subject:"\[videoblogging\] Google Video Revisited"




well first of all, the video and the video wrapper  are parallel.the wrapper can provide interactive functionality, some of which could be bloggy.possibly even embedding a web browser for bloggy stuff.  Ever make a Quicktime Skin?  
If I were to explain what something like this is to someone else, I'd say it was Interactive Video which has integrated blog, ecommerce, chat, xml channel browser, photo album and send to friend.what do you think?
sullOn 12/27/05, Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:> enhanced vodcastI guess what I'm talking about is putting the blog into the video.Can a blog be in a video?-Verdi Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM~->
Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 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/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Verdi


On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:

> enhanced vodcast

I guess what I'm talking about is putting the blog into the video.  
Can a blog be in a video?
-Verdi



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited




Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)I think you 're right!  did Adrian Miles do something like that yet?  
On 12/27/05, Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what do you call it if there is no blog, just a feed with videos,but the videos are interactive and among other things include linksto blog posts?-Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)
On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:> The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing> the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog> post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing
> audience that their is a new video and story posted.  Users follow> the permalink and watch the video on the web site.   The business> logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more
> important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic> to the site is maximized.  Revenue depends on it through> sponsor ads and the such.>> So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with
> enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media> attachments so aggregators can download them.> What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.>> What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.
>> As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.  Some dont have the> blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with> enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.> This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming
> more common.  They will have a regular web page and associate their> 'Channel' with it.  It makes sense for some projects and businesses.>> So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these
> scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch as  "Internet> Video" or "Internet TV" or even "IPTV" for that job.  Not 'vlog'.>> It's clear as day to me.
 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM~->Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 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/
-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited




enhanced vodcasthey, if CDs can be enhanced with interactive features, why not a vodcast ;-)On 12/27/05, Verdi <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:So what do you call it if there is no blog, just a feed with videos,
but the videos are interactive and among other things include linksto blog posts?-Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:> The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing
> the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog> post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing> audience that their is a new video and story posted.  Users follow> the permalink and watch the video on the web site.   The business
> logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more> important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic> to the site is maximized.  Revenue depends on it through> sponsor ads and the such.
>> So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with> enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media> attachments so aggregators can download them.> What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.
>> What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.>> As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.  Some dont have the> blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with> enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.
> This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming> more common.  They will have a regular web page and associate their> 'Channel' with it.  It makes sense for some projects and businesses.
>> So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these> scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch as  "Internet> Video" or "Internet TV" or even "IPTV" for that job.  Not 'vlog'.
>> It's clear as day to me. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM~->Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 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/
-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Verdi

So what do you call it if there is no blog, just a feed with videos,  
but the videos are interactive and among other things include links  
to blog posts?
-Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)

On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:

> The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing  
> the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog  
> post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing  
> audience that their is a new video and story posted.  Users follow  
> the permalink and watch the video on the web site.   The business  
> logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more  
> important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic  
> to the site is maximized.  Revenue depends on it through  
> sponsor ads and the such.
>
> So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with  
> enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media  
> attachments so aggregators can download them.
> What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.
>
> What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.
>
> As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.  Some dont have the  
> blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with  
> enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.
> This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming  
> more common.  They will have a regular web page and associate their  
> 'Channel' with it.  It makes sense for some projects and businesses.
>
> So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these  
> scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch as  "Internet  
> Video" or "Internet TV" or even "IPTV" for that job.  Not 'vlog'.
>
> It's clear as day to me.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Andreas Haugstrup

First things first: Michael Sullivan said what I wanted to say, 100%.

Steve, the only ammendment to what you wrote below is that the reciever  
has a lot more to say in digital media than in traditional media.

Thus while you create a videoblog - a good example of one, actually - your  
readers can transform that into what I label a video podcast (vodcast to  
Sullivan; just VOD if you want to be simple). It takes two sides to make a  
medium. Previously the reciever could just recieve. A tv program would  
always be a tv program because no one on the recieving end could change  
anything.

With digital media the reciever can change the medium because they have a  
larger degree of control. For example any reader can take your videoblog  
and transform it into a vodcast. They can take the video file out of it's  
blog and move it to a tv or an iPod. In that reading situation your  
videoblog is no longer a videoblog, but a vodcast.

Of course it's not a 1:1 transformation. The content changes (and the  
reception changes) - they are different media after all.

My simple point in all this has been that there exist two different media:  
videoblog and vodcast. And content which works well in one medium might  
not work well after being transformed into the other. My initial thesis is  
that traditional tv content works really well in vodcasting - and thus  
creators can learn a whole lot from tv production - while videoblogging is  
not suited for traditional tv content and requires new ways of "writing"  
and "reading". It's not something I've dug deep into as my focus has  
always been on videoblogging and not differences between videoblogging and  
vodcasting.

- Andreas

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:17:13 +0100, Steve Garfield  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> You just found someone.  I agree with Andreas.
>
> Here's my distinction between video blogging and video podcasting.
> Let's see if I can get at least one person to agree with me.  Andreas?
>
> RSS feeds that don't have an accessible Video blog, where you can watch
> a video, are not video blogs, they are just video podcasts.
>
> I'm starting to see web pages that have NO VIDEO on them.  They aren't
> even blogs.  Just static web pages. These pages require you to
> subscribe via iTunes to watch the videos. No blog there.  So it's not a
> videoblog, just a videopodcast.
>
> On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Michael Meiser wrote:
>
>> As for trying to separate vlogging from video podcasting... absurd...
>> no two people would ever agree to some distinction or even that they
>> are different.
>
> --Steve

-- 
http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Richard Bennett-Forrest

>It's clear as day to me.

I guess it depends upon the weather...



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited




right.M. Meiser, you seem to be making sense but only from an anarchist's point of view... those who are less interested in these distinctions and could be happy with shuffling terminology all around their vocab in relation to this topic.  This is fine and dandy This discussion is less about how it can be feasible to 
intermix.and apply "vlog" to this and that all all the in betweens.  There is no stopping loose usage.  I'm not even trying to police it.  I'm just saying... as are Andreas and Steve, that their are indeed distinctions clear ones.  And most importantly, i see zero risk and degrade by talking about these distinctions... as they can lead to more clarification to the familiar 'parts' of digital media distribution on the internet.
Books are being written... curriculums are being formed Tutorials are being molded.It helps a great to deal to use accurate language to convey each and the sum of all parts.It's not necessary.  People in the end choose to adopt and adapt language the way they want.
But for those interested and willing to offer structural descriptions and distinctions now, it helps mold the language into a more manageable state.  Saying 'vlog' is many many things, even if the 'log' part is missing is counter-productive in this discussion.  
Also, i'd like to add a minor ammendment to my last stated argument.  This will cover those who think a blog must have RSS to be a blog hence a videoblog must have RSS, something i disagree with but here is another fact:
Fictional Example:HotVideoNews, Inc is a web log (blog) that includes video created by independent/amateur video journalists.  They use Wordpress and have all the bloggy features enabled.  They attach, link to and/or embed video in their blog posts.  They also have an RSS feed.  
Does this sound like a videoblog?The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing audience that their is a new video and story posted.  Users follow the permalink and watch the video on the web site.   The business logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic to the site is maximized.  Revenue depends on it through sponsor ads and the such.  
So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media attachments so aggregators can download them.  What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.  
What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.  Some dont have the blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.
This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming more common.  They will have a regular web page and associate their 'Channel' with it.  It makes sense for some projects and businesses.So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch as  "Internet Video" or "Internet TV" or even "IPTV" for that job.  Not 'vlog'. 
It's clear as day to me.sull On 12/27/05, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Hi Michael,You just found someone.  I agree with Andreas.
Here's my distinction between video blogging and video podcasting.Let's see if I can get at least one person to agree with me.  Andreas?RSS feeds that don't have an accessible Video blog, where you can watch
a video, are not video blogs, they are just video podcasts.I'm starting to see web pages that have NO VIDEO on them.  They aren'teven blogs.  Just static web pages. These pages require you tosubscribe via iTunes to watch the videos. No blog there.  So it's not a
videoblog, just a videopodcast.On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Michael Meiser wrote:> As for trying to separate vlogging from video podcasting... absurd...> no two people would ever agree to some distinction or even that they
> are different.--Steve--Home Page - http://stevegarfield.com"The Instapundit of vlogging, without the right-wing politics!" - ChuckOlsen
 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM~->Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 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/
-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http:

