subject:"\[videoblogging\] Re\: Spirit can not be spoken for"

This is true. I think you have to give explicit feedback more weight
than implicit feedback.
But implicit feedback is better than a blackhole of nothingness...
especially when a system is dependent on user feedback.

-Josh


On 11/27/05, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The problem with tracking what people watch is 'clickers'...what if
> I load a
> > clip, I don't like it so I don't finish...does that get ear-marked
> that I
> > watched it and therefore it's popularity goes up by one?
> >
> > I think feedback that a user consciously adds is more valuable than
> tracking
> > usage.
> >
> > But that's just my 2 cents.
>
> But then behavior is more indicative of honesty than speech.  That
> shows up in polling questions.
>
>   -- Enric
>
> >
> > On 11/27/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > As to Randy's comment... user's do not vote so much with their mice as
> > > they do simply with their attention this attention may be provided
> > > explicitly in the form of feedback, ratings, reviews, tags, whatever,
> > > or implicitly simply through their interactions with the system.
> > >
> > > -Josh
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > ~Devlon
> > http://mefeedia.com/
> > See what we are up to:
> > http://mefeedia.com/blog/
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem with tracking what people watch is 'clickers'...what if
I load a
> clip, I don't like it so I don't finish...does that get ear-marked
that I
> watched it and therefore it's popularity goes up by one?
> 
> I think feedback that a user consciously adds is more valuable than
tracking
> usage.
> 
> But that's just my 2 cents.

But then behavior is more indicative of honesty than speech.  That
shows up in polling questions.

  -- Enric

> 
> On 11/27/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As to Randy's comment... user's do not vote so much with their mice as
> > they do simply with their attention this attention may be provided
> > explicitly in the form of feedback, ratings, reviews, tags, whatever,
> > or implicitly simply through their interactions with the system.
> >
> > -Josh
> >
> >
> >
> --
> ~Devlon
> http://mefeedia.com/
> See what we are up to:
> http://mefeedia.com/blog/
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Devlon




The problem with tracking what people watch is 'clickers'...what if I
load a clip, I don't like it so I don't finish...does that get
ear-marked that I watched it and therefore it's popularity goes up by
one?

I think feedback that a user consciously adds is more valuable than tracking usage.

But that's just my 2 cents.On 11/27/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




As to Randy's comment... user's do not vote so much with their mice as
they do simply with their attention this attention may be provided
explicitly in the form of feedback, ratings, reviews, tags, whatever,
or implicitly simply through their interactions with the system.

-Josh

-- ~Devlonhttp://mefeedia.com/See what we are up to:http://mefeedia.com/blog/





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

This is a good point... these systems must grow.
None of this stuff matters much if you don't have a community of active users.
Otherwise its like an empty Forum, which is sort of sad.

-Josh


On 11/27/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  True, Markus.
>
> Do systems like what amazon use have value? yes.  how much value? i have no
> clue... I rarely pay attention to it when making purchases.  I read a few
> reviews from both ends of the positive meter.. and move on.
>
> gotta find a balance and not hyper-geek it all... or at least if you do, the
> user is not bombarded with it and instead would need to drill into adding
> more 'fedback'  less is more and all that.  i beleive in providing several
> filter mechanisms, but there is a limit to peoples willingness to
> participate in this stuff, i think.
>
> sull
>
>
> On 11/27/05, Markus Sandy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > great in theory perhaps, but what about practice?
> >
> > take amazon for example:
> >
> > the products are rated
> > the reviewers are rated
> > the ratings are rated!
> > the shippers are rated
> >
> > did i leave anything out =)
> >
> > i have a degree in mathematics, but i still don't want to have to solve
> multi-variable word problems every time I buy something
> >
> > or worse, every time I want to watch a videoblog
> >
> > sometimes this is what turns "one-click" solutions into multi-page
> interviews asking you if you were satisfied with the customer satisfaction
> survey.
> >
> > perhaps this is all a holy grail and that it will always be necessary for
> individuals to sift the wheat from the chaff
> >
> > perhaps that is actually part of the process of videoblogging that steve
> garfield has put forth: watch, learn, create, teach
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> >
> > Very good point, Josh.  People are said to "vote with their feet".  Would
> we say that viewers on the Internet vote with their "mice" :)
> >
> > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
> >
> > Videographer, Writer, Activist
> > Advisor: The Immortality Institute
> > Hoboken, NJ
> > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
> > 201-656-3280
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Joshua Kinberg
> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
> >
> > Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let other users
> > know that you found the review helpful or not. This type of feedback
> > promotes trust in the system. People who are considered good reviewers
> > rise to the top of the reviews.
> >
> > -Josh
> >
> >
> > On 11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on Amazon.  It is
> the
> > > text accompanying the rating.  Someone might give a book a "one-star"
> rating
> > > and in writing about the book say something like "exposes like this one
> on
> > > the high rate of theft in Columbia do a disservice to the country."
> > >
> > > So, if you are planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take that
> > > "One-star" rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be aware of
> the
> > > dangers lurking for tourists.
> > >
> > >
> > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
> > >
> > > Videographer, Writer, Activist
> > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute
> > > Hoboken, NJ
> > > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
> > > 201-656-3280
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: Frank Carver
> > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
> > >
> > > Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > > > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are actually
> > > > very important and should be allowed.  That is especially true when
> > > > the star ratings are accompanied by text critiques.
> > > > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the "anointed few".
> > >
> > > To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or any other f

