Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-21 Thread kelly belly
But ... I already do this! Did it from the first day I started using Feedburner. Sidenote: In Mefeedia only my original (technically dead) feed is showing my recent videos; the Feedburner feed is stuck on one from April, though the feed is alive and well and working fine elsewhere. Don't

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-19 Thread Jan
://blog.urbanartadventures.com - Original Message - From: Rick Klau [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:27 PM Subject: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship? Hi all, just joined the list after seeing this post and figured I'd jump in with a few

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-19 Thread Mark Cyr
Thank you Steve, I should have caught that earlier. Thanks to your observation I posted the problem in Feedburner's forums and learned much. Feedburner tests each link at the time of burning the feed, and if they can not verify the link is good, they default the enclosure to a mime type of

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-19 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:27:24 -, Mark Cyr wrote Feedburner tests each link at the time of burning the feed, and if they can not verify the link is good, they default the enclosure to a mime type of txt/html. Are you sure of this? Or did you mean text/html (huge difference, since one

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-19 Thread Joshua Kinberg
No, this is incorrect. Feedburner only makes enclosures for links that return a non image or text mime-type. So, it does not make text/html or text/plain or image/jpeg enclosures, etc. It will make enclosures for everything else. -josh On 7/19/05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-19 Thread Rick Klau
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron wrote: I'm thinking the best feature you could ad to feedburner would be a way for people to incorporate their feed into their regular domain name. Everytime a feed is mentioned anywhere on the net, a directory, a website, a

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread andrew michael baron
Here is an example of of the iTunes feed that seems to be working fine for me evey time: http://tinyurl.com/dnmjf By using XML, you simply extract your database data and that becomes reformated automatically for each post. One note, yes, sometimes individual posts will not show up in

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread andrew michael baron
Ok, well do you know which one gets enclosed? the .mov or .mp4? Do you have control over that? .mov files can contain any number of codecs. 3ivx works in iTunes, all RB videos are 3ivx. On Jul 18, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Mark Cyr wrote: I have been posting a video enclosure with every post,

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread Mark Cyr
They have enclosed both the mp4 and the mov in the past, I really doubt that it is a codec/file format issue... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, well do you know which one gets enclosed? the .mov or .mp4? Do you have control over

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread Michael Sullivan
Andrew, If you can convince someone from Apple to pop in and answer questions, that would be great. Though, i highly doubt they are interested in doing so. Their seems to be much assumption/speculation/questions and you seem to be very knowledgable of the iTune intracacies. But why is

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread andrew michael baron
Mark, .mov is a container which can include a variety of CODECS. You may be using one that does not work. The same is true for .mp4 Is your .mp4 compressed with mpeg4? Is it an .mp4 ISA? Enhanced? Plain? Most likely inside your .mov you are using an incompatible codec. There are many in

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread Mark Cyr
As I posted earlier, I have used the 3vix codec only. I have posted in both file formats .mov .mp4 for other reasons. There is no difference in how I made the files that itunes does not post (except for content, which I hope is not their issue) and the files that itunes does post. I have

Re: [videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread robert a/k/a r
perhaps apple are too busy with this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8614723/ -or- http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050714.html On Jul 18, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Mark Cyr wrote: As I posted earlier, I have used the 3vix codec only. I have posted in both file formats .mov .mp4 for

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread Steve Watkins
I have looked at your specific problem. Its not Itunes, its your feed. If I look at your feedburner feed in a browser, the episode that isnt showing up does not have a 'listen' link on the stylesheet-formatted version of the feed. If I then look at the raw XML source of the feed, it is

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-18 Thread Rick Klau
Hi all, just joined the list after seeing this post and figured I'd jump in with a few comments. (For context - I'm with FeedBurner, I work with publishers who run their feeds through us.) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron wrote: No, I am nearly certain your problem

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-17 Thread mark_thisorthat
I am talking about what happens when I hit 'Update' and itunes supposedly goes out to look at my feed. It updates the listings includes the most recent one, but forgets the older one. All my posts have either .mp4 files or .mov files and itunes has listed plenty of my posts with both. As I

[videoblogging] Re: itunes censorship?

2005-07-17 Thread mark_thisorthat
I have an email dialogue going seperately with the feedburner folks about this very subject. Feedburner is reporting that I have a large percentage of subscribers using itunes, but that my page views and clickthroughs are mostly from 'unknown' sources. I noted to them last week that maybe