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Steve Garfield

Hi Michael,

You just found someone.  I agree with Andreas.

Here's my distinction between video blogging and video podcasting.  
Let's see if I can get at least one person to agree with me.  Andreas?

RSS feeds that don't have an accessible Video blog, where you can watch 
a video, are not video blogs, they are just video podcasts.

I'm starting to see web pages that have NO VIDEO on them.  They aren't 
even blogs.  Just static web pages. These pages require you to 
subscribe via iTunes to watch the videos. No blog there.  So it's not a 
videoblog, just a videopodcast.

On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Michael Meiser wrote:

> As for trying to separate vlogging from video podcasting... absurd...
> no two people would ever agree to some distinction or even that they
> are different.

--Steve
-- 
Home Page - http://stevegarfield.com
"The Instapundit of vlogging, without the right-wing politics!" - Chuck 
Olsen

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-26 Thread Michael Meiser

> On Dec 24, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
> We're speaking past eachother, I think. There are two kinds of
> "videoblogging" - for the sake of the argument we can call one
> videoblogging and the other video podcasting.
>
> The first includes aspects of the blog. It's a remediation of the  
> blog and
> tv (among others). Think McLuhan. The latter is a transparent  
> remediation
> of tv. It's faithful to tv.

I've got to say... this is like saying there are two types of people  
and labeling them... it's going to be flame bait... There are in fact  
all crazy manner of video blog... the only thing that marks them is a  
basic continuity of videos posted through a blog-like structure in  
reverse chronological order, newest first... wether done ONLY in  
RSS... done with rich text posts or not... done with permalinks or  
not... comments enabled or not... trackbacks or not... with RSS or  
not... even just RSS without even a web page... makes little  
difference to wether it's a vlog or not. THey're all vlogs.

Now I would point out things like permalinks, time stamps,  
trackbacks, comments, RSS feeds... an actual web page and a thousand  
little other things are VERY important... and you'd have to be rather  
stupid to rule out to many of them as it will make you vlog less  
useful... perhaps even useless... But vlogging is only defined by  
it's core competency.

As for trying to separate vlogging from video podcasting... absurd...  
no two people would ever agree to some distinction or even that they  
are different.

So let's forgo all the definition crap and talk specifically about  
the way people use vlogs... that's what we're talking about... you  
don't need to give something a label to explore it... especially when  
there's thousands of ways to vlog... these are not finite things,  
they are infinite things.

So perhaps it would be better to say... "two of the most interesting  
approaches I see are that of those who view vlogging as another  
broadcast mechanism like TV... and those who coming from the world of  
blogging approach it as communications..." if I am correct and that  
is what you're trying to say.
> The difference is easiest to see in reading patterns. Videoblogging  
> are
> read like blogs, they are small pieces loosely joined (by the  
> reader). The
> latter is read like tv, one at the time. Seperated, passively.

While I agree that there are some interesting and important  
observations... I disagree that a) there are only two, and b) they  
are mutually exclusive experiences.

a) People can and do watch vlogs in infinite ways... on the subway  
with their ipod... on TV... in fireant, dtv, itunes... browsing the  
vlogs...   the experiences are infinite

b) as such vlogs can and are used from one case to the next for both  
passive AND active viewing... case in point I might watch my vlogs  
passively on TV and when something catches my eye pull up the post on  
my laptop and actively read it and comment on it.

It's the intermix that makes it interesting. Embrace the anarchy...  
don't bring your preset notions to the table... be like a child, be  
open minded... learn to play and see what the media teaches you...  
learn... This does not mean go without critique... it just means  
understand that your observations and perspectives are finite and be  
open to other possibilities...  Case in point I use gmail and  
mail.app... sometimes even thunderbird... they do different things  
for me... I also use NetNewsWire and Shrook, itunes, DTV, FireANT,  
and my ipod... they've not only made my experiences with vlogging and  
blogging more rewarding..  but most importantly they've created the  
"space" with which i can engage these things at my will... NONE is  
right... all are right... there is no perfect or ideal experience.

> Read this for an intermission  http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog/archives/2005/12/24/tv-killed- 
> voggings-star/
>>
>
> When I say embedded video gives the best reading experience for web  
> video,
> I am talking about videoblogging. A blog entry is *not* the frames  
> that
> make up the video. It is also the surrounding blog post, the  
> comments, the
> title, the sidebar, the entire network around it (inbound and outbound
> links). That is what makes blogging different from old media. When you
> take the video and move it to an iPod it may be the same frames,  
> but it is
> not the same Work - it is the same video, but a new media and  
> different
> content.

If so then vlogging is a thousand different mediums. I think your  
terminology is incorrect. These are in fact called in the world of IA  
(information architecture) facets. Basically there is no ONE correct  
way of viewing something... each perspective has it's own benefits  
and it's own inherent set of rules.  It's used primarily for study of  
classification. You can see an example of facets on Mefeedia's tags  
page: http://mefeedia.com/tags/  Though... admitte

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-26 Thread Michael Meiser

Deidre, there's all sorts of ways one might link be viewing your videos outside of a software based aggregator even if they're not visual links in the page. To start with Mefeedia will make those visible... but far more importantly... if you are using feedburner... all the mRSS information would be handed off to Yahoo video search... I get crazy amounts of traffic from yahoo video search. It makes no difference wether the video is simply a hidden enclusure or a visible link to such intermediaries.-MikeOn Dec 24, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Representative or not, the actual statistics may tell us something. I have one video (so far) that is available in the three formats under discussion:M4V - viewed in iTunes, but also by some feed readers/aggregators. SWF - viewable in some feed readers/aggregators.NB: For this particular video (carols), neither the the M4V nor the SWF is linked from anywhere on the site except my RSS feed, so presumably all views of these are coming through readers of some sort. And FeedBurner doesn't nearly cover this number, because many people are subscribed directly to my original feed on my site (trying to shift everything to FeedBurner, that will take time). Which video is picked up by which aggregator and why is a mystery to me. FireANT shows both, some show one or the other randomly for no reason that I can figure out.FLV - viewable (as far as I understand) only on the web page < http://beginningwithi.com/vlog/051204.html> where the player is also available. I ran an Analog report from Dec 9th (when these files were posted) to today. Here are the rsesults: 225 8.49% 24/Dec/05 00:27 /video/carols.m4v127 24/Dec/05 00:03 http://www.beginningwithi.com/video/carols.m4v (I have two domain names right now) -352 total m4vs155 7.46% 23/Dec/05 19:45 /video/carols.flv28 1.35% 23/Dec/05 05:25 /video/carols.swfSo, Josh is right: FLV is viewed on the page more than SWFs are downloaded/viewed in aggregators. But M4V whips the pants off both. I would really LOVE for Apple to be giving us all some stats from iTunes... It is worth noting that, over this same period, 3679 SWFs in total were viewed, one way or another, vs 1209 views of other types of video on my site (M4V, MOV, MP4, and WMV). I will have to look more closely at the details to see how significant this is, however, as about half of my videos only exist in SWF (I started doing M4Vs in October, and use WMVs only for special purposes which require high quality). Michael, I don't think I qualify as an A-list blogger, but thanks for the compliment of saying so!-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work) YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Ronen