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Michael Sullivan




True, Markus.Do systems like what amazon use have value? yes.  how much value? i have no clue... I rarely pay attention to it when making purchases.  I read a few reviews from both ends of the positive meter.. and move on.
gotta find a balance and not hyper-geek it all... or at least if you do, the user is not bombarded with it and instead would need to drill into adding more 'fedback'  less is more and all that.  i beleive in providing several filter mechanisms, but 
there is a limit to peoples willingness to participate in this stuff, i think.sullOn 11/27/05, Markus Sandy <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



  




great in theory perhaps, but what about practice?

take amazon for example:

the products are rated
the reviewers are rated
the ratings are rated!
the shippers are rated

did i leave anything out =)

i have a degree in mathematics, but i still don't want to have to solve
multi-variable word problems every time I buy something

or worse, every time I want to watch a videoblog

sometimes this is what turns "one-click" solutions into multi-page
interviews asking you if you were satisfied with the customer
satisfaction survey.

perhaps this is all a holy grail and that it will always be necessary
for individuals to sift the wheat from the chaff

perhaps that is actually part of the process of videoblogging that
steve garfield has put forth: watch, learn, create, teach





Randolfe Wicker wrote:

  
  
  
  Very good point, Josh.  People are
said to "vote with their feet".  Would we say that viewers on the
Internet vote with their "mice" :)
   
  Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
   
  Videographer, Writer, Activist
Advisor: The Immortality Institute
Hoboken, NJ
  http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
201-656-3280
   
   
  
-
Original Message - 


From:
Joshua
Kinberg 
To:
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

Sent:
Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:12 PM
    Subject:
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for


Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let other
users
know that you found the review helpful or not. This type of feedback
promotes trust in the system. People who are considered good reviewers
rise to the top of the reviews.

-Josh


On 11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on Amazon. 
It is the
> text accompanying the rating.  Someone might give a book a
"one-star" rating
> and in writing about the book say something like "exposes like
this one on
> the high rate of theft in Columbia do a disservice to the country."
>
> So, if you are planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take
that
> "One-star" rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be
aware of the
> dangers lurking for tourists.
>
>
> Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
>
> Videographer, Writer, Activist
> Advisor: The Immortality Institute
> Hoboken, NJ
> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
> 201-656-3280
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Frank Carver
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are
actually
> > very important and should be allowed.  That is especially
true when
> > the star ratings are accompanied by text critiques.
> > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the
"anointed few".
>
> To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or any other
form
> of single rating is at best _evaluative_ without being
_informative_.
> In most cases it's ao much worse as to be effectively useless of
even
> deceptive.
>
> The problem is fundamentally this: the author of the rating has to
> choose one single "axis" on which to rate a piece. But this axis is
> probably not the one that any given reader wants to know. Worst of
> all, most reviewers don't even make clear _what_ axis they assumed
was
> most significant.
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, Eric Rice wrote:
> > For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I
want
> > to look at his personal list of favorites, see how he ranks
them. If
> > I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his rankings
really
> > really matter. To *me*.
>
> So we have Eric looking for ratings on "coolness". (whatever that
> means).
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > I have been talking about the need for people to direct us to
really
> > important vlogs. Let me take a stab at doing this here. I

