[videoblogging] Google Video no longer accepts uploads
This was briefly mentioned last week here, but thought I'd post an official notice: http://googlevideo.blogspot.com/2009/01/turning-down-uploads-at-google-video.html In a few months, we will discontinue support for uploads to Google Video. Don't worry, we're not removing any content hosted on Google Video -- this just means you will no longer be able to upload new content to the service. We've always maintained that Google Video's strength is in the search technology that makes it possible for people to search videos from across the web, regardless of where they may be hosted. And this move will enable us to focus on developing these technologies further to the benefit of searchers worldwide. I dont know any videoblogger that uploaded to Google Video so probably not a big deal. I know that Blogger did start allowing video uploads in Blogger posts...and they used Google Video. Wonder if that functionality will be affected. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Sitemaps
funny you should ask. I have seen it and started to institute it, but I can't get it to work with dynamic webpages. ( even though I hand coded it into the rss feed.) I am not sure however if google is reading that particular rss feed. So... I took it off for the moment and would love to see someone else do it susan On 2/15/08, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did I just miss this when it was announced about Google Video Sitemaps? http://www.insideonlinevideo.com/2007/12/21/google-introduces-video-sitemaps/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/introducing-video-sitemaps.html It seems like a way to get video thumbnails to show up on the Google search results pages. (Like how it already does for YouTube videos.) Is anyone using this yet on their video blogs? Coming soon to Show in a Nox? :-) -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Sitemaps
From what I understand, Sitemaps (including Video Sitemaps) don't come from RSS feeds. There is a special file called sitemap.gz file. For example, if you're video blog is at... http://example.com/ Then your sitemap is at... http://example.com/sitemap.gz Or... if your video blog is at... http://example.org/myvlog/ Then your sitemap is at... http://example.org/myvlog/sitemap.gz The .gz at the end of the file implies it is a GZip compressed file. If you were to uncompress it you get an XML file in a special format. That special format is the Sitemap format. Now RSS and the Sitemap format are both XML-based formats. But they're different. As different as RSS is from HTML. This sitemap.gz file has to give a FULL listing of all the pages of you video blog... and not just one or a few of them. All of them. (I don't know if any of that info helps you.) But anyways... What software are you running your video blog on? Are you using WordPress? See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ On Feb 15, 2008 7:07 PM, sjs Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: funny you should ask. I have seen it and started to institute it, but I can't get it to work with dynamic webpages. ( even though I hand coded it into the rss feed.) I am not sure however if google is reading that particular rss feed. So... I took it off for the moment and would love to see someone else do it susan On 2/15/08, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did I just miss this when it was announced about Google Video Sitemaps? http://www.insideonlinevideo.com/2007/12/21/google-introduces-video-sitemaps/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/introducing-video-sitemaps.html It seems like a way to get video thumbnails to show up on the Google search results pages. (Like how it already does for YouTube videos.) Is anyone using this yet on their video blogs? Coming soon to Show in a Nox? :-) -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Google Video Sitemaps
Did I just miss this when it was announced about Google Video Sitemaps? http://www.insideonlinevideo.com/2007/12/21/google-introduces-video-sitemaps/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/introducing-video-sitemaps.html It seems like a way to get video thumbnails to show up on the Google search results pages. (Like how it already does for YouTube videos.) Is anyone using this yet on their video blogs? Coming soon to Show in a Nox? :-) -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Motorsport Videos http://TireBiterZ.com/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
[videoblogging] Google video ads
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/06/ads_quietly_introduc.html Not sure if these ads are available to the public yet. the example shown is an ad in a Charlie Rose episode..which is non-commercial on TV. jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com
[videoblogging] Google Video RSS feeds - now with enclosures
google is listening! now my feedburner version gives a double dip - flv preview and ipod download http://feeds.feedburner.com/GoogleVideo-Punkcast Just an update to mention that a few bugs have been fixed and an enclosure tag has been added (currently only providing the iPod download). Again, let us know what we can do to make these feeds even more useful. Links to feed URLs (on the search results and other pages of the site) will be coming soon! Thanks! - Google Video engineering team [EMAIL PROTECTED] To access a feed of popular videos, go to http://video.google.com/videofeed?type=popularnum=20output=rss To access a feed of any search results page, go to http://video.google.com/videofeed?type=searchq=type%3Agpicknum=20output=rss --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- 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 RSS Feeds
You gotta love standards. I added a search for Bolivia to Mefeedia, and it works: http://mefeedia.com/feeds/6774 You can watch them in the browser like here: http://mefeedia.com/watch/index.php?movieid=242621 But I get a buffering message without end.. the video never actually plays...hopefully they'll figure that one out. Maybe it's just my connection here..? Peter -- mefeedia.comOn 3/13/06, Ronen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: link:http://google.blognewschannel.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/13/rss-feeds-for-google-video/ SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant 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. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant 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.
