On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullMichael,I'm really sorry to say this, truly, but you don't have absolute knowledge. I know that because, of course, I
On Jan 14, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Richard Show wrote: On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge. I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge. fyi.sullMichael,I'm really sorry to say this, truly, but you don't have absolute
what does this mean exactly?
Categories based on tags maybe?something i have going on vlogdir is ability for members to suggest a category. it goes into a queue and i get an email alert. mostly they are approved... I'm kind of lazy about it too.
sometimes i get very redundant or non-sensible
On 1/12/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what does this mean exactly?
Categories based on tags maybe?This means something like groups of tags in categories, like filtering on tags, or something...but I've thought about it since it that's just dumb, too cumbersome.
something i
there have been several threads in the past regarding who sends the most
email to this group, but I can't imagine that anyone sends more words
than Michael. And fine words they often are! (raises a glass of the
local brew)
markus
Enric wrote:
You're wordy, but good. ...
--- In
Thanks for posting the zappa link, Chris.
This FOIA request response will take only one minute to read and is
informative:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481
On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Christopher Weagel wrote:
...
Here's the Zappa clip:
There are several feeds that have been flagged as potential adult
content, not just the one, there are 25 of them. But I agree that
there should be some dialog with the producers of the feeds before
they get flagged, that's where Mefeedia did go wrong, agreed. The
process is being refined.
On 1/10/06, Ms. Kitka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish that there were more options when submitting a feed to a site
like Mefeedia. Many sites ask whether your vlog is explicit or
contains adult content but that's where I believe they're wrong.
What would be nice is if the sites would
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Philip Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My feed is one of the ones that has been flagged as adult content.
I'm OK with that.
Seems to me, as long as you're the one who's hosting the party, you
should be allowed to set the dress code.
I agree.
--
I would say that you should consult with the porn site owners and
get their input. I wouldn't think that they would want their stuff
accessed by kids any more than you do.
I think Richards biggest issue seemed to be that MeFeedia seemed to
arbitrarily pick his feed out for labeling without
On 1/10/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that you should consult with the porn site owners and
get their input. I wouldn't think that they would want their stuff
accessed by kids any more than you do.
I think Richards biggest issue seemed to be that MeFeedia seemed
right.the last thread on this a month or 2 or 3 or 4 ago i suggested a proactive solution where the site had a clear path to Kid-friendly content, Adult content and some other filtered areas... where much else falls under the normalized flow of categories and tags. Yes, you can still 'see'
Sorry Sull, I did try to search for it this morning, but that's what I
get for reacting to things without sufficient caffeine in my system.
On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
right.
the last thread on this a month or 2 or 3 or 4 ago i suggested a
proactive solution
On 1/10/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Philip Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My feed is one of the ones that has been flagged as adult content.
I'm OK with that.
Seems to me, as long as you're the one who's hosting the party, you
should
categories... a full circle. back in the day most were like 'categories? that's out. Now it's all about tags!My response was... 'nope, its about categories AND tags'.
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that you
Categories based on tags maybe?On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
categories... a full circle. back in the day most were like 'categories? that's out. Now it's all about tags!My response was... 'nope, its about categories AND tags'.
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL
Here's a suggestion...
You need contact info for the feed owner to notify them (allow owners
to claim their feed)... perhaps notify them that their feed will be
flagged as explicit and offer them a choice to provide a rating
category if they desire (PG, PG-13, R, X... whatever scale you want).
Yes, another good suggestion. We are working on feed claiming in a
future release.
I think the main failing in this issue is our lack of communication
iwth the owner of the feed.
On 1/10/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a suggestion...
You need contact info for the feed
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of these tags fit all content very
well. I think we'd need something like PG-13 or PG-16. I just think
that David's description of Mature and Adult are too similar, which is
why I mentioned R and X (R is
Or how about this. Have a really general category structure by
default, and allow users to create their own personallized
categories based on tags. Okay maybe that's too obvious.
Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of these tags fit all content very
well. I think we'd need something like PG-13 or PG-16. I just think
that David's description of Mature and Adult are too similar, which is
why I
I would be nice (if this is a favorable way to go) to use our own
ratings, and not be tied to choices big media made
On 1/10/06, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:11 +0100, Ms. Kitka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be nice is if the sites would provide markers indicating
the rating level of content similar to Hollywood films (G, PG-13,
PG-16, R, X). There's nothing I hate more than sitting in front of
the computer
Categories based on tags maybe?
