This is the most interesting bit of conversation I've read in a while. I'm spent but I wanted to just say this.
The trick with time based commenting is to make it "live" in the ecosystem... NOT just on crowdabout.us. I love the idea of the embedded player. Watch the video and make time based comments right in the blog. I'll go one further thought. This is just off the top of my head but Crowdabout.us could then post that time based comment BACK to the comments in the bloggers own page so that the time based comments could be followed not ONLY in the flash widget, but would be a PART of the established comments section. The key would be... a) gaining access to the blogger, MT, and Wordpress API's by allowing crowdabout.us users to claim their blog. b) developing a light semantic markup or microformat for leaving time based comments from crowdabout.us IN the comments on blogs. This would ensure that all the crowdabout.us metadata would be syndicated wherever the conversation went... blog post to blog post... and comment to comment across the web... ultimately creating more value throughout the space and driving more traffic and attention back to crowdabout.us. It's like mybloglog and their widget, or co.comments and their bookmarklet's and widgets. Hundreds of web2.0 companies use similar mechanisms. Oh... and... c) perhaps I overlooked the obvious, but if crowdabout.us doesn't already have it before even the two forementioned items crowdabout.us should provide easy re-blogging by hooking into the main blogging platforms API's. I should be able to click "re-blog this" while looking at any video on crowdabout.us and add reblog a video right from a specific time and leave my comments on my blog. Just day dreaming. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 3/6/07, caroosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Carter, > > > > I'm loving crowdabout. I've uploaded my videos and added time-based > > comments. Brilliant. I see what you mean about the authorship of > > comments being clear. And I see a few people from this list have > > signed up today. > > Hey Rupert! > The feeling is mutual; I saw your Big Shave video on CrowdAbout and > loved it! > > > > For my latest post on my blog, I replaced my Blip player with a > > crowdabout embedded 'slim' player just to see. Looks nice. But > > could you also provide an embeddable player that shows the timeline > > comments, perhaps showing the text of comments as a semi-opaque > > overlay on top of the video? I would be happy to have a bigger > > player for this - isn't that what the Innertoob player did? (i've > > been reading your blog) Even if it meant that when people wanted to > > add comments themselves, they were taken to the crowdabout site, > > that'd be fine - just seems to be missing the obvious to have an > > embedded crowdabout player without crowdabout's big feature. There's > > a balance to be played between giving people incentives to put you on > > their blogs and making people use the crowdabout website. > > Yeah, you have hit upon the biggest area of decision waffling we have > going right now - the embeddable player. I just don't think we are > going to strike a balance that makes everyone happy with it, to be > honest. Some people have definite size/design requirements when > selecting a player for their site. But since at heart we aren't just > another player (we're a commenting system and a social community), it > would make more sense to get those comments into the embedded player. > But if we try to do both (keep it small AND add the comments) > suddenly it starts to overwhelm the content. And we would be foolish > to EVER think that our system's capabilities supercedes a vlogger's > content. > > So our decision (for now, but we are incredibly open to suggestions) > was to leave the player as the content display widget, with a comment > button that would allow a viewer to to make the leap into > participation. Keeping these two functions somewhat separate (viewing > and participating) seems to be the best compromise. > > BUT- The subject lines of each time-post DO appear in the progress bar > area, so you can scrub through the content to see what those subjects say. > > > And keep in mind that audio podcasters are using the service, too, and > their desire for a small player is even more demanding, since they > don't need space to display video. > > > Also, I couldn't find the Social Player at crowdabout where you said > > you'd left comment love - am i being stupid? > > > Sorry, I should have been more clear. "Social Player" is what we call > the interactive, or conversational player on the CrowdAbout site. > What I should have said was that I used the Social Player to leave you > some audio-comment love in one of your videos. And here's the link > for one of those comments: > > http://crowdabout.us/jump_in/cae83f209f616c5df > > > If you or anyone has ideas about a better way to bring the comment > reading/interactivity into the embeddable player, I'm all ears. I'm > talking about undivided attention. > > Best, > Carter > http://crowdabout.us > > > > Rupert > > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio/ > > http://crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ > > > > On 6 Mar 2007, at 05:30, caroosky wrote: > > > > Rupert, thanks for your comments about CrowdAbout! I appreciate your > > ideas as well. For now, each post and comment identifies who > > contributed it by the username, so it's pretty easy to follow a thread > > and see who said what. > > > > Interesting thoughts on the clickable video feature. We talked about > > overlaying icons and things on the screen to interact with, but in the > > end, it was taking away too much from the real content, which in our > > minds comes first, and should never be compromised. > > > > CrowdAbout is all about participation in and around the content. > > There are lots of tools for content creators to use to enhance their > > content with show notes, annotations, time markers, etc. These are > > all unidirectional tools by nature, becuase they can't be used by > > anyone except the content creator, at the time he is publishing the > > content. But the real point of CrowdAbout is conversation, and > > breaking the mass media walls down for good. Social Media should be > > social, right? > > > > Thanks again, Rupert, I left you some comment love in the Social > > player over at CrowdAbout, too. > > > > Carter > > http://crowdabout.us > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > Carter, > > > > > > I really like what you guys are doing with crowdabout.us. > > > > > > Have you thought about separating "Author comments" from user > > > comments, so that we can add links and extra description to stuff > > > that's happening, as it happens - and mark this as different from the > > > user comments - it might encourage more people to use it, because at > > > the moment "Comments" feels like it's something only users should do. > > > > > > What I REALLY want