On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to install
Quicktime. Quicktime comes bundled with iTunes.  If that's considered a wide enough compatability reach for abc, it should be for anybody.  (At least anybody picking a single video format.)
My only problem with QT is that you have to pay for full-screen, instead of the now-standard 'double-click'.


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

We're speaking past eachother, I think. There are two kinds of  
"videoblogging" - for the sake of the argument we can call one  
videoblogging and the other video podcasting.

The first includes aspects of the blog. It's a remediation of the blog and  
tv (among others). Think McLuhan. The latter is a transparent remediation  
of tv. It's faithful to tv.

The difference is easiest to see in reading patterns. Videoblogging are  
read like blogs, they are small pieces loosely joined (by the reader). The  
latter is read like tv, one at the time. Seperated, passively.

Read this for an intermission http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog/archives/2005/12/24/tv-killed-voggings-star/  
>

When I say embedded video gives the best reading experience for web video,  
I am talking about videoblogging. A blog entry is *not* the frames that  
make up the video. It is also the surrounding blog post, the comments, the  
title, the sidebar, the entire network around it (inbound and outbound  
links). That is what makes blogging different from old media. When you  
take the video and move it to an iPod it may be the same frames, but it is  
not the same Work - it is the same video, but a new media and different  
content.

I make videoblogging, and my personaly interest is videoblogging. Content  
that works well in a videoblogging setting is different from content that  
works well in a video podcasting setting. Just as there is content which  
works better on tv than in radio (a boxing match comes to mind). Thinking  
they're the same is naive.

- Andreas

PS. Did evilvlog begin censoring itself?

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:33:34 +0100, Michael Meiser  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Andreas, I understand your perspective, and respect and find your
> methods interesting, but there's thousands and thousands of people
> who disagree with your idea of best practices.
>
> Alternatively... I think getting all my vlogs automatically
> downloaded and synced to my video ipod is the best thing ever. I
> watch them on my TV while working on my laptop, and through mefeedia
> am able to easily work, or if I see something interesting... quickly
> find the original post and follow up on it. The disconnect that I
> thought would happen do to putting videos on TV has NOT happened in
> fact... I find i can comment and follow more vlogs. If I miss
> something I just hit the pause button or rewind on the iPod... if I
> am bored with a clip I skip it...  All the while I can follow along
> on mefeedia on my laptop... tagging things, marking favorites...
> following up on links from Steve G.'s Vlog soup.. or rocketboom's
> links.  All we need to do in my opinion is make it even easier to
> follow along through mefeedia with what's happening on the TV by
> improving our web based queue and our RSS queue which plays back
> through the video ipod.
>
> Finally, I also like embedded flash for in browser play back, as
> probably does Jay.. that's not the problem... the problem is when
> there is NO alternative link. It drives me up the wall. How can I
> download it... how can I rip it to my ipod, how can I share it with a
> friend... No this sort of flash playback is not going away... but
> video blogging is at least putting a serious dampner on DRM'd and
> locked down files like this and encouraging more openess and
> portability... which means more flexibility, increased accessibility,
> and enhanced useability.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:42:08 +0100, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
>> i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
>> all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
>> to web pages to watch Flash videos.
>
> Embedded video is the best viewing experience for web video. It won't go
> away. For blog entries that mixes video with other forms (text, images)
> embedded video is much nicer. And it actually fits into the web context.
>
> I've never downloaded a video through subscription. I will start once I
> find videos I watch like a watch tv... passively. When I find videos
> where
> I don't want to (or can't) be a part of a dialogue around the videos.
>
> I use RSS to be notified if a blog has updated. It's great for that.
>
> - Andreas

-- 
http://www.solitude.dk/>
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Joshua Kinberg

Umm... then you need lots of little samples as opposed to a single
large sample to notice any trends.

-Josh


On 12/24/05, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  generally speaking, large sample sizes are *not* required in order for the
> sample to be representative
>
>  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Deirdre Straughan wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
> > gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?
>
>
>  Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky.
>
>  A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared
> to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same
> video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general
> Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but
> "ordinary folks" looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly),
> rather than searching within the general category "videoblogs".
> Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my
> viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully
> viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the
> folks who ask about Flash in this group.
>
>  As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail,
> so I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger than
> yours." My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it -
> that's good enough for me.
>
>  --
>  best regards,
>  Deirdré Straughan
>
>  www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
>  www.tvblob.com (work)
>
>  --
>
> My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
>
> http://apperceptions.org
> http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
> http://node101.org
> http://spinflow.org
> http://wearethemedia.com
> http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com
>
> aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skype: msandy
> spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Joshua Kinberg

for the record, I'm not trying to get into a competition regarding web
traffic between one site or another. But yes, I do believe that
general statements of trends based on statistics should be qualified
by a representative sample size. If I say 50% of my viewers prefer X,
and I'm talking 10 out of 20 people, and I know all 20 people because
they're my friends, then those stats may or may not be indicitive of
any larger trends outside of those 20 people. There is not enough data
to make any real claim on anything, and there is certainly no control
group to offset any oddities that pertain to the particular sample
group.

This is statistics 101...

-Josh


On 12/24/05, Michael Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I'mm apparently missing half the conversation but... what the heck is
> FireANT's traffic rpresentative to in comparison to iTunes... and next too
> google... really all of us are insignificant...  But google would never
> say... what's the significance of my tiny little site ... when someone does
> a search for "michael meiser" I'm more than significant enough, in fact I'm
> the omnipitent mast of my domain bitches. :)
>
> This is like rocketboom pissing on other vlogs, not that they have... in the
> big picture the difference between a rocketboom and a Dierdre Straighan
> isn't really a difference at all.. their both pretty long tail. What's
> important is in aggregate we're begining to be one significant as mother
> fucking aspect of media much like open source software and the blogs
> that have come before us.
>
> So, this sounds like an a-list blogger pissing contest.  BTW, on a related
> note Crooks and Liars trounced Rocketboom in the webbys.  I don't know if
> you follow Crooks and Liars, but if you do you should ask yourself what's
> significant. Rocketboom is representative of me... Dierdre's website is
> representitive of me and that's all I give a crap about. It's the first
> visitor that matters and that's me.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d9s56
>
> original url.
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=2y&size=large&compare_sites=rocketboom.com&y=r&url=http%3A//www.crooksandliars.com/
>
>
>
> On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
> > gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?
>
>
> Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky.
>
> A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared
> to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same
> video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general
> Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but
> "ordinary folks" looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly),
> rather than searching within the general category "videoblogs".
> Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my
> viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully
> viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the
> folks who ask about Flash in this group.
>
> As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so
> I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger than yours."
> My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good
> enough for me.
>
> --
> best regards,
> Deirdré Straughan
>
> www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
> www.tvblob.com (work)
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Deirdre Straughan