That is the Microformat way. Just tag it with a relTag.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Categories based on tags maybe?
On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
categories... a full circle.
back in the day
You guys are suggesting ratings?
Jesus christ.
Pick up a camera and go make something, stop wasting time on children
who have assholes for parents.
Chris Weagel
www.human-dog.com
On Jan 10, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
maybe just allow folks to tag it not safe for work
a check box when submitting a feed.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be nice (if this is a favorable way to go) to use our own
ratings, and not be tied to choices big media made
On 1/10/06, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL
I think this will cover a lot of ground initially. I like it.
On 1/10/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe just allow folks to tag it not safe for work
a check box when submitting a feed.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be nice (if this is a
We did toss this idea around, I don't remember what happened to it,
but it's a good idea.
On 1/10/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Categories based on tags maybe?
That is the Microformat way. Just tag it with a relTag.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or we could use the Entertainment Software Rating Board's ratings:
http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp
I heartfully agree with using the ESRB's ratings, they are well
written and I can flag myself as being alright for over 13s (Titles
rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable
minimal blood that's a great criteria!!!d
SPONSORED LINKS
Individual
Fireant
Use
Explains
yeah.. i this is good approach as a loose label...i suggested the same thing inside of a chat on tagging a feed 'plays on insert device name' so people can know if the channel will work on video iPods, PSPs etc...
same applies here... a loose guide to the channel. still, RSS usage is best in
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of these tags fit all content
very
well. I think we'd need something like PG-13 or PG-16. I just
Pick up a camera and go make something, stop wasting time on children
who have assholes for parents.
Oh, come on... haven't you ever heard of the Child Protection and
Obscenity Enforcement Act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_USC_Section_2257
Kitka
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit
Metadata is king.On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah.. i this is good approach as a loose label...i suggested
the same thing inside of a chat on tagging a feed 'plays on insert
device name' so people can know if the channel will work on video
iPods, PSPs etc... same
If you are smart enough to be on the net, and you want to get porn,
as a kid it isn't hard to do.
I agree, if a kid is smart enough and wants to get porn I think they
should be allowed to access it. However, the American Government
doesn't agree with me, which is why 18 U.S.C. § 2251 exists
I think Veoh got it right when they introduced the TV ratings scale in
their directory to be applied by podcasters and suggested by viewers.
With that said I always apply the explicit flag to all my posts even
when certain directories say they are more PG-13, because it is our
intention and
I just check out your show Mark.
http://appserver.veoh.com/mediaDetails.html?permalinkId=e22690
In light of that (oh! my virgin eyes!) I suggested a rating system
of TV and TV-Boobs in which TV-Boobs was the rating given to
anything with nudity (boobs and down). That would pretty much solve
The ol' forbidden fruit. Be honest now, weren't you the same kids who
snuck a peek at Playboy a few years back? Parental Advisory is for
parents to be aware and keep their kids out of trouble. The kids' job
is to get into trouble. :) The best we can do is to warn viewers
because its really up
exactly. putting a rating on something isn't about oh this will
prevent kids from getting at it its about the producer being able to
say I've given what information I can to help parents judge the
content
On 1/10/06, Joan Khoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ol' forbidden fruit. Be honest now,
Yes I have.
I wasn't clear enough. My apologies.
That law should be struck down and openly defied whenever possible.
Imposing some sort of bullshit ratings system on yourself is
admitting that the freaks who advocate such censorship are correct.
Why? Because you're buying into the bullshit
Enric
I'm telling people what to think?
What the hell does that even mean?
Or in reference to?
Here's the Zappa clip:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2658805?htv=12
Chris Weagel
On Jan 10, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Enric wrote:
Sorry, weagel but your telling people what to think
-- Enric
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullOn 1/10/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that may not be exactly accurate.What it looks like to me (andI'm open to be proven wrong on this or anything else I state) is
This discussion is probably annoying, off course and I'm getting
philosophical abstract again (sorry, it's what I like to do --
treading now into moral philosophy.) But my point is that declaring
something wrong in absolute terms and people who disagree as idiots
doesn't leave room for discussion
Hail the all-knowing Sull?
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullOn 1/10/06, Enric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that may not be exactly accurate.What it
if you must. ;-)On 1/10/06, Joan Khoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hail the all-knowing Sull?
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullOn 1/10/06, Enric
Weagel taught me everything I know.On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you must. ;-)On 1/10/06, Joan Khoo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hail the all-knowing Sull?
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
46 matches
Mail list logo
