
Perhaps I should have said people that distrust the Wikipedia model. Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an important part of anything you read online. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier. Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken with a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the same way anything you read should be scrutinized. Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth. Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what scientific journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original research and synthesis of published material. This would necessarily lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it less trustworthy. It's important to understand something before discrediting it. However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others that universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They are: - creationists - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and movies like What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole. ...etc On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This kind of stuff only starts flame wars. On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters strudel. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic shows, etc. (keyword: try) Shows that are likely to get good ratings/demographics get picked up. I'd be interested in hearing a specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content. People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations. Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and such, but it's still quite true. In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why we have more and more commercials and less and less content. I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards video production. The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go for vacation. You can't serve an advertisement channel, because nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people to sit there and watch your advertisements. The content is made by a production team. The production team gets its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, again, they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with the show. So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for the show. Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity, lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from? Advertisers. While you're pitching shows to stations, they're pitching advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic that they feel are going to tune in to your show. Of course, there are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting decision-making around shows. Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on. All of a sudden, marketing teams start selling you the show. You see stuff on the internet. They use commercial space on popular shows to publicize the upcoming shows. The buzz is created BY the marketing teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on. Even if the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers. So, like Jan
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My Amends To Robert Scoble
At this point, I'd like to thank Brooke and Steve for responding to my comments. Steve, I hope you can appreciate the comments I made about how when people begin to agree, they stop contributing. If your posts feel ignored as you've often stated, please take into consideration. Even when you disagree with me, I still find your comments refreshing. I agree that people should comment where they feel they have something to say but I think that, in order to move a conversation forward, it's important to include concessions in responses. (e.g. the way i started off this paragraph) When members simply jump onto the first thing they disagree with, discussions tend to spiral down into bickering. Additionally, straw man arguments should be avoided... On Dec 28, 2007 2:41 PM, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, give me a break, seriouslysomeone question's Wikipedia, which Cnet, MSNBC, Reuters, etc have done on various occasions and they are, in your opinion, wackos.give me a break Nothing's perfect, including Wikipedia Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I should have said people that distrust the Wikipedia model. Fact checking is definitely your responsibility as well as an important part of anything you read online. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability which makes this much easier. Any statements that are not verifiable should of course be taken with a grain of salt. The content should of course be scrutinized in the same way anything you read should be scrutinized. Regarding inaccuracies and claims of suppression, Wikipedia has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica and your distrust of it's model stems from a lack of understanding of it's policies and is not some kind of conspiracy to cover up the truth. Without even knowing what article, what statement, or what scientific journal you're referring to, I can assume with a good level of certainty that you were probably trying to cover up a significant viewpoint in order to advance a position through your own original research and synthesis of published material. This would necessarily lower the value of an encyclopedia article and, ironically, make it less trustworthy. It's important to understand something before discrediting it. However, if this is of no interest to you I can recommend others that universally hold the same opinions of Wikipedia as your own. They are: - creationists - people who easily buy into conspiracy theories - people who don't believe in the theory of evolution - people who buy into new age beliefs about quantum physics and movies like What the Bleep do we Know!? Down the rabbit hole. ...etc On Dec 28, 2007 12:21 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. It might simply reveal that they actually fact-checked more than one article and found Wikipedia to be packed with inaccuracies. In some cases, attempting to participate in Wikipedia and correct those accuracies is shut down by the powers that be in the Wikipedia hierarchy, even with irrefutable scientific proof in hand. Blindly trusting Wikipedia is just as stupid as blindly trusting anything else. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