Representative or not, the actual statistics may tell us something. I have one video (so far) that is available in the three formats under discussion:M4V - viewed in iTunes, but also by some feed readers/aggregators.
SWF - viewable in some feed readers/aggregators.NB: For this particular video (carols), neither the the M4V nor the SWF is linked from anywhere on the site except my RSS feed, so presumably all views of these are coming through readers of some sort. And FeedBurner doesn't nearly cover this number, because many people are subscribed directly to my original feed on my site (trying to shift everything to FeedBurner, that will take time).
Which video is picked up by which aggregator and why is a mystery to me. FireANT shows both, some show one or the other randomly for no reason that I can figure out.FLV - viewable (as far as I understand) only on the web page <
http://beginningwithi.com/vlog/051204.html> where the player is also available. I ran an Analog report from Dec 9th (when these files were posted) to today. Here are the rsesults:
225 8.49% 24/Dec/05 00:27 /video/carols.m4v127 24/Dec/05 00:03 http://www.beginningwithi.com/video/carols.m4v (I have two domain names right now)
-352 total m4vs155 7.46% 23/Dec/05 19:45 /video/carols.flv28 1.35% 23/Dec/05 05:25 /video/carols.swfSo, Josh is right: FLV is viewed on the page more than SWFs are downloaded/viewed in aggregators. But M4V whips the pants off both. I would really LOVE for Apple to be giving us all some stats from iTunes...
It is worth noting that, over this same period, 3679 SWFs in total were viewed, one way or another, vs 1209 views of other types of video on my site (M4V, MOV, MP4, and WMV). I will have to look more closely at the details to see how significant this is, however, as about half of my videos only exist in SWF (I started doing M4Vs in October, and use WMVs only for special purposes which require high quality).
Michael, I don't think I qualify as an A-list blogger, but thanks for the compliment of saying so!-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com
(personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Markus Sandy









generally speaking, large sample sizes are *not* required in order for
the sample to be representative

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers






Deirdre Straughan wrote:

  
  On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?
  
  
  
Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky. 
  
A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be
compared to itself via relative number of downloads of different
formats of the same video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE
representative of the general Internet population since my viewers are
mostly NOT videobloggers but "ordinary folks" looking for material
about specific topics (Italy, mostly), rather than searching within the
general category "videoblogs". Videobloggers tend to have every
possible video codec installed already; my viewers probably don't. So
the fact that they seem to be successfully viewing Flash on my site
does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the folks who ask about
Flash in this group. 
  
As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long
tail, so I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger
than yours." My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with
it - that's good enough for me.
  
  
-- 
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan
  
  www.beginningwithi.com
(personal)
  www.tvblob.com (work)



-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://node101.org
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Michael Meiser

I'mm apparently missing half the conversation but... what the heck is FireANT's traffic rpresentative to in comparison to iTunes... and next too google... really all of us are insignificant... But google would never say... what's the significance of my tiny little site ... when someone does a search for "michael meiser" I'm more than significant enough, in fact I'm the omnipitent mast of my domain bitches. :)This is like rocketboom pissing on other vlogs, not that they have... in the big picture the difference between a rocketboom and a Dierdre Straighan isn't really a difference at all.. their both pretty long tail. What's important is in aggregate we're begining to be one significant as mother fucking aspect of media much like open source software and the blogs that have come before us.So, this sounds like an a-list blogger pissing contest. BTW, on a related note Crooks and Liars trounced Rocketboom in the webbys. I don't know if you follow Crooks and Liars, but if you do you should ask yourself what's significant. Rocketboom is representative of me... Dierdre's website is representitive of me and that's all I give a crap about. It's the first visitor that matters and that's me.http://tinyurl.com/d9s56original url.http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=2y&size=large&compare_sites=rocketboom.com&y=r&url="">On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your sitegets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky. A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but "ordinary folks" looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly), rather than searching within the general category "videoblogs". Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the folks who ask about Flash in this group. As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger than yours." My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good enough for me. -- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work) YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Joshua Kinberg

I'm not trying to get into a web traffic pissing contest, but when
people qualify their stats with percentages and make inferences as to
some kind of larger trend, then it helps to know the sample size we're
talking about and whether or not its statistically significant.

-josh


On 12/24/05, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
> > gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?
>
>
> Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky.
>
> A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared
> to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same
> video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general
> Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but
> "ordinary folks" looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly),
> rather than searching within the general category "videoblogs".
> Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my
> viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully
> viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the
> folks who ask about Flash in this group.
>
> As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so
> I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger than yours."
> My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good
> enough for me.
>
> --
>
> best regards,
> Deirdré Straughan
>
> www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
> www.tvblob.com (work)
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>  
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Deirdre Straughan

On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your sitegets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky. A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but "ordinary folks" looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly), rather than searching within the general category "videoblogs". Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the folks who ask about Flash in this group.
As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger than yours." My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good enough for me.
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

they are other very early implementations of podcatchers. They do not
play media... just downoad managers for RSS enclosures with
synchronization to iTunes.

-Josh


On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm noy farmiliar with nimiqs and juice. What the heck are they?
>
> On Dec 23, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:
>
> > so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely
> > useful and always will be.
> > i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the
> > other... it depends on the audience.
>
> Ummm... yeah, there's a huge distinction there. Nimiq and Juice do not
> play video. They certainly do not play any type of video (QT, WMV,
> SWF, Real, etc.).
>
> -josh
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
> >> videos for local playback.
> >
> >
> > thats a hard fact.  no doubt.
> >
> >
> >>  Its nice to be able to play videos when offline
> >>
> >
> > yup.  except who here is ever offline?  LOL
> >
> >
> >> I'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy
> >> this sort of
> >> freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
> >> without siginifcant latency
> >
> >
> > yes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i
> > dont have problems playing video via the web.  so i just dont think
> > this reason has that much punch.  my online experiences feel like
> > offline experiences give or take a video once in a while from
> > the archive.org :(  used to be worse... they are getting better.
> >
> > earlier, i described the different types of internet video
> > consumers... many are like you and others here and many are so
> > totally not.  they enjoy watching videoblogs but they can be
> > just as satisifed with an experience that is web based getting
> > a vlog via email or browsing a directory during a work break...
> > watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not catching up
> > on 70 RSS channels.   Me... I am a little bit of both.  some days,
> > i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10
> > sporatically during the day.  I think the growing audience of
> > Internet Video will be mostly this type
> >
> > videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV
> > etc is a branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that.
> >
> > so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely
> > useful and always will be.
> > i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the
> > other... it depends on the audience.
> >
> > sull
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
> >> syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet
> >> play
> >> FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.
> >>
> >> I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
> >> videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
> >> want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
> >> the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based
> >> aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice
> >> to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
> >> with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to
> >> skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing
> >> with local files... its not about "lean back" for me. I'm always
> >>  clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
> >> freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
> >> without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
> >> happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
> >> experience).
> >>
> >> However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they
> >> do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
> >> have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
> >> portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance
> >> YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
> >> part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people
> >> using
> >> Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
> >> upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
> >> still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
> >> involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
> >> both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not
> >> fond of
> >> the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file
> >> is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may
> >> be a core component of their business strategy.
> >>
> >> The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be eas

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

I'm noy farmiliar with nimiqs and juice. What the heck are they?

