I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that "show" option).
It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is valid). If the definition is "video on a blog" - I think "blog" is generally recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube isn't one. Does that make sense? -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a > blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with > a way to link to them. > > On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: > > > Going with the definition that a > > videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point > > of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively > > eliminates everything published only on YouTube > > -- > Steve Garfield > http://SteveGarfield.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