A good argument. I reread the posts a bit a I understand what is meant by the viewer is the product. I think everyone here seems to be saying the same thing in a different way. It's hard to argue that money isn't at the root of everything. Because of this, it's hard to say at the root of it, it's about making the viewer happy because, of course, it isn't. At the root of it, it's the money. Executives may hold a passion for making great entertainment (keyword: may) but in the end they're going to work everyday to put food on their families. Ok, so i'm willing to agree that viewers are the product but I'd have to say it's Network execs that control TV, not the advertisers. There's always a way to make more money. It's the execs, not the advertisers that are the ones aiming to high. Advertisers will purchase viewers but the viewers will always be *somewhere* to purchase. It's the executives that have created a model where all the eggs go into a few select baskets. TV could be riskier, but it's the greed of execs, not advertisers that makes it bland. Reality TV is a perfect example of how to make riskier, better TV without having to worry so much about Advertisers because they can be made on the cheap. Anyway, now I'm just rambling. This is a really interesting conversation though. On Dec 28, 2007 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky to them, and so if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect. We now live in an era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to make stuff that is free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it. This has not thus far lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so advertising is far from the only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered to be asleep, and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to wake them up. I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of free speech. The barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its not much of a threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and free minds to do anything with the free speech. If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be crushed using all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on consumption, so its easier to ignore than crush. If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken up? When the nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to wake them. I dread to think what who they will end up listening to, hopefully some people will be talking a lot of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that sometimes helps humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will end up a mess of competing propaganda, time will tell. Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, including being a show that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the future, and in the latest video mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959 bill which is seen as a an anti- thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is probably worthy of its own conversation. http://www.betterbadnews.com/ Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely
Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
lol, well said. On Dec 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And just to bring things back to the topic at hand. This is exactly the kind of nit picking of emails that I feel has brought the group down. Where was the comment on everything else I brought up? This kind of stuff only starts flame wars. I was validating your point by not commenting on things I agree with. ;) I have no interest in starting a flame war. Jake Ludington
Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)
Jake, just shut up. ..you had me at 'hello'. On Dec 28, 2007 3:39 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They care about crushing distributed media, just as power companies care about crushing distributed power. We are here because we believe in distributed media. Please do not use the universal 'We' to sum up everyone on the list. I'm here to get help with videoblogging and help others. My beliefs have nothing to do with my participation/lurking on the list. We're not targets at a personal level. We're targets at a conceptual level. And the corporate media is coming after the concept of distributed media. I get contacted regularly by people in mainstream media companies who want my involvement in projects because of my background in independent online publishing. They aren't trying to target anything conceptual that I'm doing; they want to understand it. Corporate media is trying to figure out how to embrace what the little guy is doing in a way that maintains their relevance while not eroding shareholder value in the process. If I had to guess, I'd say their going have their way with net neutrality, flood the tubes with content then price us out of the game. That way they get us to put our money into their wallets and we just go away. That must be why NYTimes.com decided to offer their product for free - to flood the tubes and make us go away; not because they realized they could make more money doing things the way indie publishers were already having success. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] My Amends To Robert Scoble
I realize that this topic is dying so I thought, what better time to jump in? I have to say that, Robert, I agree with a lot of what you, Andrew, Schlomo, etc have said over the last week. If it's of any consolation, there's something I realized when dealing with the Wikipedia issue: When people begin to agree with the person that is being attacked, they stop contributing to the thread because a) they want it to die off, and b) they don't want to say anything supportive because they know their words will be twisted and picked apart, consequently prolonging the discussion and making things worse. That's the reason you don't hear as many supportive comments. I know as I write this that though I may be lending you a word of support I might attract an additional few negative responses. The more vocal people in this group seem to think that someone is constantly out to get them, control them, crush them. To them, collaboration means fake, gatekeepers only exists when more than one person produces a vlog, and doing something you love for a living means selling out. The roots of their often hypocritical views of mass media contributed to their distrust in Wikipedia. I am always wary of people that distrust Wikipedia as it reveals a lot. I think this problem in combination with the fact that this group is less relevant everyday is what sent the community downhill so fast. It's hard to argue that this group is dying. Anyway, that's my rant. If the list gets started again, feel free to add my name below scoble and schlomo. On Dec 26, 2007 2:13 AM, Robert Scoble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gena, Thanks, this was a very nice Christmas present and a nice way to end a really great day. Someone just forwarded me your email and I appreciate that too. I haven't been able to respond over on the Cheryl page because it keeps saying my comments are spam, which is funny too. Oh well. One thing I wanted to say over there is that PodTech invested more than a million dollars in this community (seriously, I have the receipts, we hired dozens of videobloggers and even had a few on our staff, including people who are very active on this group). I've personally got tons of people here paid, some of which got paid more than $100,000 each since PodTech was born. Part of my frustration is that the community, rather than cheering on businesses that are trying to put food on videoblogger's tables, actually turn and attack and not in a helpful way and when someone is under attack I don't see many in this community come and stand up against the mob. I just looked back on the last few days of posts here and I see pretty predictable results from my outburst. But you