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Jay dedman

>  perhaps this is all a holy grail and that it will always be necessary for
> individuals to sift the wheat from the chaff
>  perhaps that is actually part of the process of videoblogging that steve
> garfield has put forth: watch, learn, create, teach

agreed.
in the end, there is no way to have a computer tell you what you will like.
it can only suggest.
the human element is the most important.
building tools let you see what your friends are watching.
being able to give people repuations so you can judge their choices.

but bottom line:
to know whats good means you must spend time with videolbogs...listen
to people...and see whats up.
no pill to pop here.

Jay



--
Adventures in Videoblogging
http://www.momentshowing.net>




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

Absolutely. The trick is in presenting a user interface such that its
easily understandable and usable, even though the underlying process
is complex.

In general, Amazon works pretty well. I am able to find stuff there
and ascertin whether I want to buy it. There are a number of ways for
me to analyze the item in order to make my purchase decision. There
are also suggestions that help me compare things or determine if there
might be another product I am interested in. Overall, it works fairly
well and people seem to understand it. Using stars as ratings, or
thumbs up/thumbs down, seems to be the general practice. There is also
the implicit data gathered simply from user interaction and usage
habits, i.e. what have you bought? what have you viewed? how long did
you view something? etc... this data can be very useful.

As to Randy's comment... user's do not vote so much with their mice as
they do simply with their attention this attention may be provided
explicitly in the form of feedback, ratings, reviews, tags, whatever,
or implicitly simply through their interactions with the system.

-Josh


On 11/27/05, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  great in theory perhaps, but what about practice?
>
>  take amazon for example:
>
>  the products are rated
>  the reviewers are rated
>  the ratings are rated!
>  the shippers are rated
>
>  did i leave anything out =)
>
>  i have a degree in mathematics, but i still don't want to have to solve
> multi-variable word problems every time I buy something
>
>  or worse, every time I want to watch a videoblog
>
>  sometimes this is what turns "one-click" solutions into multi-page
> interviews asking you if you were satisfied with the customer satisfaction
> survey.
>
>  perhaps this is all a holy grail and that it will always be necessary for
> individuals to sift the wheat from the chaff
>
>  perhaps that is actually part of the process of videoblogging that steve
> garfield has put forth: watch, learn, create, teach
>
>
>
>
>
>  Randolfe Wicker wrote:
>
> Very good point, Josh.  People are said to "vote with their feet".  Would we
> say that viewers on the Internet vote with their "mice" :)
>
> Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
>
> Videographer, Writer, Activist
>  Advisor: The Immortality Institute
>  Hoboken, NJ
>  http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
>  201-656-3280
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: Joshua Kinberg
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
>
>  Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let other users
>  know that you found the review helpful or not. This type of feedback
>  promotes trust in the system. People who are considered good reviewers
>  rise to the top of the reviews.
>
>  -Josh
>
>
>  On 11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on Amazon.  It is
> the
>  > text accompanying the rating.  Someone might give a book a "one-star"
> rating
>  > and in writing about the book say something like "exposes like this one
> on
>  > the high rate of theft in Columbia do a disservice to the country."
>  >
>  > So, if you are planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take that
>  > "One-star" rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be aware of
> the
>  > dangers lurking for tourists.
>  >
>  >
>  > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
>  >
>  > Videographer, Writer, Activist
>  > Advisor: The Immortality Institute
>  > Hoboken, NJ
>  > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
>  > 201-656-3280
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > - Original Message -
>  > From: Frank Carver
>  > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>  >
>  > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:22 AM
>  > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
>  >
>  > Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
>  > > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are actually
>  > > very important and should be allowed.  That is especially true when
>  > > the star ratings are accompanied by text critiques.
>  > > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the "anointed few".
>  >
>  > To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or any other form
>  > of single rating is at best _evaluative_ without being _informative_.
>  > In most cases it's ao much worse as to be effectively useless of even
&

