Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:32:51 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
this is interesting.
its a list of known blogs circa 2000:
http://www.jjg.net/retired/portal/tpoowl.html
I'm not on it! I got my first Blogger blog in October 2000, and if I had
Jay dedman wrote:
there is a difference between the personal videoblogs and the show
videoblogs.
personal videoblgs cant really be categorized because they are about
anything the person wants (like blogging).
the show videolbogs are easy to categorize becasue they are like
mini-tv shows (a
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Pete Prodoehl wrote:
Jay dedman wrote:
there is a difference between the personal videoblogs and the
show videoblogs.
personal videoblgs cant really be categorized because they are about
anything the person wants (like blogging).
the show videolbogs are easy
I can't help but think that someone who walks around pointing a
camera at them-self and then puts that up for the world to see is a
show.
I understand however the rejection of the word as it applies to this
particular medium when people feel it may indicate something
contrived, or planned
ahhh, the joy of language.many personal video journals may contain an individual 'putting on a show'. it may be them and it may be true to form, but you have to admit that once you are doing self-video, people will have tendencies to not be a total bore... hell, even socially anywhere, people
On Dec 5, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
if its within a videoblog form the word 'show' would be hard
to use. they would just be videos.
I disagree. And so, what you are getting at here is the word blog.
It is important. As you all know, I have always looked to the
but what part of what i said do you disagree with, specifically?thanks.On 12/5/05, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Dec 5, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
if its within a videoblog form the word 'show' would be hard to use.they would just be videos.I disagree. And
i see... you took the ending of my point and excluded the beginning.so, its out of context. in talking specifically about the word 'show', i pointed out that it would be hard to call a corporate internal videoblog of boring meetings a 'show'.
might not be a practical example, but just making a
I just dont see why it would be difficult to use the word "show" in context of a videoblog. What are your thoughts on this?On Dec 5, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: but what part of what i said do you disagree with, specifically?thanks.On 12/5/05, andrew michael baron [EMAIL
Let's extend the show analogy a bit...
To me, most videoblogs are *segments*. Only when you have multiple
segments, does it become a *show*. I view *show* in this context as much
more of a container than simply anything.
That's just my opinion on it, and my knee-jerk, though.
andrew michael
Ok, I follow you now. This is pretty funny. I definitely misunderstood.I was reading along and when I came to this part:"a show is something that tries to be entertaining.a corporate business meeting... an accountant explaining numbers and codes training seminars all most likely to bore
again, I am not suggesting that. my point is much more narrow than what you are interpreting.On 12/5/05, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just dont see why it would be difficult to use the word show in context of a videoblog. What are your thoughts on this?On Dec 5, 2005, at
I think show vs. personal diary may be the wrong way to put it.Really it comes down to the intent of the creator and their goals in terms of reaching an audience.Some people make stuff for a generalized (and thus larger) audience. This type of content needs to be entertaining or somehow have
Advisor: The Immortality
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Jan
McLaughlin
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:03
PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] making
directories
BevSykes wrote:
Really, really coming in late to this thread, but I started keeping
an on-line journal before the term blog had been created, much less
vlog.
When I first began writing a journal in 2000, I began checking out
the journaling world and found journals I am still reading today,
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:32:51 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
this is interesting.
its a list of known blogs circa 2000:
http://www.jjg.net/retired/portal/tpoowl.html
I'm not on it! I got my first Blogger blog in October 2000, and if I had
one a ton of other people had them.
It would be cool if there were some metadata format to have timecoded
shownotes associated with vidcasts so that you could keep track of
their content on a post by post basis and just get the clips you
want. I know Doug Kaye basically already does this with some of the
content on IT
Write a text description in your blog software when you post your video.
No need to overcomplicate things.
- Andreas
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:45:29 +0100, Michael Ridley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be cool if there were some metadata format to have timecoded
shownotes associated with
Sure but how do I link to the segmet 15 minutes in?
-m
On 12/4/05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Write a text description in your blog software when you post your video.
No need to overcomplicate things.
- Andreas
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:45:29 +0100, Michael Ridley
If you've got 15 minutes you don't have a blog entry. You have a tv
program in a blog.
- Andreas
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:20:24 +0100, Michael Ridley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure but how do I link to the segmet 15 minutes in?
-m
On 12/4/05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
If you've got 15 minutes you don't have a blog entry. You have a tv
program in a blog.
Fact check: False. Non sequitur. The hypothetical inference is
unrelated to the conclusion.