didn't get the point. How many of you stood up when TechCrunch said that PodTech deserved to be in the dead pool? How many of you stood up when that same blog, or when Valleywag printed attacks against me? Not many. Hint: eventually sponsors and employees get the message and move money away from a company that isn't getting community support. And, worse, it definitely demoralizes the employees and makes them far less willing to take risks on behalf of the community. That's why Cheryl's post about Epic-FU rubbed me the wrong way. I can bite my lip when it's me under attack (although, no, it's not fun) but when I see a repeated pattern I felt I needed to speak out about it and this community has often not been friendly to those of us who are trying to make businesses that get more of us paid. Let's turn it away from PodTech. Have any of you thanked Revision3? Rocketboom? Huffington Post? Federated Media? Jason Calacanis? (He was attacked here, but my friends who worked for him say his paychecks never bounced). Leo Laporte? Epic-FU? Or any of the other people struggling to make money in this new art form? And there are dozens of others who are trying to build businesses here in the NewTeeVee industry. How many of you have stood up and said thank you to YouTube, Blip.tv, Kyte, or any of the other companies who are trying to make it possible for you to distribute your work (and get paid - I know at least one videoblogger who gets paid more than $10,000 per month thanks to YouTube's advertising deals)? Some of you have, and that's always appreciated. But most of you remain silent, or don't look to help out and make sure there are healthy businesses here. There's tons of others, too. As to PodTech's run-in with Lan Bui, there's a reason why we were arrogant in response: those pictures were taken at our party: the Vloggies. An employee used them without checking because she assumed that the community would support us and that pictures taken at our own event could be used without worrying too much and it was on a sign, not something that would make us tons of money. Turns out she was very wrong (how many of you have never made a mistake?), but if someone
Re: [videoblogging] Disgusting article about viral video marketing
You've got to give props to someone who can get his client's video to be most viewed on one of the most visited sites on the internet. I imagine from his methods that he makes a pretty hefty margin on it too. It's Marketing 2.0. Unfortunately, if everyone did this, youtube wouldn't be much fun anymore. As more people are using these methods you can see the content on the most viewed page going downhill especially in the last few months. He was pretty good at getting himself this far, i'm sure he'll learn to adapt and move on to something no one else is yet trying. Don't discount him yet. On Nov 23, 2007 12:00 PM, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was hesitant to give this guy more attention than he already has, but thought it would be very relevant to see what is happening out there: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-behind-many-viral-videos/ Many of us knew that the Top Viewed Videos on YouTube was 90% crap already honestly, i wasn't at all surprised - except that this guy is a TA at Stanford! Is this what our Nation's Best are being taught nowadays? Why doesn't Mefeedia have a Videos tab with Most Viewed Videos? It is not a popularity contest - we want it to be about REAL people having REAL conversations. This reinforces that belief. Regards, -Frank Frank Sinton http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo
No vlogs yet? Someone *has* to be up for the challenge. On Nov 16, 2007 7:57 AM, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reactions are so funny ... I could only imagine because of teh music that it might be something like a wedding or other normal scene and ... maybe someone puked, then another ... retching is contagious Gotta give them some credit for originality ... in this game of getting eyeballs and ad dollars ... I am not sure if this is a sad commentary on consumerism ... or maybe I am way wrong and this is a new kind of Survivor pilot reality TV mix ... BM meets ER ... BM'ER coming in 2008 on Fox Maybe it is a cautionary tail ... the future MTV Jack ASS ... Xtreme Recycling ... I have been told my posts can be too long ... I'll get to the nitty gritty ... http://www.2girls1cup.com/advertising.html If you are interested in bringing some traffic to your website, consider advertising with 2girls1cup.com The real stories ... What did the Want Ad read ... Wanted two actresses with experience/no experience ...? Where was the Want Ad placed? What was for dinner the night before? who will be first to advertise (besides fling)? Exactly how much crack did it take? Who cleaned up afterwards? Is the Number One fan, a fan of number two too, or the only fan? Was an exhaust fan used in the making of Two Girls One Cup? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So...um...has anyone heard of the youtube phenominon of vlogging your reaction to watching '2 Girls 1 Cup' for the first time? Three things I want to mention. 1. Definitely watch the reaction videos below, they're very funny. 2. DO NOT WATCH 2 GIRLS 1 CUP! 3. *If* you do watch it, you *HAVE* to vlog yourself watching it for the first time. See below for details on where to find it. These are a couple of my favourite reaction videos, they may contain vulgarity but are otherwise safe for work. 2 Girls 1 Cup Reaction #1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRzf_ZcM0U 2 girls 1 cup reaction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3Km0y1jWs So *if* you do decide to watch it, you can't be mad at me. It's your own fault. Do not watch this for the first time without vlogging your reaction. To watch the very unsafe for work video go to http://www.2girls1cup.com (I repeat, NSFW) and if you vlog yourself, even it's it's for NaVloPoMo, post your video in this thread. Oh and go search youtube for more reaction videos. There are hundreds. Each is priceless.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo
dubious cultural value? lol, Brook, it's just a joke. If people want to participate, they'll do it because it's funny. No cultural value implied. :P On Nov 16, 2007 12:22 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... On 11/16/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No vlogs yet? Someone *has* to be up for the challenge. Maybe the fact that it's been done quite a bit already, as you described, limits the appeal. What do further responses add to anything? And why would we want to use our navlopomo videos to publicize some external commercial project of dubious cultural value? Actually there hasn't been any shortage of ideas with navlopomo'ers at all. No one seems to be having any trouble coming up with their own ideas from what I've seen. The emphasis on the personal in the group might also be a factor in the lack of participation in this challenge. For me, the problem hasn't been ideas, but time. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo
...i meant to say phenomenon
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?
Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the Wikipedia Storm of '07. Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may be right that it has very little to do with Videoblogging but it is very much the videoblogging group. :) I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this medium's moguls. I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert Murdoch contributes. As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source: Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted. darn...151 words...now 156... On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be selling out in the usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs that Mr Baron was seeking to achieve a different sort of power. AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!! Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words. Speaking of Jason, he's most known for: 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the identical knock off- Engagdget 2. Not paying employees fair wages. 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news broke) 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting fired from AOL 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one likes. Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely destructive to the world, but also based on his regular, stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is exactly this: taking and causing conflict. Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all over everyone. Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post: When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage and rubs off on the rest off. My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered. The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How can you improve the show? We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to receive the most concern out of every thing we do. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Advice on how to get to 100-250k views a day (quickly)?
Well, it was pretty awful and I too unsubscribed afterward. ...but there's just something about it that draws you in... as I'm sure many participants in this thread can attest to. but boy is it nice to be on the sidelines. which is why i'm going to shut up now. On Nov 13, 2007 1:51 PM, Rupert Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazed that you like it Patrick, as we all went to town about you in April. It was enough to make me unsubscribe, because I got so caught up with it. I don't get the enjoyment of it. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, this is the most exciting thing I've seen since the Wikipedia Storm of '07. Heath, it's definitely a pattern I know and enjoy and Dennis, you may be right that it has very little to do with Videoblogging but it is very much the videoblogging group. :) I always found it interesting to have an inside perspective of this medium's moguls. I doubt there's a Yahoo Group in which Rupert Murdoch contributes. As a side note to Andrew, I have to stand up for Steve here as he's often the voice of reason in this group and in a past experience had stood up for me and Wikipedia's core content policies when it was the very unpopular thing to do. However there is something to be said for for being concise in discussions. I once heard from a wise source: Posts longer than 100 words are difficult to understand and are frequently either ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted. darn...151 words...now 156... On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Andrew Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: So whilst I admired the fact that rocketboom didn't seem to be selling out in the usual sense, for money, I became disturbed by some possible signs that Mr Baron was seeking to achieve a different sort of power. AH YES!!! Its all about power, mwahahahahaha! But what kind of Power did you say!? A DIFFERENT kind?? M I like the sound of this . . . . A NEW kind of Power! BETTER THAN MONEY!!! Speaking of power Steve, I dare you to not respond to a single thread on this list. Ill bet you can't do it in under 5000 words. Speaking of Jason, he's most known for: 1. Stealing the idea and the people from Gizmodo to make the identical knock off- Engagdget 2. Not paying employees fair wages. 3. Trying to steal Amanda from Rocketboom (only one day after news broke) 4. Trying to steal top posters from Digg for Netscape 2. Killing Netscape by making it into a Diggclone and then getting fired from AOL 3. Building a site called Mahalo which is suffering badly and no one likes. Not just based on these few examples which have been extremely destructive to the world, but also based on his regular, stereotypical activity of attacking people instead of their work, I just want to throw out that Jason's only means of being popular is exactly this: taking and causing conflict. Look no further than Ann Coulter. It works great for her. If they can't do it based on their own good ideas and they cant do it while collaborating with others, at least they can do it by shitting all over everyone. Usually a good post has a lot of conversation but doesn't cause others to speak out so negatively at the author. This is likely the reason why there have been SO MANY bad reactions to Jason's post: When one lives their life so selfishly while attacking and being brutal, its destructive to everyone around because it causes damage and rubs off on the rest off. My original answer to the original thread was likely not considered. The best way to grow your audience is not by spamming everyone. Its by improving your show. At this point Jason, you really shouldn't be asking any other questions until you get that one worked out. You got Veronica, she's great. You should be paying Veronica more, you need to invest in some better equipment and get some production help. How can you improve the show? We ask ourselves this question every single day and it continues to receive the most concern out of every thing we do. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Bored