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Michael Sullivan




yep... i have this feature on vlogdir, partially activated. there are 'vlogmarks' (personal favorites),,, and i could make these publically viewable, just have not added that to the interface yet.  by next week, it should be... along with other human filter/revlog features.
since there is also a ratings system, the two are by default associated.also, anyone can leave comments/reviews since May on vlogdir... just a basic feature... could be enhanced with more input fields (as mefeedia has done) if i thought it would be used... but honestly, i feel most people just want to watch/subscribe/download/leave comments on the vlog, not nec add a review on the source directory... but that may very well change as the culture of consuming video evolves and the community/trust environments are matured.  
sullOn 11/27/05, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like this idea.  It's almost like the reviews, but shorter andeasier for me as a user to indicate that I liked a feed (instead oftyping up a review)Reviews are still great and very helpful.On 11/27/05, Eric Rice <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>  One of the things I pinged the good folks about Podcast Pickle about was> ratings based on>  a USER's favorite vlogs. While popularity and star systems have their place
> in certain cases,>  what's most important to me is how my favorites rank other vlogs.>>  For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I want to look> at his personal
>  list of favorites, see how he ranks them. If I'm giving trust to Peter as a> filter, then his>  rankings really really matter. To *me*.>>  Two cents.>>  ER
-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Markus Sandy







great in theory perhaps, but what about practice?

take amazon for example:

the products are rated
the reviewers are rated
the ratings are rated!
the shippers are rated

did i leave anything out =)

i have a degree in mathematics, but i still don't want to have to solve
multi-variable word problems every time I buy something

or worse, every time I want to watch a videoblog

sometimes this is what turns "one-click" solutions into multi-page
interviews asking you if you were satisfied with the customer
satisfaction survey.

perhaps this is all a holy grail and that it will always be necessary
for individuals to sift the wheat from the chaff

perhaps that is actually part of the process of videoblogging that
steve garfield has put forth: watch, learn, create, teach





Randolfe Wicker wrote:

  
  
  
  Very good point, Josh.  People are
said to "vote with their feet".  Would we say that viewers on the
Internet vote with their "mice" :)
   
  Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
   
  Videographer, Writer, Activist
Advisor: The Immortality Institute
Hoboken, NJ
  http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
201-656-3280
   
   
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Joshua
Kinberg 
To:
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

Sent:
Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:12 PM
    Subject:
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for


Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let other
users
know that you found the review helpful or not. This type of feedback
promotes trust in the system. People who are considered good reviewers
rise to the top of the reviews.

-Josh


On 11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on Amazon. 
It is the
> text accompanying the rating.  Someone might give a book a
"one-star" rating
> and in writing about the book say something like "exposes like
this one on
> the high rate of theft in Columbia do a disservice to the country."
>
> So, if you are planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take
that
> "One-star" rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be
aware of the
> dangers lurking for tourists.
>
>
> Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
>
> Videographer, Writer, Activist
> Advisor: The Immortality Institute
> Hoboken, NJ
> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
> 201-656-3280
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: Frank Carver
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are
actually
> > very important and should be allowed.  That is especially
true when
> > the star ratings are accompanied by text critiques.
> > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the
"anointed few".
>
> To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or any other
form
> of single rating is at best _evaluative_ without being
_informative_.
> In most cases it's ao much worse as to be effectively useless of
even
> deceptive.
>
> The problem is fundamentally this: the author of the rating has to
> choose one single "axis" on which to rate a piece. But this axis is
> probably not the one that any given reader wants to know. Worst of
> all, most reviewers don't even make clear _what_ axis they assumed
was
> most significant.
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, Eric Rice wrote:
> > For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I
want
> > to look at his personal list of favorites, see how he ranks
them. If
> > I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his rankings
really
> > really matter. To *me*.
>
> So we have Eric looking for ratings on "coolness". (whatever that
> means).
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > I have been talking about the need for people to direct us to
really
> > important vlogs. Let me take a stab at doing this here. I
hope you
> > will indulge me and look at these two links.
>
> Randolfe implies some sort of rating on "importance". (whatever
that
> means).
>
> In the past I've read messages on this list that seemed to prefer
> rating on "quality", "brevity", "most personal", "most
professional",
> "best editing", "most local", "most entertaining" and as many other
> hard-to-define things as you can think of.
>
> Take a look at the "star" ratings on Amazon (for example) and see
if
> you can guess what aspect the a

