But here is the interesting thing, at least for me, is that most people seem to be willing to take all the crap, just in the HOPES that their video does go viral. It's like some kind of badge or something. It's weird...
Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately, the way to deal with comments on YouTube is to turn > them off. :) Unfortunately, as we've mentioned on this group several > times, a lot of the so-called "hits" on youtube are from people that > DON'T like the videos. If a video gets featured, there are a lot of > hits from people that will click any image they see on the front page > of a web site, especially if there's an attractive female on that > thumbnail. Some people show up specifically to be griefers, so the > only way around that is to have some system where the content creator > has to specifically approve people to comment on their videos, or turn > off commenting altogether. > > Bill Cammack > http://billcammack.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > I think that is really one of the greatest failures of YouTube, how > > to deal with all those really nasty comments. I will be honest, I > > can't for the life of me understand why more people don't do > > something about it. Some of the stuff left as comments are vile, > > just vile....maybe it really is just a small percentage, but it > > doesn't seem like it. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > http://heathparks.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > Great point. > > > But I'm not sure they'd continue elsewhere - it hasn't happened so > > > far. I think the only reason the haters are so prolific on > > Youtube > > > is that it's so easy to comment. There's just The Box under every > > > video. You write your shit and press send. You'd think that that > > > ease *should* translate into great community & discussion, but it > > > doesn't. Make people do one more thing before they press send - > > like > > > add their email or URL or a subject line, or have some kind of > > > traceable identity & profile - and it becomes too much effort to > > slap > > > someone and run away. That's my opinion. > > > I have comments approval turned on by default on all my videos on > > > YouTube. If anyone writes anything hateful, I block them AND mark > > > them as spammers AND report them. They should all be hunted and > > killed. > > > > > > > > > On 16-Jun-08, at 3:28 PM, Clintus wrote: > > > > > > In one hand I would love for it to burn to the ground. I hate that > > > place. > > > > > > On the other hand though, the "haters" that have made a home for > > > themselves there would need to seek a new place to spread their shit > > > and that means into the truly great communities out there that are > > > virtually hate free. That would be a sad day. > > > > > > So yeah, not sure where I stand on this. Great post though. > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Very instering article on cnet today > > > > > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html? tag=cnetfd.mt > > > > > > > > The big points are that Google overpaid for Youtube, (who didn't > > know > > > > that?) But the idea that they could actually dump it, because > > they > > > > can't figure out a way to make money off user generated video...I > > > > think that is a real possibility. And I fear what that would mean > > > > for all of the other video hosting sites if it happens. > > > > > > > > Read below.. > > > > > > > > Do you remember the good ol' days of YouTube? Back when a private > > > > company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted > > up > > > > there and no one would say a word because, well, it was > > practically > > > > bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything > > out of > > > > a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they? > > > > > > > > Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, YouTube is not only > > a > > > > veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple > > years > > > > ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a > > huge > > > > lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue. > > > > > > > > And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has > > no > > > > idea what to do about it. > > > > > > > > Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it "seemed obvious" > > > > that Google should be able to generate "significant amounts of > > money" > > > > from YouTube, but so far, it has no idea what to do. > > > > > > > > "The goal for YouTube is to build a tremendous community....In > > the > > > > case of YouTube we might be wrong," he said. "We have enough > > leverage > > > > that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and > > not > > > > have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and > > > > judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we > > can > > > > change it." > > > > > > > > But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired > > > > YouTube, the company has tried desperately to make something, > > > > anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has > > > > failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post- roll' > > > > advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure. > > > > > > > > And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn > > a > > > > profit on YouTube and it still has no idea if it will be able to > > get > > > > a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and > > do > > > > something drastically different? > > > > > > > > Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my > > > > editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think > > about > > > > it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service > > > > continue to dump significant amounts of cash into it (not to > > mention > > > > spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of > > creating > > > > a valuable revenue stream? > > > > > > > > Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears > > over > > > > the YouTube debacle, but the very fact that he said anything > > about it > > > > is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on > > YouTube > > > > is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In > > > > other words, if Google is making anything with YouTube, it > > doesn't > > > > even matter. > > > > > > > > Let's face it -- the YouTube acquisition was a major blunder and > > > > regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, > > there's > > > > no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place > > ads > > > > on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80- > > year old > > > > men mooning a parade. > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is > > going > > > > to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are > > > > regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily > > obtained. > > > > > > > > How does YouTube and its content compare? The audience is huge, > > but > > > > it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a > > select > > > > few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; > > and > > > > the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any > > advertiser > > > > want to send cash to a service like that? > > > > > > > > Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the > > boom in > > > > online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. > > But > > > > doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make > > > > people want a given product? It's as if Google believes that > > sheer > > > > popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they > > start > > > > throwing cash around. > > > > > > > > But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget > > about > > > > hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right > > place at > > > > the right time? > > > > > > > > Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that YouTube won't find > > > > itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be > > more > > > > than happy to spend money on YouTube, but what kind exactly? Will > > > > YouTube become the dump of advertising where strip clubs and > > brothels > > > > will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown > > politicians > > > > will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly > > > > don't see Johnson and Johnson sending ad dollars to YouTube > > anytime > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > Lost amid the shuffle, though, is the question of ad dollars > > itself. > > > > How does Google monetize YouTube on videos that you create? > > Sure, it > > > > figured out the online business, but video is a totally different > > > > game entirely and without creative control over the content, ads > > may > > > > be found on videos that could leave a bad taste in Google's > > mouth and > > > > yours. > > > > > > > > Beyond that, YouTube costs Google millions each month and I'm > > just > > > > not sure how long the company really wants to maintain that loss > > > > until it follows a new course. > > > > > > > > Killing YouTube would obviously be the last resort and I think > > there > > > > are a few options Google has before it's forced to pull the > > plug. But > > > > if it can't find a way to regulate some of the content that will > > host > > > > ads and it doesn't attract high-paying advertisers, it's sitting > > on a > > > > billion dollar mistake that keeps draining cash from its coffers > > with > > > > each passing day. > > > > > > > > YouTube was the greatest blunder Goolge has ever committed and it > > > > better act quickly if it wants to turn it around. But if it can't > > > > right the ship over the next few years and advertisers start > > spending > > > > more cash elsewhere, YouTube will be nothing but a repository for > > > > people to upload crappy videos that have no commercial > > viability. And > > > > for Google, that's unacceptable. > > > > > > > > Google is trying to run a business that is responsible to > > > > shareholders. And while it may have the cash to keep one of the > > > > world's most popular sites running now, popularity of a website, > > in > > > > and of itself, should not justify its operation. If the company > > is > > > > losing millions each quarter, I simply don't see why it should > > keep > > > > it up. > > > > > > > > It may sound ludicrous to shut down such a popular site, but > > we're > > > > entering a new generation of entertainment in the online space > > and > > > > pageviews don't always mean success any longer. Especially if a > > > > company is spending millions just trying to keep a website alive. > > > > > > > > I would love to see YouTube survive, but business is business, > > and if > > > > Google can't turn things around, I simply don't see any other > > option > > > > for Schmidt and company. > > > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > http://heathparks.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