[videoblogging] Google Video Creative Commons
Does anyone know if our Videos uploaded on Google Video are protected by Creative Commons? I think not unless we only allow our videos to be purchased... So, how do we make the protected by Creative Coomons if I'm right? Should we just had a image disclosure in the video, then post it?Nick http://lastlapnick.blogspot.com/ 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.
[videoblogging] Google Video Downloader
I thought this might be of interest: http://dev2.traxio.net/projects/googlevideo Further production can be expected, but not on a google specific tool.' 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 Store
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=5703 jad madpod.com dummycast.com 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 IS A TRAP!
On Dec 23, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: i love how they have google ads on the site LOLHa! that is the final irony... Also... hot damn google's servers are fast... and that did actually play in fireANT mac, though the quality was horrid.I wonder how google will respond to this prying open of their media vault... will they respond by opening up to the idea of downloadable media or further discriminate against it taking moves to squash it.I'm thinking... given their history (i.e. google maps)... they might just open google video up... I really hope so... they do have to know since they're at least aware of archive.org, ourmedia, and vlogging that this fundamentally is incompatible with the direction things are leaning... but the question is will the economics allow them to be a free and open distributor?BTW, did google squash that hack to use gmail as private file storage?-MikeOn 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, this is also funny: http://dev2.traxio.net/projects/googlevideo/ Beats my Greasemonkey script... although the usability of this is a little confusing. You search something, then grab the URL of the video on Google Video and then paste it into the Video URL input. Could be more streamlined. -Josh On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be "sticky" They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be "pretty"... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby. It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... "you know about half way in when you do that one thing"... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
On Dec 23, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: I still think this FLV plugin for wordpress is nice: http://roel.meurders.nl/wordpress-plugins/wp-flv-video-player- plugin/ Haven't noticed anyone using it, though I've posted here about it a few times. I still suggest providing an alternative video format for syndication though. I'd be happier with FLV if it was easier to deal with that way. We're stil working on FLV playback for Windows FireAnt. But I don't often see it syndicated probably because of the issues I shared in a previous post. That's very cool for web UI as long as, as you say an alternate donnloadable format is used. I doubt I'll ever use it though. I didn't see anything about codec... so I assume you just have to export your video as an FLV or SWF and the codec doesn't matter so long as it's a standard macromedia one... but I assume Sorensen (sp?) is best... Does anyone know if QT or any editing software besides macromedia will export this. Oh, btw, on the flash player page it says YouTube uses the player though not the wordpress plugin I'm sure. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog and evilvlog.com -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yep.. google video is not currently intended for true videobloggers. On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no offense taken ;-) now i'll read your latest brain dump. note: i dont like google video. note: i still see the potential of flv in our space. note: i would never encourage any vlogger to only use flv/swf... thats very poor decision. wont reiterate my past babble though ;-) On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT. AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! 1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby. It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE. 2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:35 AM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: You export an FLV to use this plugin. They recommend a free SWF video controller that dynamically loads the FLV (this is the same SWF controller that used to be used by YouTube... they've changed it since then). This is also the same technique we use to play FLV inside FireAnt by the way... we use a SWF controller that dynamically loads FLV content. Yeah that's the flv controller to which I was referring... very nice. I didn't know you used that IN FireANT... very cool... thanks for the info btw... I'll have to use more Flash stuff in FireANT. You can export FLV from Quicktime Pro (or iMovie/Final Cut) as long as you have the Quicktime FLV export component that comes with Flash MX 2004 Professional (which I got from my previous job a while back). So Flash MX comes with a quicktime component that does in the Quicktime components folder I assume... I'll have to reinstall Flash MX and check it out... sounds very useful. -Mike -Josh On 1/2/06, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 23, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: I still think this FLV plugin for wordpress is nice: http://roel.meurders.nl/wordpress-plugins/wp-flv-video-player- plugin/ Haven't noticed anyone using it, though I've posted here about it a few times. I still suggest providing an alternative video format for syndication though. I'd be happier with FLV if it was easier to deal with that way. We're stil working on FLV playback for Windows FireAnt. But I don't often see it syndicated probably because of the issues I shared in a previous post. That's very cool for web UI as long as, as you say an alternate donnloadable format is used. I doubt I'll ever use it though. I didn't see anything about codec... so I assume you just have to export your video as an FLV or SWF and the codec doesn't matter so long as it's a standard macromedia one... but I assume Sorensen (sp?) is best... Does anyone know if QT or any editing software besides macromedia will export this. Oh, btw, on the flash player page it says YouTube uses the player though not the wordpress plugin I'm sure. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog and evilvlog.com -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yep.. google video is not currently intended for true videobloggers. On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no offense taken ;-) now i'll read your latest brain dump. note: i dont like google video. note: i still see the potential of flv in our space. note: i would never encourage any vlogger to only use flv/swf... thats very poor decision. wont reiterate my past babble though ;-) On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT. AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited
On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Steve Garfield 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. You know... I actually agree with you... but it's compeltely besides the point. Because I think it's argumentative... and what's more the other 9.9% of the planet will have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about... including 90% of the people in this group unless you explain it to them every time... and probably 5% of the final 10% in this group will disagree... But I agree with you... it's a great thing to talk about if that's your intention... if however your intention is to discuss the merits of such a system as having only a video feed... however... we're failing miserably. :) 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. Absolutely. I'm seeing the same thing too... I'm also seeing some that do have a corresponging web blog... but the thing I find most disturbing about this is that they have created their feeds ONLY for itunes and have submited it NOWHERE else. What I've been doing... is... since I'm using mefeedia to manage my ipod compatible subscriptions is I went into itunes podcast directory... did a search for video and then started sifting through just the feeds I found interesting. I found that the majority of just the ones I was curious about aren't even in mefeedia or anywhere outside of iTunes... some don't have a link to their RSS feed even on their site they just say 'subscribe with itunes' and have a cryptic itunes url... some like the Washington Post seem to have absolutely no web page or presence anywhere outside iTuens... I couldn't even find a mention on the entire Washington Post website... BUT I'm always able to get info on the feed after I subscribe to it and view the url... I then type it into the add a new feed input on mefeedia and add it to my subscription queue... they all work in mefeedia... and what's more by my adding them to mefeedia more people can discover them there and because mefeedia shares new feeds with other services through an open XML data exchange. It's a curious thing iTunes has done... they've introduced people to vlogging who have no idea whatsoever what vlogging is about... they just want their videos in iTunes. Blarg... funny as hell. Peace and good night, Mike 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
Just for the record... I'm ALL about talking about the the different variations on the general vlog theme... I'm even about discussing the merits and assigning value judgments i.e. "Video RSS feeds without web pages SUCK!"However, I'm just not about making arbitrary labels for them i.e. "Man those video podcasts SUCK!" Because while this linguistic corner cutting may work for you... 99% of people are not going to know that by "video podcast" you mean a "video feed" without web based blog. It's well beyond wether they might agree with your use of the terminology or not... your arbitrary assigning of terminologies is a hindrance to communication.I agree there are those "video feeds" that are just "video feeds"... so... there's the distinction... it's just a "video feed"... What I have an argument with... is this distinction that they are only "video podcasts" What is a podcast? Does a podcast mean that it only has an RSS feed? Do not like 99.9% of all audio podcasts have a web based blog element?One or two people might agree with you including Steve Garfield... but I would say it's an completely arbitrary assumption and therefore a terminology that's wanton for argument, trolling and flaming I'm saying just use specific known language to make your distinctions and everyone will be able to follow a lot easier Not: "The Washington Post has no video blog, they only have a video podcast."But, less argumentative"The Washington Post has no video blog, they only have an RSS video feed."It's less argumentative.. it's more clear.Or if you disagree then argue with this statement which I've also heard here..."The Washington Post has no video blog, they only have a vodcast."Honestly... I still don't know what that's suppose to mean, which is my point exactly... If your going to discuss the language... then by all means discuss the language... BUT you're using your language in holding a discussion about the merits of these variations of videoblogging... which is confusing the issue between the value judgments you make with the terms... Hence when I say... "Video feeds with ONLY a feed and no corresponding web page for commenting suck!" people KNOW what I'm talking about... Hence when you say "Video podcasts suck!" people all jump up in arms saying "what the hell do you mean video podcasts suck?"... and then the conversation descends into the same old conversation about 'definitions'.If you don't intend it to descend into this conversation about terminology... and do intend to keep it as a platonic conversation about the merits of different variations on video blogging mechanisms you'd refrain from using those terms which confuse the issue and alienate people.While language does need to evolve and hence be experimented with... if it is NOT the point of your argument why make such assuming use of terminologies... why bother making up such arbitrary distinctions when there are perfectly good terms that do this... it's an "RSS video feed" or a "video feed" not a "video podcast" because while you can site perhaps 5 or 10 people who agree with you about your arbitrary use of the term "video podcast" and person B might site a couple dozen who see no such distinction and see video blog and video podcast as one in the same... and ALL OF THAT WOULD BE MUTE... Because I'm saying to you right now the majority of people are probably scratching their heads and saying "video blog / video podcast? what in the heck are they all talking about!"So, in summary... do what you like... but know that in using terms such arbitrary terms unnecessarily you're the ones responsible for bringing about these debates about "defining" that I see so often and defeating your own attempts to have an interesting public conversation on the merits of the many flavors of video blogging. We only have these debates because in using these terms unnecessarily you've "posed the question" about them. People are merely asking the most obvious question.. "What do you mean video podcasting?" which leads right back to the same old silly "defining" discussion. :)I personally feel that if we're setting out to discuss distinctions we can have far more in depth conversations and make far more distinctions... as I pointed out in my last email... if we stick to the terms that already exist for such stuff... In short there are THOUSANDS of variations on the video blog... some don't have RSS... some don't have permalinks... some have just RSS... while you can argue about their legitimacy or utility all you want... please do not just arbitrarily go... heh... those ones without permalinks... those one I'm going to call "video podcasts" even though I could just call them "video feeds with no corresponding web page" and everyone would know exactly what I was talking about.Anyway... it's all in good fun... I've indulged in the issue... it has nothing to do with the real issues which we claim to be discussing... it's just an
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited
On Dec 27, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: 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). Andreas I completely agree with everything you say and find it extremely interesting... but if I don't keep pointing out the absurdity of this VOD/podcast/vodcast laebling system I'm sure someone else will... it's a damn video feed only with no blog... while you give three diferrent labels I still feel noone is following you but myself and a few others because you do not explain what this label means. You're becoming intellectually exclusive. What's more it's for no reason at all as perfectly fine language exists. :) Nothing personal I figure it was my turn to play the devil's advocate... I've been taking it easy for far too long. This is the last time I bring it up... for a while anyway... from now on I'll sit back as I have been and watch others attack the labels and the conversation break down into argument over and over and over about just what these labels mean... meanwhile more people will be alienated or hurt and no little progress will be made on what is actually good fine debate about the different merits of blogging mechanisms. Peace... - Mike 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 -- URL: 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 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 Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:55:57 +0100, 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 links to blog posts? -Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment) I'd call is a videoblog - if navigation was included in the video. I've been wanting to try something like that for a year or so, but never got around to it. With SMIL+QT there's nothing stopping you from putting links, comments, trackbacks and links to a feed and archive listings directly in the video file. However, it's a lot of hard work (that's why I haven't done it yet). And in the end the result will be exactly the same as embedded a video in a browser, so it's more a fun thing to try. In reality there's no reason why you shouldn't take the easy road and use regular blog software. - Andreas -- URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. 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