On Dec 23, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

> so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely  
> useful and always will be.
> i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the  
> other... it depends on the audience.

Ummm... yeah, there's a huge distinction there. Nimiq and Juice do not
play video. They certainly do not play any type of video (QT, WMV,
SWF, Real, etc.).

-josh


On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
>> videos for local playback.
>
>
> thats a hard fact.  no doubt.
>
>
>>  Its nice to be able to play videos when offline
>>
>
> yup.  except who here is ever offline?  LOL
>
>
>> I'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy  
>> this sort of
>> freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web  
>> without siginifcant latency
>
>
> yes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i  
> dont have problems playing video via the web.  so i just dont think  
> this reason has that much punch.  my online experiences feel like  
> offline experiences give or take a video once in a while from  
> the archive.org :(  used to be worse... they are getting better.
>
> earlier, i described the different types of internet video  
> consumers... many are like you and others here and many are so  
> totally not.  they enjoy watching videoblogs but they can be  
> just as satisifed with an experience that is web based getting  
> a vlog via email or browsing a directory during a work break...  
> watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not catching up  
> on 70 RSS channels.   Me... I am a little bit of both.  some days,  
> i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10  
> sporatically during the day.  I think the growing audience of  
> Internet Video will be mostly this type
>
> videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV  
> etc is a branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that.
>
> so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely  
> useful and always will be.
> i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the  
> other... it depends on the audience.
>
> sull
>
>
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
>> syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet  
>> play
>> FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.
>>
>> I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
>> videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
>> want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
>> the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based
>> aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice
>> to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
>> with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to
>> skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing
>> with local files... its not about "lean back" for me. I'm always
>>  clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
>> freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
>> without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
>> happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
>> experience).
>>
>> However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they
>> do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
>> have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
>> portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance
>> YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
>> part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people  
>> using
>> Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
>> upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
>> still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
>> involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
>> both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not  
>> fond of
>> the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file
>> is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may
>> be a core component of their business strategy.
>>
>> The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
>> prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised  
>> that
>> Google made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process so
>> that I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm  
>> sure
>>  they do not want people to know about this loophole if they  
>> intend to
>> get mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (these

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited




true but if you click on the videos, they play ;-)just launches the media players you already have installed.On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and always will be.
> i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it depends on the audience.Ummm... yeah, there's a huge distinction there. Nimiq and Juice do notplay video. They certainly do not play any type of video (QT, WMV,
SWF, Real, etc.).-joshOn 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
> > videos for local playback.>>> thats a hard fact.  no doubt.>>> >  Its nice to be able to play videos when offline> >>> yup.  except who here is ever offline?  LOL
>>> > I'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of> > freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web without siginifcant latency>
>> yes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i dont have problems playing video via the web.  so i just dont think this reason has that much punch.  my online experiences feel like offline experiences give or take a video once in a while from the 
archive.org :(  used to be worse... they are getting better.>> earlier, i described the different types of internet video consumers... many are like you and others here and many are so totally not.  they enjoy watching videoblogs but they can be just as satisifed with an experience that is web based getting a vlog via email or browsing a directory during a work break... watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not catching up on 70 RSS channels.   Me... I am a little bit of both.  some days, i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10 sporatically during the day.  I think the growing audience of Internet Video will be mostly this type
>> videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV etc is a branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that.>> so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and always will be.
> i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it depends on the audience.>> sull> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg  <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> > FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is> > syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet play> > FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.
> >> > I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache> > videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you> > want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
> > the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based> > aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice> > to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
> > with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to> > skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing> > with local files... its not about "lean back" for me. I'm always
> >  clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of> > freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web> > without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
> > happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back> > experience).> >> > However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they> > do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
> > have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF> > portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance> > YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
> > part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people using> > Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather> > upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
> > still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps> > involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is> > both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
> > the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file> > is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may> > be a core component of their business strategy.
> >> > The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily> > prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised that> > Google made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process so
> > that I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure> >  they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend to> > get mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (these
> > content owners would cringe at the thought of people potentially> > download

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

> so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and 
> always will be.
> i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it 
> depends on the audience.

Ummm... yeah, there's a huge distinction there. Nimiq and Juice do not
play video. They certainly do not play any type of video (QT, WMV,
SWF, Real, etc.).

-josh


On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
> > videos for local playback.
>
>
> thats a hard fact.  no doubt.
>
>
> >  Its nice to be able to play videos when offline
> >
>
> yup.  except who here is ever offline?  LOL
>
>
> > I'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort 
> > of
> > freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web without 
> > siginifcant latency
>
>
> yes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i dont have 
> problems playing video via the web.  so i just dont think this reason has 
> that much punch.  my online experiences feel like offline experiences 
> give or take a video once in a while from the archive.org :(  used to be 
> worse... they are getting better.
>
> earlier, i described the different types of internet video consumers... many 
> are like you and others here and many are so totally not.  they enjoy 
> watching videoblogs but they can be just as satisifed with an experience 
> that is web based getting a vlog via email or browsing a directory during 
> a work break... watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not 
> catching up on 70 RSS channels.   Me... I am a little bit of both.  some 
> days, i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10 
> sporatically during the day.  I think the growing audience of Internet Video 
> will be mostly this type
>
> videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV etc is a 
> branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that.
>
> so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and 
> always will be.
> i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it 
> depends on the audience.
>
> sull
>
>
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
> > syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet play
> > FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.
> >
> > I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
> > videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
> > want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
> > the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based
> > aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice
> > to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
> > with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to
> > skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing
> > with local files... its not about "lean back" for me. I'm always
> >  clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
> > freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
> > without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
> > happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
> > experience).
> >
> > However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they
> > do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
> > have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
> > portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance
> > YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
> > part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people using
> > Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
> > upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
> > still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
> > involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
> > both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
> > the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file
> > is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may
> > be a core component of their business strategy.
> >
> > The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
> > prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised that
> > Google made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process so
> > that I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure
> >  they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend to
> > get mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (these
> > content owners would cringe at the thought of people potentially
> > downloading, remixing, redistributing their conte