As much as people don't like seeing a thread derailed, I think people also don't like seeing comments like take it to your blog. I'd rather see a message that expresses please, no personal attacks than those that express go back to where you came from. I guess what I'm saying is that if you see something you don't like you should ignore it or talk about it. I just don't think telling someone to take it somewhere else is the appropriate answer. (though I could maybe be convinced otherwise, any thoughts?) After all, this is a discussion group and discussions should flow freely. The linear thread style of gmail (which most of us probably use) makes it difficult to ignore certain branches of a thread. Until the format changes, we have to accept that those branches will be whipping us in the face once in a while. On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unsurprisingly I dont subscribe to the idea that arguments like these get in the way of other discussions or devalue them. If that happens, its because people choose to let it distract them. Its fair enough that when things get nasty/ugly, some peoples reactions is to get the negative poop out of their lives, either by trying to shut others up, or by leaving, or whatever. Its some sort of natural internal defense I guess. I was always up for forums rather than a signle list, though for different reasons, and not optimistic about it actually ever happening. Even with forums, arguments, spill over to other areas and the vibe-poisoning effect is stillt he same. But would a world without such confrontations be a good thing? I think not, I think in a strange way it is necessary for people to get ugly to get to the bottom of things. A world in which nobody argues is a world in which unspeakable horrors are likely to go unchecked because they are unpalatable to think about. If liberals save the planet then maybe I will change my tune, and if everyone was as decent a human as you then this ugliness would not be necessary (not being sarcastic there, I think you have a great personality), but for now I remain sadly on the side that believes you get to learn a lot from uglyness. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great list of purposes for this group. Really well thought out. The last item is gossip fight. Gossip can be positive, more often than fighting, and can lead to interesting discussions. And gossip is generally done here in a friendly spirit. Since the fighting is the last item, and when it happens it gets in the way of (and devalues) all the other 5/6 more important items, I think it's something we could encourage people to take to their blogs. And not duplicate it here, just link. (Unless someone else brings it as a matter of interest. Like happened with Lan Podtech. He never brought it here, or discussed it here. And actually, the Podtech discussion, as heated as it got, stayed very impersonal and stuck to the issues, for the most part.) When I was a newbie here in spring/summer 05, I saw the fighting and thought 'these people are weird'. If No 1 is to help people start videoblogging, this kind of stuff is totally counterproductive. In my humble opinion ;) Rupert http://twittervlog.tv http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: We all get heated about issues - fine - but if people have got something negative to say about another person, about their motivations or anything that's likely to lead to a personal slanging match, perhaps they could show us the courtesy of having their open and frank discussion on a blog and linking to it here. andrew did blog it here: http://dembot.com/post/19305296 i hear you though. Substance in discussions is necessary. We are trying to help each other do better than before. after one of the blow-ups last year, I made a list last year of what I thought the Videoblogging list was for: 1. help new people to start videoblogging 2. discuss new tech and its implications 3. discuss what we need...and build it! 4. let new companies know what is expected community behavior (after we agree what it is) 5. discuss creator's rights 6. gossip and fight we are certainly a chaotic crowd and gossip and fight is just a group dynamic. doesnt mean we got to encourage or stand for itbut here we are. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Bored
I'm definitely not a regular contributor but I agree with David. This format just doesn't seem to be working as people keep unsubscribing and whenever there *is* an interesting discussion, it ends in bitterness. A forum would probably work much much better. In order to properly make the switch we could start a campaign where everyone mentions the new forum in their latest vlog. We could provide instructions on how to forward all messages to your inbox. I'd be happy to create a tutorial. Are there any forums that are ahead of their time that we can look at and discuss? Patrick On Nov 13, 2007 4:02 PM, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rather sad when a group that tries to push new media subscribes and restricts itself to old technology like email. If this was a forum, there would be post and threads. If there were personal attacks and such, a moderator could delete the post or simply close the thread. That's the beauty of forums. They are moderated. People would never get away with some of the crap that goes on here. If someone slagged someone in one of the Help areas, a moderator would just remove that post. As I said way back when the forum idea was brought up, I prefer forums. My inbox is already full of things that require my attention. I dont really want more email to distract me or clutter up my mind. You say you would never go to a forum yet you visit your inbox all the time? I dont understand that thinking. As Mr Meade said, you could, if you so desired, have everything emailed to you anyways with a forum. Of course...if nothing changes, then nothing changes I guess. I didnt start the group and was not involved when the ground rules were laid out and will probably leave the group long before it ceases to exist. For what it's worth, and not like they matter at all, those are only my opinions. David http://www.taoofdavid.com http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, a lot of us read in threads anyway, in gmail or whatever. Even if each discussion was in its own 'room', with space to continue a discussion for longer than this list allows, those rooms/threads would still be poisoned and killed by personal slanging matches and shouting. I need my emails, too - I'd never visit a forum. But that's just me. I wonder if what we need is a Blog. Kind of like a Yahoo VB List Extra. Longer discussions could be taken out of the group and continued on a blog for discussion in text comments and video comments that we can subscribe to? Rupert --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: It's a real shame that this group never went the way of a forum. Would could have all those things you listed in different sections on the forum and then people could post in the respective areas. Those looking for help wouldnt have to be inundated with things they have no interest in and people that want to duke it out could do so off in a