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Randolfe Wicker






Very good point, Josh.  People are said to 
"vote with their feet".  Would we say that viewers on the Internet vote 
with their "mice" :)
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality 
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joshua 
  Kinberg 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit 
  can not be spoken for
  Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let 
  other usersknow that you found the review helpful or not. This type of 
  feedbackpromotes trust in the system. People who are considered good 
  reviewersrise to the top of the reviews.-JoshOn 
  11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:>> It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on 
  Amazon.  It is the> text accompanying the rating.  Someone 
  might give a book a "one-star" rating> and in writing about the book 
  say something like "exposes like this one on> the high rate of theft in 
  Columbia do a disservice to the country.">> So, if you are 
  planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take that> "One-star" 
  rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be aware of the> 
  dangers lurking for tourists.>>> Randolfe (Randy) 
  Wicker>> Videographer, Writer, Activist> Advisor: The 
  Immortality Institute> Hoboken, NJ> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/> 
  201-656-3280>>>> - Original Message 
  -> From: Frank Carver> To: 
  videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 
  8:22 AM> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken 
  for>> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker 
  wrote:> > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings 
  are actually> > very important and should be allowed.  That is 
  especially true when> > the star ratings are accompanied by text 
  critiques.> > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the 
  "anointed few".>> To me the point is more fundamental. A "star 
  system" or any other form> of single rating is at best _evaluative_ 
  without being _informative_.> In most cases it's ao much worse as to be 
  effectively useless of even> deceptive.>> The problem is 
  fundamentally this: the author of the rating has to> choose one single 
  "axis" on which to rate a piece. But this axis is> probably not the one 
  that any given reader wants to know. Worst of> all, most reviewers 
  don't even make clear _what_ axis they assumed was> most 
  significant.>> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, Eric Rice 
  wrote:> > For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to 
  know. I want> > to look at his personal list of favorites, see how 
  he ranks them. If> > I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his 
  rankings really> > really matter. To *me*.>> So we 
  have Eric looking for ratings on "coolness". (whatever that> 
  means).>> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker 
  wrote:> > I have been talking about the need for people to direct us 
  to really> > important vlogs. Let me take a stab at doing this here. 
  I hope you> > will indulge me and look at these two 
  links.>> Randolfe implies some sort of rating on "importance". 
  (whatever that> means).>> In the past I've read messages 
  on this list that seemed to prefer> rating on "quality", "brevity", 
  "most personal", "most professional",> "best editing", "most local", 
  "most entertaining" and as many other> hard-to-define things as you can 
  think of.>> Take a look at the "star" ratings on Amazon (for 
  example) and see if> you can guess what aspect the authors of the 
  ratings were considering.>> Now look at how the ratings 
  polarize. "Good" ratings vie with each> other to get better. Bad ones 
  get worse. Few are left in the middle.>> It's a natural process. 
  Nobody has seen or read everything. So when> you encounter something 
  you like, you give it a good rating. Then, a> bit later, you encounter 
  something you like a bit better, or your> opinions change, so you give 
  another item a higher rating. Then guess> what, a bit later you find 
  something you like even more. So you have> to give that an even better 
  rating.>> Soon, you find yourself giving everything you like top 
  marks. And the> same effect happens at the bottom end of the scale. 
  There's always> something

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let other users
know that you found the review helpful or not. This type of feedback
promotes trust in the system. People who are considered good reviewers
rise to the top of the reviews.