I have made this experiment too with the help of Andreas Linkubator :), so you can comment (link to the blog entry) directly from the iTunes video player by clicking on the post a comment overlay (the video player must be in a separate window). It is implemented in my VJ video blog :http://mjukma.free.fr/iUrl (it's a iTunes url)Bertrand2005/12/28, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]:On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:55:57 +0100, 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 links to blog posts? -Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)I'd call is a videoblog - if navigation was included in the video.I've been wanting to try something like that for a year or so, but never got around to it. With SMIL+QT there's nothing stopping you from puttinglinks, comments, trackbacks and links to a feed and archive listingsdirectly in the video file.However, it's a lot of hard work (that's why I haven't done it yet). And in the end the result will be exactly the same as embedded a video in abrowser, so it's more a fun thing to try. In reality there's no reasonwhy you shouldn't take the easy road and use regular blog software. - Andreas--URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. 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/ 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
Geez, I leave you guys alone for a couple of days and you're STILL wallowing in definitions. I'm glad you're having fun with it, but would be comforted by a few clear statements that even though this group is called videoblogging, people who are doing things with video online that don't quite fit your definition (when and if you ever agree on one) are nonetheless welcome here. Entertaining though it is, I fear that all the nitpicking may drive away some people. So... can we make the not-quite-videobloggers feel welcome? -- 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
Welcome not-quite-videobloggers!=)no worry. we're just having linguistic fun... its important to note that this discussion has NO bearing on whether or not someone is a videoblogger videoblogging. its about the medium and media and technology. so whether or not a video from a videoblog ends up on an iPod... the author/creator/publisher is still a videoblogger... see? ;-) sullOn 12/28/05, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geez, I leave you guys alone for a couple of days and you're STILL wallowing in definitions. I'm glad you're having fun with it, but would be comforted by a few clear statements that even though this group is called videoblogging, people who are doing things with video online that don't quite fit your definition (when and if you ever agree on one) are nonetheless welcome here. Entertaining though it is, I fear that all the nitpicking may drive away some people. So... can we make the not-quite-videobloggers feel welcome? -- 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 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
On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:22 AM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: as neato and whizbang as that sounds in terms of interactivity, its not something that an individual can produce and distribute easily without a highly technical skill set and expensive authoring tools at their disposal. I'm much more interested in the democratizing aspects that are enabled due to the quite simple and elegant videoblog as we know it. That's true. Maybe one day it it'll be as easy and cheap to do a video in a blog. While I'm throwing things out here... What if you did TV show as a videoblog? I'm not talking about taking a TV show and distributing it on the web or via iTunes. I mean, what if you designed a TV like show as a videoblog - written in small chunks, with a blog post, permalinks, comments, etc. Maybe it's even interactive like some of the things Andreas and Adrian Miles talk about. But what if was a business - with sponsors and a staff. Designed to make money. I'd still call that a videoblog. Would you? -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
I can't remember what I told you last time we talked about this, so I'll make up some new stuff. :o) Point #1: The important thing is people are putting new creations out there. Period. Point #2: Most people have a brain and realise that conversations about definitions don't invalidate the value of their work no matter if they feel they're included or not. If they think they absolutely *need* to be included in some definition or their world will collapse, that's not really something I can care about. They should reread Point #1 until they get it. Point #3: Video online is being used in different ways, that's a fact. Distinguishing between them raises the level of understanding. I've chosen not to use videoblogging as an umbrella for video online and instead use it as video and blog mixed because that seems logical. It is also how most people understand videoblog. If you are not mixing video and blog and as a consequence feel left out of the Yahoo Group then stop and see Point #1. - Andreas On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:08:43 +0100, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geez, I leave you guys alone for a couple of days and you're STILL wallowing in definitions. I'm glad you're having fun with it, but would be comforted by a few clear statements that even though this group is called videoblogging, people who are doing things with video online that don't quite fit your definition (when and if you ever agree on one) are nonetheless welcome here. Entertaining though it is, I fear that all the nitpicking may drive away some people. So... can we make the not-quite-videobloggers feel welcome? -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan www.beginningwithi.com (personal) www.tvblob.com (work) -- URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/.QUssC/izNLAA/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
That's true. Maybe one day it it'll be as easy and cheap to do a video in a blog. While I'm throwing things out here... What if you did TV show as a videoblog? I'm not talking about taking a TV show and distributing it on the web or via iTunes. I mean, what if you designed a TV like show as a videoblog - written in small chunks, with a blog post, permalinks, comments, etc. Maybe it's even interactive like some of the things Andreas and Adrian Miles talk about. But what if was a business - with sponsors and a staff. Designed to make money. I'd still call that a videoblog. Would you? This is Rocketboom.. and yes, its a videoblog. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/.QUssC/izNLAA/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.comThe 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://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited
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
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 -- URL: 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