Videoblog entries are not defined by the minute.
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:59:56 +0100, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
If you've got 15 minutes you don't have a blog entry. You have a tv
program in a blog.
Fact check: False. Non sequitur. The hypothetical
Time can play in as a sentiment for the definition, but it can
not restrict the definition. You can say typically or often, but
you are a butcher for saying 15min is not allowed. You will need to
come up with a cut-off point.
Especially, and specifically to the point that you made about a
silly answer.
you might find this article by jon udell more enlightening
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2005/01/07/primetime.html
this is one area where quicktime really sux compared to the others
(real, windows, etc)
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
If you've got 15 minutes you
We were talking about a generalized example, no absolutes. It's
academically dishonest to equate the general example with an absolute rule.
- Andreas
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:15:48 +0100, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time can play in as a sentiment for the definition, but it
this is one area where quicktime really sux compared to the others(real, windows, etc)
QT+SMIL then.
On 12/4/05, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
silly answer.you might find this article by jon udell more enlightening
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2005/01/07/primetime.htmlthis
QT + SMIL really sux.
I hate watching things load/buffer forever.
-josh
On 12/4/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is one area where quicktime really sux compared to the others
(real, windows, etc)
QT+SMIL then.
On 12/4/05, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time in the context of videoblogs, or more specifically the actual video, can only be a preference of the creator and audience but cannot be a factor in qualifyingit as a videoblogagainst any other label that one might conjure up.
If I have what is agreed to be a videoblog, and for whatever
buffering happens with all platforms...
On 12/4/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QT + SMIL really sux.I hate watching things load/buffer forever.-joshOn 12/4/05, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is one area where quicktime really sux compared to the others (real,
craigslist works pretty well
On 12/3/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the things that helped people find weblogs in the very earlydays was
weblogs.com, which was acquired recently by Verisign. All itis really is a ping server. Bloggers would ping it when they postedsomething
You started off the converstation by saying: "If you've got 15 minutes you don't have a blog entry. "Then you sent a few more e-mails elaborating on time and defending your claim.Now you are giving up and suggesting that its my fault for assuming you were not speaking generally (which is what I
Craigslist works well because people are putting stuff in distinct categories in order to be found in those distinct categories.But.. craigslist is also very temporal. Only the recent stuff is noticed. Its harder to find things that aren't the most recent.
-JoshOn 12/4/05, Michael Sullivan
You seem to be looking for trouble everywhere. When I wrote my first email
I wasn't aware that this had become an academic discussion list. If I knew
that my email would've been a lot longer and a lot more boring to 98% of
the people on this list. You can be proud about calling me on being
alright, i see your point...
enter vodcasts.
;-)
On 12/4/05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be looking for trouble everywhere. When I wrote my first emailI wasn't aware that this had become an academic discussion list. If I knew
that my email would've been a lot
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:01:31 +0100, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I have what is agreed to be a videoblog, and for whatever reason my
latest post contains a long video... 20 minutes.
Your going to tell me that I no longer have a videoblog and this was not
a
videoblog post?
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:27:42 +0100, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alright, i see your point...
enter vodcasts.
;-)
Exactly. :o)
- Andreas
--
URL:http://www.solitude.dk/
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
These threads really get off topic quickly.
I'm much more interested in what makes a good directory rather than
whether a video blog should be restricted to under 15 minutes.
Personally, I like to leave the content decisions up to the creators.
They make what they want, I view what I want. I
Andreas, some guy was asking a technical question about linking and
you stepped in to destroy him by diverting the question into some
irrational, diatribe about universals.
The real question is: Does all this help anyone get closer to why long
videos don't fit into the blogging use pattern
You guys are so closed if you think this.
On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:27:42 +0100, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alright, i see your point...
enter vodcasts.
;-)
Exactly. :o)
- Andreas
--
It's always dangerous to predict the future, but I can try anyway. I think
video-only blogs will take directories to heart because people can't
decide if they're blogging or making tv for iPod and PSP. Text blogs and
mixed-media will continue like they always have because it's a better way
to
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:44:00 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
but the fact that people can make content for TV/portables is not
necessarily a bad thing.
No, no. But it's different.
- Andreas
--
URL:http://www.solitude.dk/
Commentary on media, communication, culture and
One of the things that helped people find weblogs in the very early
days was weblogs.com, which was acquired recently by Verisign. All it
is really is a ping server. Bloggers would ping it when they posted
something new, and it contains a list of the recent posts. When there
were only a handful of
42 matches
Mail list logo