-Josh


On 11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on Amazon.  It is the
> text accompanying the rating.  Someone might give a book a "one-star" rating
> and in writing about the book say something like "exposes like this one on
> the high rate of theft in Columbia do a disservice to the country."
>
> So, if you are planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take that
> "One-star" rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be aware of the
> dangers lurking for tourists.
>
>
> Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
>
> Videographer, Writer, Activist
> Advisor: The Immortality Institute
> Hoboken, NJ
> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
> 201-656-3280
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Frank Carver
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are actually
> > very important and should be allowed.  That is especially true when
> > the star ratings are accompanied by text critiques.
> > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the "anointed few".
>
> To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or any other form
> of single rating is at best _evaluative_ without being _informative_.
> In most cases it's ao much worse as to be effectively useless of even
> deceptive.
>
> The problem is fundamentally this: the author of the rating has to
> choose one single "axis" on which to rate a piece. But this axis is
> probably not the one that any given reader wants to know. Worst of
> all, most reviewers don't even make clear _what_ axis they assumed was
> most significant.
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, Eric Rice wrote:
> > For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I want
> > to look at his personal list of favorites, see how he ranks them. If
> > I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his rankings really
> > really matter. To *me*.
>
> So we have Eric looking for ratings on "coolness". (whatever that
> means).
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> > I have been talking about the need for people to direct us to really
> > important vlogs. Let me take a stab at doing this here. I hope you
> > will indulge me and look at these two links.
>
> Randolfe implies some sort of rating on "importance". (whatever that
> means).
>
> In the past I've read messages on this list that seemed to prefer
> rating on "quality", "brevity", "most personal", "most professional",
> "best editing", "most local", "most entertaining" and as many other
> hard-to-define things as you can think of.
>
> Take a look at the "star" ratings on Amazon (for example) and see if
> you can guess what aspect the authors of the ratings were considering.
>
> Now look at how the ratings polarize. "Good" ratings vie with each
> other to get better. Bad ones get worse. Few are left in the middle.
>
> It's a natural process. Nobody has seen or read everything. So when
> you encounter something you like, you give it a good rating. Then, a
> bit later, you encounter something you like a bit better, or your
> opinions change, so you give another item a higher rating. Then guess
> what, a bit later you find something you like even more. So you have
> to give that an even better rating.
>
> Soon, you find yourself giving everything you like top marks. And the
> same effect happens at the bottom end of the scale. There's always
> something you will dislike more. But fewer of these ratings get
> published, for fear of hurting people's feelings.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of reviews. The more
> description and evaluation and the broader the range of reviewers and
> opinions the better, especially when they is qualified
>
> ("I thought the camera work was very professional, but I found myself
> skipping quickly through what seemed a dull message. If you are
> looking for a short, punchy and exciting piece, look elsewhere")
>
> But I feel quite strongly that attempting to assign a s

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Randolfe Wicker






It is not the actual "star rating" that is 
revealing on Amazon.  It is the text accompanying the rating.  Someone 
might give a book a "one-star" rating and in writing about the book say 
something like "exposes like this one on the high rate of theft in Columbia do a 
disservice to the country."
 
So, if you are planning to take a trip to Columbia, 
you would take that "One-star" rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to 
be aware of the dangers lurking for tourists.
 
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality 
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Frank 
  Carver 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:22 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit 
  can not be spoken for
  Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker 
  wrote:> Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are 
  actually> very important and should be allowed.  That is 
  especially true when> the star ratings are accompanied by text 
  critiques.> I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the 
  "anointed few".To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or 
  any other formof single rating is at best _evaluative_ without being 
  _informative_.In most cases it's ao much worse as to be effectively 
  useless of evendeceptive.The problem is fundamentally this: the 
  author of the rating has tochoose one single "axis" on which to rate a 
  piece. But this axis isprobably not the one that any given reader wants to 
  know. Worst ofall, most reviewers don't even make clear _what_ axis they 
  assumed wasmost significant.Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, 
  Eric Rice wrote:> For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to 
  know. I want> to look at his personal list of favorites, see how he 
  ranks them. If> I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his 
  rankings really> really matter. To *me*.So we have Eric looking 
  for ratings on "coolness". (whatever thatmeans).Sunday, November 
  27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:> I have been talking about 
  the need for people to direct us to really> important vlogs. Let me 
  take a stab at doing this here. I hope you> will indulge me and look at 
  these two links.Randolfe implies some sort of rating on "importance". 
  (whatever thatmeans).In the past I've read messages on this list 
  that seemed to preferrating on "quality", "brevity", "most personal", 
  "most professional","best editing", "most local", "most entertaining" and 
  as many otherhard-to-define things as you can think of.Take a look 
  at the "star" ratings on Amazon (for example) and see ifyou can guess what 
  aspect the authors of the ratings were considering.Now look at how the 
  ratings polarize. "Good" ratings vie with eachother to get better. Bad 
  ones get worse. Few are left in the middle.It's a natural process. 
  Nobody has seen or read everything. So whenyou encounter something you 
  like, you give it a good rating. Then, abit later, you encounter something 
  you like a bit better, or youropinions change, so you give another item a 
  higher rating. Then guesswhat, a bit later you find something you like 
  even more. So you haveto give that an even better rating.Soon, you 
  find yourself giving everything you like top marks. And thesame effect 
  happens at the bottom end of the scale. There's alwayssomething you will 
  dislike more. But fewer of these ratings getpublished, for fear of hurting 
  people's feelings.Don't get me wrong. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of 
  reviews. The moredescription and evaluation and the broader the range of 
  reviewers andopinions the better, especially when they is 
  qualified("I thought the camera work was very professional, but I 
  found myselfskipping quickly through what seemed a dull message. If you 
  arelooking for a short, punchy and exciting piece, look 
  elsewhere")But I feel quite strongly that attempting to assign a 
  single universalnumber to anything is deluding both yourself and potential 
  readers.Let them read the review and make their own mind up which aspects 
  areimportant to them. Don't con them into thinking that you 
  bothunderstand what they want to know, and can grade it on their 
  ownscale.In short. I'm with Peter. Bring on the reviews, but leave 
  thefools-gold of ratings at home.-- Frank Carver   
  http://www.makevideo.org.uk