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
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 asInternet 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
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 asInternet 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
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
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
as neato and whizbang as that sounds in terms of interactivity, its not something that an individual can produce and distribute easily without a highly technical skill set and expensive authoring tools at their disposal. I'm much more interested in the democratizing aspects that are enabled due to the quite simple and elegant videoblog as we know it. -josh On 12/27/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? sull On 12/27/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Links -- 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 Directory http://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. 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
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. 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
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
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=2ysize=largecompare_sites=rocketboom.comy=rurl="">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
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, Deirdr 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
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
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=2ysize=largecompare_sites=rocketboom.comy=rurl=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
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
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 URL: 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 -- URL: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
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
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 -- URL: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
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? JayJosh 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
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 URL: http://www.momentshowing.net http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing http://getFireAnt.com 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
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
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 showpage 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 URL: http://www.momentshowing.net http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing http://getFireAnt.com 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
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 URL: http://www.momentshowing.net http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing http://getFireAnt.com 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
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 -- URL: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
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 with links, kinda like
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited
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
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: 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. hint hint 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 . -- 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
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 video embedded in a
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 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
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 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
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
Google may not be best for what we intend it for in the share, create, remix space. But for mainstream media...hmm...check this out: Google to start renting videos? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Google/index.php?p=59On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING.Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at.These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a monopoly? Why... because you wanted it non-interroperable you fucks and that's what you got! Wake up and smell the coffee.Closed platforms are BUNK ... they have no future... they're fundamentally inaccessible, have limited usability, no findability or searchability outside of that which is provided, and no flexibility... you get the damn play button and the slide bar because that's what google said you could have bitch ... want a timestamp... screw you... no flash plugin.. screw you... want it on your ipod...screw you... want to put it in a playlist with your other home movies... screw you... want to project it on a damn wall.. screw you... want to quote it.. .screw you... play it at your
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
Ha, this is also funny: http://dev2.traxio.net/projects/googlevideo/ Beats my Greasemonkey script... although the usability of this is a little confusing. You search something, then grab the URL of the video on Google Video and then paste it into the Video URL input. Could be more streamlined. -Josh On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be sticky They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING.Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at.These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a monopoly? Why... because you wanted it non-interroperable you fucks and that's what you got! Wake up and smell the coffee.Closed platforms are BUNK
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
yep.. google video is not currently intended for true videobloggers.On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:no offense taken ;-) now i'll read your latest brain dump.note: i dont like google video. note: i still see the potential of flv in our space.note: i would never encourage any vlogger to only use flv/swf... thats very poor decision. wont reiterate my past babble though ;-) On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT. AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! 1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE. 2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at. These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a monopoly? Why... because you wanted it non-interroperable you fucks and that's what you got! Wake up and smell the coffee. Closed platforms are BUNK ... they have no future... they're fundamentally inaccessible, have limited usability, no findability or searchability outside of that which is provided, and no flexibility... you get the damn play button and the slide bar because that's what google said you could have bitch ... want a timestamp... screw you... no flash plugin.. screw you... want it
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