different area. Hindsight... David http://www.taoofdavid.com http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: We all get heated about issues - fine - but if people have got something negative to say about another person, about their motivations or anything that's likely to lead to a personal slanging match, perhaps they could show us the courtesy of having their open and frank discussion on a blog and linking to it here. andrew did blog it here: http://dembot.com/post/19305296 i hear you though. Substance in discussions is necessary. We are trying to help each other do better than before. after one of the blow-ups last year, I made a list last year of what I thought the Videoblogging list was for: 1. help new people to start videoblogging 2. discuss new tech and its implications 3. discuss what we need...and build it! 4. let new companies know what is expected community behavior (after we agree what it is) 5. discuss creator's rights 6. gossip and fight we are certainly a chaotic crowd and gossip and fight is just a group dynamic. doesnt mean we got to encourage or stand for itbut here we are. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
Re: [videoblogging] Request for user ban on Wikipedia videoblogging article
Hey everyone, I know there's about zero interest left in this. (i feel the same way, i would have dropped it a long time ago if it weren't for my wiki account on the chopping block) Just wanted to report that the Ban Request has been closed with results pasted below. Thankfully, if anything good came out of this it's that there's some good discussions going on in the talk page and the article has gained a lot of sources. I'd like to get a third party Admin to check out the article in a week or so and give us some tips comments. Hopefully, someone'll throw in some book citations. Good weekend and let's hope for a calmer Monday. Community sanction discussion Well, what I see there, in for example this edit[1], is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really *would* need a lot of improvement. Wikipedia is not[2] the dictionary, though we do have a sister project, Wiktionary,[3] which you might wish to look at if you want to write dictionary definitions. Also, please note that, to be quite frank, I couldn't care less who any of you are, up to and including if you invented the Internet. We write from reliable sources,[4] never our own knowledge, thoughts, or experience[5], so it really doesn't matter a bit who an editor is. If Linus Torvalds[6] came along to edit the Linux[7] article, he'd *still* be expected to source. (And deal with me asking about a few bugfixes. But that's a different story.) From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists[8], dictionary definitions[9], material sourced to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to *listen to him*, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable. - Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127290390oldid=127280521 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAUNDRY [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DICDEF *Comments after looking at the evidence* Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to Community sanction noticeboard? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:Meatpuppets[1] and a serious one - Single purpose accounts[2] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible Conflict of interest[3] problem here - authors or those associated with them should not be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see here[4] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of original research[5]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight failure to assume good faith[6] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [7] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faith Mmeiser the vloggers, you should have requested comment[8] in order to build a consensus[9] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser should have taken User:Adrian_M._H[10]. advice and created temporary page[11] in their userspace. User:Adrian_M._H[10]. has made a trojan effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides -Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=nextoldid=106060604 [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogoldid=104826246 [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC [9]
Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers (plain text version)
Hey group, The results are back from Mmeiser's proposed Wikipedia ban of pdelongchamp. See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it: I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia. - EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like 'this person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfair' -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that. -Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT. Apologies if I'm wrongheaded here -Cailil talk 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the poster of this complaint has failed to assume good fiath. —Eagle101 Need help? 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) See no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above. Archive and suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute resolution. -Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Read the full proposed ban here: http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld I hope that we can put the issue to rest and consider that perhaps there's a possibility that I perchance might have perhaps been trying to improve the article and not the other way around. and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey group, The results of the Mmeiser’s Wikipedia ban are here. See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it: “I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia.†- EdJohnston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) “Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like ‘this person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfair’†-Amarkov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amarkov moo! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amarkov 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) “Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that.†- Seraphimblade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade Talk to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) “Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mmeiser suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT . Apologies if I'm wrongheaded here†--Cailil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cailil talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cailil 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) “This is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the poster of this complaint has failed to assume good fiath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF .†â€â€ Eagle101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eagle_101 Need help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagle_101 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) “See no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above. Archive and suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR .†--Kzrulzuall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kzrulzuall Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kzrulzuall • Contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Read the full proposed ban here: http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld I hope that we can put the issue to rest and consider that perhaps there's a possibility that I perchance might have perhaps been trying to improve the article and not the other way around. and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this
Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers
Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers
Hi Markus, I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact been trying to stick up for the vlog article. It was changes i made to the article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=70288801oldid=70288758) Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a wikipedia core content policy) The vocal people in this group seem to be misdirecting their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me. The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=125328951oldid=124431636) into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted nearly a year ago. As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion (because I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided that the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did research and made changes. Changes that saved it from getting deleted. I hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would probably have been deleted over and over again since then. Wikipedia has policies. Anyone can edit it but there's only a select kind of information that can go into it. People claim i've been making disruptive edits and dicking with the article for a year now. I challenge them to read the wikipedia definition of disruptive edits. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing) Has anyone really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who has been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way around? (see my defense in the ban request) I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the edit is provided. I can't really defend accusations that i've deleted everything for the last 2 years which is terribly inaccurate. pd On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Patrick, When I saw your initial post, I thought why is he posting in the wrong thread? and then I looked more carefully and got your joke. When you posted the text version, I thought is he now spamming? But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence the funny characters in the first version of that email. You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't help but wonder what kind of person you really are. Do you have a vlog? Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or your work anywhere. Markus On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd -- http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
She's right. It's pretty mini. On 5/3/07, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think? Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd like to say that after the close following of these wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the conclusion that a certain someone has a Teeny. Weenie. Peenie. Kisses, Bekah (I couldn't participate in the wikibanapalooza. I can't figure out how to edit them for the life of me, and I actually don't care for Wikipedia in the least although I respect those who do. Clearly it's best that I didn't vote: who wants to invite angry emails from someone with such a peenie problem?) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi michael@ wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp pdelongchamp@pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http
Re: [videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers
That's a great idea. If some who owns any of the books wants to add
something, you can source it by including the code below at the end of the
information you're introducing.
For example:
It is common knowledge that Videobloggers do it daily.ref{{cite book
|coauthors= Michael Verdi, Ryanne Hodson, Diana Weynand, Shirley Craig
|title= [[Secrets of videoblogging]] |publisher= [[Peachpit]] |year= 2006
|isbn= 0321429176 }}/ref
(naturally, you'll change the info if you're not using Secrets of
Videoblogging) When you save your changes, you'll see a superscript
number[5] beside the quote and the reference will automatically be included
in the reference section at the bottom of the article.
pd
On 5/3/07, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who wants to go through the 3 vlogging books written by this
community
and then jsut cite them in the wikipedia entry. isnt that all we have to
do?
I am sure that they devine vlog in there along with some od the genres etc
right?
where are all those academic papers folks have written? arent those
reliable
sources?
let's just cite the heck out of it with sources we actually trust instead
of
using a magazine article written in 5 minutes...
let's work together to follow wikipedia's rules but keep what we as
vloggers
know this new medium to be
On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Markus,
I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do
cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com
As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact
been
trying to stick up for the vlog article. It was changes i made to the
article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=70288801oldid=70288758
)
Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a
wikipedia
core content policy) The vocal people in this group seem to be
misdirecting
their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me.
The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=125328951oldid=124431636
)
into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted
nearly
a year ago.