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cachevideos for local playback.
thats a hard fact. no doubt. Its nice to be able to play videos when offline
yup. except who here is ever offline? LOLI'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web without siginifcant latencyyes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i dont have problems playing video via the web. so i just dont think this reason has that much punch. my online experiences feel like offline experiences give or take a video once in a while from the
archive.org :( used to be worse... they are getting better. earlier, i described the different types of internet video consumers... many are like you and others here and many are so totally not. they enjoy watching videoblogs but they can be just as satisifed with an experience that is web based getting a vlog via email or browsing a directory during a work break... watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not catching up on 70 RSS channels. Me... I am a little bit of both. some days, i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10 sporatically during the day. I think the growing audience of Internet Video will be mostly this type
videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV etc is a branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that. so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and always will be.
i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it depends on the audience.sullOn 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet playFLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cachevideos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... justthe same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web basedaggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its niceto be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier toskip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealingwith local files... its not about "lean back" for me. I'm always
clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort offreedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the webwithout siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (Ihappen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
experience).However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because theydo not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps theyhave some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instanceYouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are notpart of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people usingFlash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well isstill rather difficult for the individual, there are many stepsinvolved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which isboth expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the fileis downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which maybe a core component of their business strategy.The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised thatGoogle made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process sothat I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure
they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend toget mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (thesecontent owners would cringe at the thought of people potentiallydownloading, remixing, redistributing their content). If they wanted
to make it easy for people to download, Google could have provided asimple download link, but instead I took the time to do a littlehacking with a Greasemonkey script:<
http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php >This type of hack is not always available with Flash Video. TheYouTube hack relies on another method, which again is a loophole that
YouTube could close if they wanted to (and I'm sure they do want tobased on some of my discussions with them, they probably just haven'tseen the Greasemonkey script yet). I've looked at Brightcove videoplayers and have not yet found a method to download the video files.
This is certainly by design -- the Brightcove player is an entireFlash application, not a vi

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

The biggest problem with people "not being able to see" Quicktime is
not that they do not have Quicktime installed, but rather they are
probably using Internet Explorer which will not Fast-Start Quicktime
unless the video is embedded in an HTML page, otherwise IE will wait
till the entire video downloads before it shows anything. This is a
problem for videobloggers who simply link directly to the video file
as the FreeVlog tutorials suggest.

Instead of direct linking to the video file, I suggest using a popup
window with the video embedded. This is why I wrote a code generator
to do that:
< http://joshkinberg.com/popupmaker >

This method creates a popup window with the video embedded while still
preserving the direct link to the video file in HTML so that
FeedBurner and other enclosure-creation services will continue to
work.

As a side note, Rocketboom uses embedded Quicktime player every day
and has never had people complain that they can't see it because they
don't have Quicktime (of course, RB also provides alternative WMV just
in case, and some Windows users prefer that)

Now, when it comes to Quicktime H.264 videos, the viewer does need to
have the latest version of Quicktime installed... but that's no
different than the latest version of Flash Video which uses a new
codec only compatible with Flash 8.

> I wouldn't have thought so, but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime
> (in FireFox), there were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play -
> HumanDog was one, to my great frustration. With the new 1.5 version of
> Firefox it seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that
> crashed the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video.

I am on Windows using Firefox. I have Quicktime installed. I have no
problem viewing Human-Dog's videos. I have not experienced the
problems you are referring to.

> From what I can tell, a lot more people are viewing my SWF files in whatever
> aggregator than are viewing the FLV files directly on my site. So I don't
> see what the problem is?

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?


-Josh

On 12/23/05, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (to do Flash Video well is
> > still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
> > involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
> > both expensive and confusing).
>
> I'm hardly proficient in Flash. I have the full software (got it at a
> bargain price), but have hardly used it. I got Sorenson Squeeze instead
> which is a lot easier.
>
> Thanks to something you said in here a week or so ago, I'm now using the
> lovely Flash player by Jeroen Wijering. This involves a bit more fiddling -
> it wouldn't be hard for someone more proficient than I to take his player a
> step further towards user-friendliness. 
>
> FWIW, I have rarely if ever had anyone say they couldn't see/play my videos.
> And I have had several compliments from people who really like the way it
> looks on the page.
>
> > I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to install
> > Quicktime. Its just as hard to install the latest Flash Player plugin
> > if that's the case (the newest Flash Video requires version 8 of the
> > Flash plugin). If you are dealing with some sort of corporate blockage
> > when it comes to installing programs, then you won't be able to
> > install Flash plugin either.
>
>
> I wouldn't have thought so, but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime
> (in FireFox), there were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play -
> HumanDog was one, to my great frustration. With the new 1.5 version of
> Firefox it seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that
> crashed the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video.
>
> OTOH, I've never had a problem with Flash. YMMV.
>
>
> > All in all I have no problem with Flash Video. I do think however that
> > it is more often used to restrict the freedom of the viewer and
> > control the experience from the point of view of the service provider
> > (which may not be the same as the content creator) rather than to
> > enhance the experience for the viewer. If I want to download and view
> > the video later why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to put it on an
> > iPod, why can't I? If I want to aggregate it with other videos so that
> > I can view things in offline and skip around seemlessly, why not?
>
> From what I can tell, a lot more people are viewing my SWF files in whatever
> aggregator than are viewing the FLV files directly on my site. So I don't
> see what the problem is?
>
>
> --
> best regards,
> Deirdré Straughan
>
> www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
> www.tvblob.com (work)
>
>  
>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an ema

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime (in FireFox), there
were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play - HumanDog was
one, to my great frustration. With the new 1.5 version of Firefox it
seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that crashed
the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video.sadly, i too have had firefox 1.5 crashes in relation to quicktime... and some nightmares getting the two to jive. very annoyed, since i am a big firefox and quicktime user.
On 12/23/05, Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to installQuicktime. Its just as hard to install the latest Flash Player pluginif that's the case (the newest Flash Video requires version 8 of theFlash plugin). If you are dealing with some sort of corporate blockage
when it comes to installing programs, then you won't be able toinstall Flash plugin either.I wouldn't have thought so, but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime (in FireFox), there were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play - HumanDog was one, to my great frustration. With the new
1.5 version of Firefox it seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that crashed the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video. OTOH, I've never had a problem with Flash. YMMV.

All in all I have no problem with Flash Video. I do think however thatit is more often used to restrict the freedom of the viewer and
control the experience from the point of view of the service provider(which may not be the same as the content creator) rather than toenhance the experience for the viewer. If I want to download and viewthe video later why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to put it on an
iPod, why can't I? If I want to aggregate it with other videos so thatI can view things in offline and skip around seemlessly, why not?From what I can tell, a lot more people are viewing my SWF files in whatever aggregator than are viewing the FLV files directly on my site. So I don't see what the problem is?
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com
(personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.

-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited




How much remixing is really going on, though?enough, or not enough.. i dont know.  i do know that remixing continues to increase every day.
its a cultureal thing.  i personally would be remixing a ton if i had more time to do any video work.  2006 will be my video making year ;-) 2005 was me geeking the vlog.but, i have expressed here my change of heart towards flash video.  
this has to do with the new improved codec, better and free flv players and xml usage and better and free flv transcoders.  i now accept flv as worthy format within the vlog culture whereas earlier in the year i totally denied it.  
i still would never strictly use flash and not offer other formats... just no logic to that in the  world we play in.sullOn 12/23/05, 
Deirdre Straughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:



flash video has grown on me.  i used to spit on it in relation to videoblogging/vodcasting. the one gripe that still prevails is that you cant remix it so it excudes that part of this culture.  which sucks bad. you could transcode flv to mp4 of course, but its another step and potential lossy issues.
How much remixing is really going on, though? I had a note on my site for a while offering remixable formats for anyone who asked. No one did. Of course, it may be simply that no one is interested in remixing MY video.
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)
www.tvblob.com (work)





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  


Individual
  
  

Fireant
  
  

Typepad
  
  



Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.