BTW, I LOVE Eric Rice's utilization of Flash on audioblog.com though. It's exactly what flash was meant to be... web based presentation... with a direct link to the portable and dowloadable media below it.Flash has it's place in presentation... it's not a complete solution... btw... I've used flash since Director 1.0... in other words I've been using Macromedia's products since WAY before flash or even the web... they've got a very specific and very small nich in the web world. I've battled people for years who built whole websites out of them... this is a long road of loving it when it's used right... and constantly trying to explain how burrying content in unquoteable... un bookmarkable... un linkable flash is not a good idea... it's an accessibility issue through and through. And google video... is inaccessible in every way but their ONE intended way.-MikeOn Dec 23, 2005, at 9:38 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: no offense taken ;-) now i'll read your latest brain dump.note: i dont like google video.note: i still see the potential of flv in our space.note: i would never encourage any vlogger to only use flv/swf... thats very poor decision. wont reiterate my past babble though ;-) On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT. AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be "pretty"... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! 1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby. It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE. 2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... "you know about half way in when you do that one thing"... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to "look at" that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
is what it is... exactly. shit, look at myspace etc... fuck, have you been to medicinefilms.com lately?ad Bombardment. that shit is against my non-existing religion. sullOn 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be sticky They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING.Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at.These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a monopoly? Why... because you wanted it non-interroperable you fucks and that's what you got! Wake up and smell the coffee.Closed platforms are BUNK ... they have no future... they're fundamentally inaccessible, have limited usability, no findability or searchability outside of
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
this is the site i referred to before... except it used to be at downloadgooglevideo.comOn 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, this is also funny: http://dev2.traxio.net/projects/googlevideo/ Beats my Greasemonkey script... although the usability of this is a little confusing. You search something, then grab the URL of the video on Google Video and then paste it into the Video URL input. Could be more streamlined. -Josh On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be sticky They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING.Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at.These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
I still think this FLV plugin for wordpress is nice: http://roel.meurders.nl/wordpress-plugins/wp-flv-video-player-plugin/ Haven't noticed anyone using it, though I've posted here about it a few times. I still suggest providing an alternative video format for syndication though. I'd be happier with FLV if it was easier to deal with that way. We're stil working on FLV playback for Windows FireAnt. But I don't often see it syndicated probably because of the issues I shared in a previous post. -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yep.. google video is not currently intended for true videobloggers. On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no offense taken ;-) now i'll read your latest brain dump. note: i dont like google video. note: i still see the potential of flv in our space. note: i would never encourage any vlogger to only use flv/swf... thats very poor decision. wont reiterate my past babble though ;-) On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT. AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! 1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby. It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE. 2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
i love how they have google ads on the site LOLOn 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, this is also funny: http://dev2.traxio.net/projects/googlevideo/ Beats my Greasemonkey script... although the usability of this is a little confusing. You search something, then grab the URL of the video on Google Video and then paste it into the Video URL input. Could be more streamlined. -Josh On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be sticky They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING.Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at.These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a monopoly? Why... because you wanted it
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
And where in any of that is they want you to be able to...- enjoy your videos anywhere other than google- organize your videos- share your videos anywhere other than on google- be able to make money of your videos yourself... or offer you any ways they've come up with to make money of your videosBasically their interface says to me... ME, ME, ME! Screw that.On Dec 23, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be "sticky" They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be "pretty"... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby. It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... "you know about half way in when you do that one thing"... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to "look at" that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on google video for you to look at.These google videos fundamentally locked down to google's pages... think of them as googles whores... it makes about as much sense as the Music industry buying into Apple's DRM and then bitching, why the heck does this only work with the ipod!? Why should apple have a monopoly? Why... because you wanted it non-interroperable you fucks
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
this is the only flv feed i am subscribed to that properly has the flv enclosures without dependencies.http://feeds.feedburner.com/NetvideoFLV On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think this FLV plugin for wordpress is nice: http://roel.meurders.nl/wordpress-plugins/wp-flv-video-player-plugin/ Haven't noticed anyone using it, though I've posted here about it afew times. I still suggest providing an alternative video format forsyndication though. I'd be happier with FLV if it was easier to dealwith that way. We're stil working on FLV playback for Windows FireAnt. But I don't often see it syndicated probably because of the issues Ishared in a previous post.-JoshOn 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:yep.. google video is not currently intended for true videobloggers. On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no offense taken ;-)now i'll read your latest brain dump. note: i dont like google video. note: i still see the potential of flv in our space. note: i would never encourage any vlogger to only use flv/swf... thats very poor decision.wont reiterate my past babble though ;-) On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash...but Fireant mac... that's IT. AND that's just for starters... The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession...and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages!We're going to rock the world!With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! 1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE...untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE. 2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them?Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you.How am I going to comment on these videos...how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at...heh... you can always screen snap them!Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right... it's just stuff to look at that's all, right? It's not anything more than just looking, right? I create stuff for people to look at... heh... look at that... look at this.. I looked at that... did you look at that? It's right there on
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