As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion
(because
I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided
that
the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did
research and made changes. Changes that saved it from getting deleted. I
hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would
probably
have been deleted over and over again since then.
Wikipedia has policies. Anyone can edit it but there's only a select
kind
of information that can go into it.
People claim i've been making disruptive edits and dicking with the
article for a year now. I challenge them to read the wikipedia
definition
of disruptive edits. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing) Has anyone
really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who
has
been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way
around?
(see my defense in the ban request)
I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the
edit is provided. I can't really defend accusations that i've deleted
everything for the last 2 years which is terribly inaccurate.
pd
On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] markus.sandy%40mac.com
markus.sandy%40mac.com
wrote:
HI Patrick,
When I saw your initial post, I thought why is he posting in the
wrong
thread? and then I looked more carefully and got your joke.
When you posted the text version, I thought is he now spamming?
But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence
the funny characters in the first version of that email.
You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't
help but wonder what kind of person you really are.
Do you have a vlog?
Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or
your work anywhere.
Markus
On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:
Hey Mike,
I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry.
It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics
currently being
discussed in the group.
pd
--
http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy
http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--
Josh Leo
www.JoshLeo.com
www.WanderingWestMichigan.com
www.SlowLorisMedia.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the article. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll be sure to appologize. This was the initial reason for deleting it: Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself. lets put this to rest. It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Hey Jay Just wanted to make a quick reply. Regarding the Star Trek article, there is a lot of discussion on the article's talk page over notability and sources. (just to say it's still an issue even if it doesn't appear to be at first) The fan made productions seem to be notable as they have reliable sources in the main articles and each item seems to somehow show that it's notable. Considering the discussions going on, there's definitely an ongoing group that assures everything is in the article for a reason. Regarding my contribution here are some of the links to content i've added to the vlog article: - I created the references section and sourced the definition: - 17 August 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=prevoldid=70288801, Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and log.) - Asked Steve to source his Timeline event then helped him properly reference it in the article - 31 August 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=prevoldid=73057667, Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!) - I searched and found a better source for the definition - 7 September 2006http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=nextoldid=74314034, Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text) - I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to have the article be renamed to Video blog - 21 February 2007http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=prevoldid=109695626, Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move request; see talk page for discussion) - Added an explanation of vlog with source (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=125619809oldid=125614324) - added sourced timeline event (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127273488oldid=127209338) - added sources to the timeline (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127470918oldid=127407533) - added source to timeline (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127476477oldid=127470918) On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the article. This was the initial reason for deleting it: Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself. lets put this to rest. It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content. so before we move on, Id like to get your take on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions Is this page valid to you? it has no mainstream citations, but seems neutral, valid, and is extremely useful. would you delete this page? I think if anything, we could at least document the debate...that i think we can agree on. Patrick, id like to see what you're contributing to the article. we got to start somewhere. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
lol, who knew lemonade was so controversial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lemonade On 5/2/07, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh MY!! Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too, they are unverifiable!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade Someone save us!!! On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the article. Hmm... Pat, you never nominated it... just wanted to know I'm listening... I must go back and review... not that it changes anything but if i accused you of nominating it and you didn't I'll
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to set a standard so how low should they set it? Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because Wikipedia is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. hey Patrick-- thanks for replying. here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing process. --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? --also,
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. i.e. I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that I have only contributed one sourced thing because this isn't about me. I never once deleted your cited contribution. Nor do I get pleasure from removing your unsourced personal research from the article. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the article. This was the initial reason for deleting it: Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content. Patrick On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not Mike. I submite the star trek fan made productions article and related star trek articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions The fact that said projects exists, and that they are noteworthy and being on wikipedia is in no way determined by the amount of mainstream articles on them. These articles are made possible by the small contribution of hundreds of editors working together as you can see on the history page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productionsaction=history When one editor dominates the discussion, particularly in deleting all contributions, discussion and collaboration fundamentally cannot happen. To put it quite simply... this is not a problem with original researcha and sources it's a problem with trolling. Make no mistake about it. If wikipedia has a fault it's that it doesn't have enough protections from trolling, specifically delete trolling. There are two things we can do about this. 1) persue banning of the troll... am working on it, and I encourage others to talk to wikipedia admins and others of experience on how to get the ball rolling on this 2) move the wikipedia article to pbwiki or some other place where we can protect it from trolling. I am waiting on this until we first take action with point #1. Peace, -Mike On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK -Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