  








-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Deirdre Straughan

On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(to do Flash Video well isstill rather difficult for the individual, there are many stepsinvolved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which isboth expensive and confusing). I'm hardly proficient in Flash. I have the full software (got it at a bargain price), but have hardly used it. I got Sorenson Squeeze instead which is a lot easier.
Thanks to something you said in here a week or so ago, I'm now using the lovely Flash player by Jeroen Wijering. This involves a bit more fiddling - it wouldn't be hard for someone more proficient than I to take his player a step further towards user-friendliness.
FWIW, I have rarely if ever had anyone say they couldn't see/play my videos. And I have had several compliments from people who really like the way it looks on the page.
I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to installQuicktime. Its just as hard to install the latest Flash Player pluginif that's the case (the newest Flash Video requires version 8 of theFlash plugin). If you are dealing with some sort of corporate blockage
when it comes to installing programs, then you won't be able toinstall Flash plugin either.I wouldn't have thought so, but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime (in FireFox), there were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play - HumanDog was one, to my great frustration. With the new
1.5 version of Firefox it seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that crashed the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video. OTOH, I've never had a problem with Flash. YMMV.
All in all I have no problem with Flash Video. I do think however thatit is more often used to restrict the freedom of the viewer and
control the experience from the point of view of the service provider(which may not be the same as the content creator) rather than toenhance the experience for the viewer. If I want to download and viewthe video later why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to put it on an
iPod, why can't I? If I want to aggregate it with other videos so thatI can view things in offline and skip around seemlessly, why not?From what I can tell, a lot more people are viewing my SWF files in whatever aggregator than are viewing the FLV files directly on my site. So I don't see what the problem is?
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Deirdre Straughan




On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



flash video has grown on me.  i used to spit on it in relation to videoblogging/vodcasting. the one gripe that still prevails is that you cant remix it so it excudes that part of this culture.  which sucks bad. you could transcode flv to mp4 of course, but its another step and potential lossy issues.
How much remixing is really going on, though? I had a note on my site for a while offering remixable formats for anyone who asked. No one did. Of course, it may be simply that no one is interested in remixing MY video.
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet play
FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.

I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based
aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice
to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to
skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing
with local files... its not about "lean back" for me. I'm always
clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
experience).

However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they
do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance
YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people using
Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file
is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may
be a core component of their business strategy.

The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised that
Google made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process so
that I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure
they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend to
get mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (these
content owners would cringe at the thought of people potentially
downloading, remixing, redistributing their content). If they wanted
to make it easy for people to download, Google could have provided a
simple download link, but instead I took the time to do a little
hacking with a Greasemonkey script:
< http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php >

This type of hack is not always available with Flash Video. The
YouTube hack relies on another method, which again is a loophole that
YouTube could close if they wanted to (and I'm sure they do want to
based on some of my discussions with them, they probably just haven't
seen the Greasemonkey script yet). I've looked at Brightcove video
players and have not yet found a method to download the video files.
This is certainly by design -- the Brightcove player is an entire
Flash application, not a video embedded in a webpage, so there is very
little you can discover from a simple "View Source" of the HTML.

I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to install
Quicktime. Its just as hard to install the latest Flash Player plugin
if that's the case (the newest Flash Video requires version 8 of the
Flash plugin). If you are dealing with some sort of corporate blockage
when it comes to installing programs, then you won't be able to
install Flash plugin either.

All in all I have no problem with Flash Video. I do think however that
it is more often used to restrict the freedom of the viewer and
control the experience from the point of view of the service provider
(which may not be the same as the content creator) rather than to
enhance the experience for the viewer. If I want to download and view
the video later why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to put it on an
iPod, why can't I? If I want to aggregate it with other videos so that
I can view things in offline and skip around seemlessly, why not?

-josh

On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My only problem is you can't vlog it because of the flash wrapper. I
> even tried vlogging the flash wrapper. Doesn't work.
>
> I thought I heard something about a greasmonkey script or plugin for
> uncovering the permalink directly to the video so you can vlog it.
> But I never followed up on it and seem to have misplaced the reference.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:19 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:
>
> Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
> that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
> or want to incorporate video into their site wit

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

Andreas, I understand your perspective, and respect and find your  
methods interesting, but there's thousands and thousands of people  
who disagree with your idea of best practices.

Alternatively... I think getting all my vlogs automatically  
downloaded and synced to my video ipod is the best thing ever. I  
watch them on my TV while working on my laptop, and through mefeedia  
am able to easily work, or if I see something interesting... quickly  
find the original post and follow up on it. The disconnect that I  
thought would happen do to putting videos on TV has NOT happened in  
fact... I find i can comment and follow more vlogs. If I miss  
something I just hit the pause button or rewind on the iPod... if I  
am bored with a clip I skip it...  All the while I can follow along  
on mefeedia on my laptop... tagging things, marking favorites...  
following up on links from Steve G.'s Vlog soup.. or rocketboom's  
links.  All we need to do in my opinion is make it even easier to  
follow along through mefeedia with what's happening on the TV by  
improving our web based queue and our RSS queue which plays back  
through the video ipod.

Finally, I also like embedded flash for in browser play back, as  
probably does Jay.. that's not the problem... the problem is when  
there is NO alternative link. It drives me up the wall. How can I  
download it... how can I rip it to my ipod, how can I share it with a  
friend... No this sort of flash playback is not going away... but  
video blogging is at least putting a serious dampner on DRM'd and  
locked down files like this and encouraging more openess and  
portability... which means more flexibility, increased accessibility,  
and enhanced useability.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:42:08 +0100, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
> i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
> all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
> to web pages to watch Flash videos.

Embedded video is the best viewing experience for web video. It won't go
away. For blog entries that mixes video with other forms (text, images)
embedded video is much nicer. And it actually fits into the web context.

I've never downloaded a video through subscription. I will start once I
find videos I watch like a watch tv... passively. When I find videos  
where
I don't want to (or can't) be a part of a dialogue around the videos.

I use RSS to be notified if a blog has updated. It's great for that.

- Andreas
-- 
http://www.solitude.dk/>
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

Yahoo! Groups Links

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

Ok, I'm a dunce, josh, you made this plugin? Perhaps there was  
another too. :(

Pardon, my earlier reference, next time I'll read every post first.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

> Josh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the
> video into an aggregator?

http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php

here how Josh hacked it out.
i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
to web pages to watch Flash videos.
but i wonder. seems very popular with the money men...Brightcove,
Google, YouTube.

Jay

--
Adventures in Videoblogging
http://www.momentshowing.net>

Yahoo! Groups Links

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

Doesn't work, tried it!

What happens is FireANT just downloads the "shell" flash app... which  
then is unable to reference the video over the internet.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:33 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

If you do a "show>page source" from your browser drop down menu, and
then scan the text for the "object", the object reveals the direct
url to the video, in this case on Google video, the flash file which
is in fact there. You would just add the root url to the address
listed in quotes.

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

>> Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
>> that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
>> or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
>> people use flickr (an off-site compilation).
>> I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
>> just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
>> assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
>> it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.
>
> does the video get aggregated in your feed?
> or do you just link to the page with the flash player?
>
> Jay
>
>
> --
> Adventures in Videoblogging
> http://www.momentshowing.net>
> 
> 
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ~-->
> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the
> Sweet Life.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
> 
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

My only problem is you can't vlog it because of the flash wrapper. I  
even tried vlogging the flash wrapper. Doesn't work.