in the end from web video players is for the image > > > of whatever I'm showing to be clickable *within the video frame* at > > > the moment its shown, so that people can click it while it's on > > > screen and open a new browser tab with more info to read or watch > > > later - so that if I show the Peter Pan monument in Hyde Park > > > prominently in background of my video, people could click it JUST > > > LIKE I'D LET THEM CLICK THE WORDS "PETER PAN MONUMENT" FOR MORE INFO > > > IF I MENTIONED IT IN A *TEXT* BLOG DESCRIPTION OF MY DAY. > > > > > > Up til now, if you want people to know more about something you show > > > in a video, you have to either write about it in a big block of > > > "Video description" (essentially an adjacent text blog) or describe > > > it in voiceover and titles on the video itself. That's not exactly > > > harnessing the power of the web, is it? In blog/hyperlinking terms, > > > videoblogs are pretty inert, inflexible un-networked things. > > > > > > But doing all this in a time-based comments bar on crowdabout.us will > > > be good for me for now. A big step forward for video *blogging* in > > > my book, and a definite advantage over YouTube. Just got to figure > > > out how to make it work with my current set-up and feed. > > > > > > Did any of that make any sense?? > > > > > > Rupert > > > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org/ > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio/ > > > > > > > > > On 5 Mar 2007, at 04:15, caroosky wrote: > > > > > > Rupert, you nailed it. I have put videos up on YouTube in hopes of > > > attracting traffic to my vlog, but did it work? Heck no! I even got > > > a respectable 60,000+ views on one video in YouTube, but it > > > contributed approximately 5 or 6 new visits to my vlog. That's it. > > > > > > In a nutshell, YouTube is shallow. The whole mechanism of offering > > > "You might also like this" items is a game that only YouTube benefits > > > from, with bored people looking for the next thrill, clicking through > > > countless videos. If someone comments, it's usually no more than 8 or > > > 10 words (usually something like, "dude, wtf! UR waystin my time, > > > yo.") I realized, at the end of my own YouTube experiment that > > YouTube > > > was just using my content to fuel the machine. It wasn't about giving > > > me a place to showcase my work, or have meaningful dialogue with > > > engaged viewers. They just needed to put something new on the screen > > > every three minutes to keep the dumb suckers there and clicking. Talk > > > about wasting my time... > > > > > > Carter > > > http://crowdabout.us/baby > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I just took down all my videos on YouTube this week because they > > were > > > > making everything feel a bit unhappy and dirty. So this topical for > > > > me. Maybe it's about giving, not about receiving. With a blog, > > > > you're giving - but with YT and Myspace, you're giving to get > > > > something in return. > > > > > > > > This is just my own personal take on it, but I think Flickr is very > > > > different in tone and feel from YouTube and Myspace. (Apart from > > the > > > > fact that it does the job of showing and sharing albums of pictures > > > > really easily, in a way that is accessible to non-tech friends and > > > > family.) > > > > > > > > Something about the way YouTube makes it compulsory to show star > > > > ratings and number of views (and makes those things central) > > turns it > > > > into a competitive exercise that I don't like. It's not why I'm > > > > publishing videos (though I'm not sure I could say why I am). It's > > > > also doubtless what makes YouTube such a big hit, and why millions > > > > put videos online that way. > > > > > > > > These things encourage you to think about dumbing down your > > videos or > > > > making Mass Appeal films to get more viewers. I also think it > > > > seriously affects the mindset and spirit of the people who watch > > and > > > > comment - encourages attention deficit, carelessness and all those > > > > haters you see everywhere. The whole highschoolish popularity > > > > competition thing drives the new web, just as it drives so much in > > > > the real world, but it's not for me. I hated it even at school. > > > > Supposedly people have feeds and favourites on YouTube - but again, > > > > it all feels tempered by who's cool, who's hot, who's popular, and > > > > how we can all be more like them. > > > > > > > > I like having a videoblog (and having videos on Blip) because my > > > > videos are just there - take them or leave them. I don't have to be > > > > judged openly and disproportionately by somebody who doesn't get > > > > something I've posted, or appear worthless because I have so few > > > > viewers compared to the popular kids. And I don't have to fall prey > > > > to those moments of doubt, with a comment or a bad rating prompting > > > > me to wonder why I'm bothering if I'm not as 'successful' as > > > > everybody else. On my blog, i put a video out there and hope it > > > > makes someone somewhere smile a little, or react in whatever way. > > > > Occasionally someone will get in touch and say that they liked it. > > > > > > > > MySpace, again, feels like a cross between high school cliques and > > > > businessmen swapping cards - and doesn't really provide anything > > else > > > > that I want that I can't get from email, IM, groups, real world > > > > introductions, etc - and from having a blog. > > > > > > > > But Flickr's focus is different. > > > > > > > > In the end, the connections I've made with people through my blog, > > > > and occasionally through this forum, feel a thousand times more > > > > satisfying than any I've made in YT, Myspace, etc. And when I > > have a > > > > view via my site, or my feed, it feels more substantial and > > personal > > > > than just another thrill-seeking YouTuber clicking past a video and > > > > then clicking on to somewhere else in YouTube. > > > > > > > > Rupert > > > > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/fatgirlinohio/ > > > > > > > > On 5 Mar 2007, at 00:55, Peter Van Dijck wrote: > > > > > > > > I've always been interested in why young people prefer to post on > > > > youtube & myspace versus on their own (video)blog (for the > > > comments of > > > > course!) - in this group we seem to think having your own vlog is > > > much > > > > superior. > > > > > > > > But today I realized: my photos are on flickr, instead of having my > > > > own instance of some opensource script like Gallery - for the > > > > community aspect (and the superior functionality), so isn't that > > the > > > > same? > > > > > > > > Just a thought. > > > > P > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Find 10000s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com > > > > my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ > > > > my job: http://petervandijck.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