Who's to say Google won't provide APIs to do interesting stuff with Google Video the way they've done with other products such as Google Maps? Why wouldn't Google allow you to embed the video in your blog, or post directly to your blog from Google Video? Why wouldn't they have revenue sharing on advertising in and around Google Video for the video creators? Why wouldn't Google Video allow other revenue sharing for other monetizing solutions they add to Google Video (such as the rental service previously speculated)? I think its simply too early to tell. -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And where in any of that is they want you to be able to...- enjoy your videos anywhere other than google- organize your videos- share your videos anywhere other than on google - be able to make money of your videos yourself... or offer you any ways they've come up with to make money of your videosBasically their interface says to me... ME, ME, ME! Screw that. On Dec 23, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too! I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be sticky They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videos They want to offer paid access for video viewing There's probably more, but that's just off the top of my head. It is what it is... -Josh On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT.AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it.And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING.Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK!I mean where would google's legendary web page search be today if they'd say, heh! we're offering web hosting and our search is going to work for the pages we host? Plus noone else can search our web pages! We're going to rock the world! With WHAT I'd say... the search has no value when it doesn't search the other 99.999% of the web and the hosting doesn't work when anything uploaded is completely trapped in their system and not accessible for anything more than looking pretty... do not be confused by the slick little flash interface. They're doing what for the search of video I ask! NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING!1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE.2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? Forget the FLV issue... these are YOUR videos... how are you going to share these videos... bookmark them with delicious and go to them one by one!? Email around urls! Heh this isn't spam I swear it... check out my video! Great, awesome for you. How am I going to comment on these videos... how am I going to quote them... you know about half way in when you do that one thing... great! Can you put them on your blog and make ad revene from them? WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN YOU DO WITH THEM? ... oh... you can LOOK at them... oh so pretty in their impenatrable glass boxes... completely inaccessible for anything other than looking at... heh... you can always screen snap them! Now that's all we're doing here in the vlog world, right...
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
Hi everyone:On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Sull, but enclosing FLV is a pipe dream... it's a web based playback object only... in so far as people DON'T have optional donloadable/ portable/ OPEN / enclosable formats also available it won't go anywhere. I LOVE the fact FireANT mac supports it, I wish everyone did... I'd love to revlog some of my favorite flash... but Fireant mac... that's IT. YouTube is the same way. Found this out the hard way when I uploaded two videos for DIVB-TV. :( Good thing I still have them on the Hard Drive and can store them elsewhere (like the IA). :) AND that's just for starters...The format is CLOSED, CLOSED, CLOSED... there is no remixing, little to no opportunity to format shift... no way to even ensure the FLV is downloadable, copyable or shareable without screwing around with each file every time. And no I don't consider giving someone a url to a page sharing. Sharing involves a taking into posession... and you can't dowload or copy 50% of all flash media.. and furthermore there's no telling what you can download and copy unless you know what you're doing and try it. Again...YouTube is much the same way. You have to jump through hurdles in order to get to the video. RSS wwas not built to handle this.On top of that, YouTube REPRODUCES the video and puts a watermark on their version of it (which is THE ONLY one made available I might add). And yes, I'm specifically talking about google video. It's a trap... a dead end mark my words no future will come of google video in it's current state, not without a 180 change in direction. It's a toy it has no outward looking search... and nothing else can search it. It's a walled garden... a darknet that just happens to have be pretty... it has NO interoperability with any other service whatsoever... not yahoo video search or infoseek... no blogging or video podcasting... no webjay... no NOTHING. The only thing I see it becoming is a STREAMING video host similar to what Lycos had back in 1999 or so. Anyone here remember that? Untill they provide media permalinks to non-locked down media / portable / dowloadable / encloseable media... and untill they roll out with a tool that searches video on the other 99.999% of the web it's a freaking test tube toy and I don't even care. It's relevance is BUNK! As is that of YouTube. 1) Google video is no search solution... search solutions are what google offers... IT'S their CORE SERVICE... untill google search becomes a true search solution and you can find videos on the whole of the web it's nothing but a malformed test tube baby.It's potential to solve any of the larger issues of finding videos is MUTE. Google should just go back to being just this. A search engine. 2) ...and as far as hosting... like I said... anyone is better... why bother uploading your videos when you can't even download them? If Google is trying to create their own version of Geocities, they're putting the cart BEFORE the horse. I mean, WHY provide hosting for things like videos if they don't even do the same for simple WEB PAGES?? Closed platforms are BUNK ... they have no future... they're fundamentally inaccessible, have limited usability, no findability or searchability outside of that which is provided, and no flexibility... you get the damn play button and the slide bar because that's what google said you could have bitch ... want a timestamp... screw you... no flash plugin.. screw you... want it on your ipod...screw you... want to put it in a playlist with your other home movies... screw you... want to project it on a damn wall.. screw you... want to quote it.. .screw you... play it at your wedding, barmitzfa, family reunion... just as long as you don't mind playing it in the google web page and have a highspeed connection! ARE YOU ALL FOLLOWING ME?Yeah what Mike said. :) Way to go dude! :) There's this thing... it's called fair use... it's a suggestion that perhaps the creator might not have an idea of every intended use for media in the world... there's this thing called digital rights management... and don't tell me google isn't using digital rights management... you're rights to use that content are completley and totally managed. a duck is a duck no matter what you call it. Again...You can put YouTube in the same can for all the reasons stated above (And probably a few others I haven't even thought of too). ANyway digital management assumes that every concieved usage for content is known... google assumes they know the one possible concieved usage of a video... and that's all you'll ever need people... if you agree... good for you... you know it's your choice... yeah, I'm being condesending here, glad you noticed. Part of Digital Rights Management that companies LOVE to make use of themselves, but ABSOLUTELY HATE IT when WE use it is when to agree and submit and when to just simply walk away. Google have decided you WILL watch the file in their web page in a
Re: [videoblogging] Google Video IS A TRAP!