I thought I heard something about a greasmonkey script or plugin for  
uncovering the permalink directly to the video so you can vlog it.  
But I never followed up on it and seem to have misplaced the reference.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:19 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
people use flickr (an off-site compilation).

I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.

The worst part is the verification process which takes at least a day
or more. The bit rate is not great though again, from the perspective
of making it easy for people to experiment with getting their videos
online, in an easy way which may help as a stepping stone to a more
dedicated and integrated way of doing it, it seems to be pretty good,
for free.





Yahoo! Groups Links









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

flash video has grown on me. i used to spit on it in relation to videoblogging/vodcasting. the one gripe that still prevails is that you cant remix it so it excudes that part of this culture. which sucks bad. you could transcode flv to mp4 of course, but its another step and potential lossy issues.
but, flv has a very important role that should not be ignored by anyone... businesses focus on it for good reason.you may not be able to remix it easily, but you can share it...and everyone can play it online and soon offline playback will be mor ecommon too.
and as soon as XSPF video player is ready, that will be huge. even without XSPF, there are other xml playlist formats that flv players use.playlists, in my opinion, are a huge part of our culture. revlogs are playlists. metafeeds are playlists etc.
even fireant and others will eventually have proper support for flv playback if not already.imagine if flv played on the video iPod. it could if *they* chose to allow it.maybe macromedia or some other company will one day come out with a device that does? imagine that. some cell phones already do, right?
sullOn 12/23/05, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was never meaning to suggest Flash is the way to go for most people> and also I didn't even expect hotlinking, etc into one's website or> aggregator. I wasn't suggesting anyone on this list drop anything for
> Google.> I really only just brought it up as a stepping stone for newbees or> people who would want to do video without a committed life of> videoblogging.> I think its a good and easy way to get your videos online if you are
> not a hard core videoblogger. I think its much easier than any other> solution, its dependable and fast and it seems like its a nice> sandbox for people who would like to experiment with the idea of
> having video that they make online.agreed.maybe gogle might connect google video with blogger one day.all the pieces are there.i was just bringing up the flash discussion...becasue i see that its
becoming very popular in some circles.jay--Adventures in Videoblogginghttp://www.momentshowing.net><
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM~->
Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 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/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Jay dedman

> I was never meaning to suggest Flash is the way to go for most people
> and also I didn't even expect hotlinking, etc into one's website or
> aggregator. I wasn't suggesting anyone on this list drop anything for
> Google.
> I really only just brought it up as a stepping stone for newbees or
> people who would want to do video without a committed life of
> videoblogging.
> I think its a good and easy way to get your videos online if you are
> not a hard core videoblogger. I think its much easier than any other
> solution, its dependable and fast and it seems like its a nice
> sandbox for people who would like to experiment with the idea of
> having video that they make online.

agreed.
maybe gogle might connect google video with blogger one day.
all the pieces are there.

i was just bringing up the flash discussion...becasue i see that its
becoming very popular in some circles.

jay


--
Adventures in Videoblogging
http://www.momentshowing.net>




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread andrew michael baron

I was never meaning to suggest Flash is the way to go for most people  
and also I didn't even expect hotlinking, etc into one's website or  
aggregator. I wasn't suggesting anyone on this list drop anything for  
Google.

I really only just brought it up as a stepping stone for newbees or  
people who would want to do video without a committed life of  
videoblogging.

I think its a good and easy way to get your videos online if you are  
not a hard core videoblogger. I think its much easier than any other  
solution, its dependable and fast and it seems like its a nice  
sandbox for people who would like to experiment with the idea of  
having video that they make online.

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

> all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
> to web pages to watch Flash videos.
> but i wonder. seems very popular with the money men...Brightcove,
> Google, YouTube.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited




just yesterday, http://www.downloadgooglevideos.com/ was up.. now it seems unavailable.  it made it simple to download all the flv's from google video.unless i have the domain wrong?
On 12/23/05, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote:>> does the video get aggregated in your feed?> or do you just link to the page with the flash player?>> Jay>Josh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the
video into an aggregator? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM~->Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 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/
-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:42:08 +0100, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

> i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
> i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
> all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
> to web pages to watch Flash videos.

Embedded video is the best viewing experience for web video. It won't go  
away. For blog entries that mixes video with other forms (text, images)  
embedded video is much nicer. And it actually fits into the web context.

I've never downloaded a video through subscription. I will start once I  
find videos I watch like a watch tv... passively. When I find videos where  
I don't want to (or can't) be a part of a dialogue around the videos.

I use RSS to be notified if a blog has updated. It's great for that.

- Andreas
-- 
http://www.solitude.dk/>
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-22 Thread Ted Tagami

That's because the "money men" are used to seeing it this way.
Essentially all of your current IAB multimedia ad units are being
served up in flash.On 12/22/05, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Josh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the
> video into an aggregator?

http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php

here how Josh hacked it out.
i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
to web pages to watch Flash videos.
but i wonder. seems very popular with the money men...Brightcove,
Google, YouTube.

Jay

--
Adventures in Videoblogging
http://www.momentshowing.net>

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- Ted Tagamitagami.comU N I V E R S U S

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-22 Thread Jay dedman

> Josh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the
> video into an aggregator?

http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php

here how Josh hacked it out.
i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
to web pages to watch Flash videos.
but i wonder. seems very popular with the money men...Brightcove,
Google, YouTube.

Jay



--
Adventures in Videoblogging
http://www.momentshowing.net>




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-22 Thread David Meade

On 12/23/05, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, yea, here is a video I uploaded:
> http://tinyurl.com/8o72k

Handy, that  having a photo from your previous life.  ;-)

- Dave

--
http://www.DavidMeade.com

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

If you do a "show>page source" from your browser drop down menu, and  
then scan the text for the "object", the object reveals the direct  
url to the video, in this case on Google video, the flash file which  
is in fact there. You would just add the root url to the address  
listed in quotes.

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

>> Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
>> that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
>> or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
>> people use flickr (an off-site compilation).
>> I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
>> just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
>> assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
>> it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.
>
> does the video get aggregated in your feed?
> or do you just link to the page with the flash player?
>
> Jay
>
>
> --
> Adventures in Videoblogging
> http://www.momentshowing.net>
> 
> 
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ~-->
> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the  
> Sweet Life.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
>  
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote:
>
> does the video get aggregated in your feed?
> or do you just link to the page with the flash player?
>
> Jay
>

Josh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the  
video into an aggregator?

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

Oh, yea, here is a video I uploaded:
http://tinyurl.com/8o72k

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:19 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

> Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
> that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
> or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
> people use flickr (an off-site compilation).
>
> I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
> just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
> assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
> it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.
>
> The worst part is the verification process which takes at least a day
> or more. The bit rate is not great though again, from the perspective
> of making it easy for people to experiment with getting their videos
> online, in an easy way which may help as a stepping stone to a more
> dedicated and integrated way of doing it, it seems to be pretty good,
> for free.
>
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ~-->
> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the  
> Sweet Life.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
>  
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-22 Thread Jay dedman

> Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
> that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
> or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
> people use flickr (an off-site compilation).
> I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
> just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
> assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
> it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.

does the video get aggregated in your feed?
or do you just link to the page with the flash player?

Jay


--
Adventures in Videoblogging
http://www.momentshowing.net>




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> 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/

[videoblogging] Google Video Revisited