Hi everyone:On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha, and the sky is falling too!I never said it was. I'm no fan of Google Video either, but I can see why they do it. They want the experience to be sticky They want advertising impressions They want to track the advertising impressions They want to put ads in and around the videosThen I think WE ALL should make it LOUD CLEAR that REAL Video Bloggers (Or Podcasters for that matter) will NEVER submit content to their service (or any service like it for THAT matter). They want to offer paid access for video viewingThen they can do it WITHOUT my videos. I'm sure the IA will most assuredly appreciate my continued support patronage. :)Cheers for now Happy Holidays :) Pat Cook[EMAIL PROTECTED] (FEEDBACK EMAIL)Denver, ColoradoPAT'S VIDEO BLOG - http://patsvideoblog.blogspot.com/ DIVB-TV | THE DUMBASS IDIOTS VIDEO BLOG - http://dumbassidiots.blogspot.com/RSS FEEDS ON EACH PAGEPAT'S PODCAST VIDEO BLOG MESSAGE BOARD - http://patspodcast.proboards36.com/SKYPE ME @ patspodcast 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.
[videoblogging] Google Video Revisited
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 * 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
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/
[videoblogging] google video?
I posted some videos to google video any one else used there service and what your thoughts might be about the if this service is going to fly interface ease of use? link to Superior Adventures TV videos on google. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Superior+Adventures+TVbtnG=Search+Video Jay Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.superioradventurestv.com www.superioradventurestv.blogspot.com/ wwwsuperioreducationaltelevision.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?
I tried uploading a video. A week later it was still being processed, so I pulled it. -- BevBlog: http://funnytheblog.blogspot.com/Journal: http://funnytheworld.com - Original Message - From: Jay To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: [videoblogging] google video? I posted some videos to google video any one else used there service and what your thoughts might be about the if this service is going to fly interface ease of use?link to Superior Adventures TV videos on google.http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Superior+Adventures+TVbtnG=Search+VideoJay Cole[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.superioradventurestv.comwww.superioradventurestv.blogspot.com/wwwsuperioreducationaltelevision.com 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?
I don't know about posting videos to Google. However, I left a friend a phone message telling her she was singing in one of my vlogs. She went on Google and located my vlog by the time I talked to her. It was "easy to find" but she didn't know how to make it play. Would someone please give me the "link" for downloading the free version of Quicktime?? I'm sure I could find it with some work but I'd rather have a geek give me the information so I can avoid any glitches if there are any. This is something they should add to Freevlog or on the site here. Not everyone knows about "free Quicktime". I am always getting people telling me that they wanted to watch a video and "only got a picture". Randolfe (Randy) Wicker Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280 - Original Message - From: Jay To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:40 PM Subject: [videoblogging] google video? I posted some videos to google video any one else used there service and what your thoughts might be about the if this service is going to fly interface ease of use?link to Superior Adventures TV videos on google.http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Superior+Adventures+TVbtnG=Search+VideoJay Cole[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.superioradventurestv.comwww.superioradventurestv.blogspot.com/wwwsuperioreducationaltelevision.com 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.
[videoblogging] Google Video - best settings for creation
I searched through the group, but could not find anything on: What are the best settings for creating video that is directly compatible for Google Video? The best video as stated by Google video FAQ is - --- Google vide FAQ start --- Google accepts video in a wide range of popular formats. The fastest way to get your videos into Google Video is to submit each file in MPEG4 format with MP3 audio or MPEG2 with MP3. While we also support other digital formats such as QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo, it's important to note that submitting your files in these formats may significantly delay us from using them on Google Video. In some cases, we may not be able to add your video at all. Here are our preferred video specs: NTSC (4:3) size and framerate, deinterlaced Video Codec: MPEG2 or MPEG4 (MPEG4 preferred) Video Bitrate: at least 260Kbps (750kbps preferred) Audio Codec: MP3 vbr Audio Bitrate: at least 70Kbps (128 Kbps preferred) --- Google vide FAQ end --- If someone could list the specific settings/codecs to achieve these for both Quicktime and Windows MovieMaker that would help me greatly. Thanks in advance. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/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/