  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Randolfe Wicker






The problem with "links" is that they are to 
another complete set of vlogs.  While many vloggers are consistently better 
than others, most of us are very "uneven" in the quality of our 
output.
 
If people would link to specific vlogs, that would 
be much better.
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The 
Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Eric Rice 

  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:09 
  AM
  Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can 
  not be spoken for
  One of the things I pinged the good folks about Podcast 
  Pickle about was ratings based on a USER's favorite vlogs. While 
  popularity and star systems have their place in certain cases, what's most 
  important to me is how my favorites rank other vlogs.For example, what 
  does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I want to look at his personal 
  list of favorites, see how he ranks them. If I'm giving trust to Peter as 
  a filter, then his rankings really really matter. To *me*. Two 
  cents.ER--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe 
  Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Peter of MeFeddia 
  says:> > "1 example is: I> don't allow star ratings with 
  reviews, because that would encourage a> mindset of "popularity is 
  important".> > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star 
  ratings are actually very important and should be allowed.  That is 
  especially true when the star ratings are accompanied by text 
  critiques.> > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions 
  of the "anointed few". > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker> 
  > Videographer, Writer, Activist> Advisor: The Immortality 
  Institute> Hoboken, NJ> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/> 
  201-656-3280> > >   - Original Message 
  - >   From: petertheman >   To: 
  videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >   Sent: Saturday, November 
  26, 2005 10:29 AM>   Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can 
  not be spoken for> > > >   > > I 
  think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories. 
  >   That is why>   > > we as a 
  community should work to set up an "open directory" that>   
  will become>   > > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, 
  others will set up slanted and>   
  manipulated>   > > and even "closed" 
  directories.> >   I am (clearly, since I built 
  Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.>   They have their 
  pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having>   
  *open* directories is very important. I try hard to make 
  Mefeedia>   open, and there are things I still need to work 
  on. 1 example is: I>   don't allow star ratings with reviews, 
  because that would encourage a>   mindset of "popularity is 
  important". > >   Sorting by popularity is something I 
  do on the /feeds/ page (because>   you have to sort by 
  something), but it's the easy way out. I don't>   like it, 
  and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version>   
  (coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not 
  just>   that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this 
  highschool or what?)>   but also: what is the algorythm? 
  Right now, in Mefeedia it's just>   amount of videos watched. 
  But that's not that great.> >   So anyways, what does 
  an "open" directory mean?> >   Having a directory is 
  great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to>   videobloggers, 
  and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about. > 
  >   Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers 
  have an equal>   chance to get listed in the directory, and 
  to get discovered in the>   directory. It means that you 
  don't just promote the popular and>   commercial stuff, but 
  that you actively try to promote the unknown>   vlogs 
  too.> >   Enough ranting!>   
  Peter>   -->   http://mefeedia.com > > > 
  > > > 
  -->   
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a..  Visit 
  your group "videoblogging" on the 
  web.>   
  > b..  To unsubscribe from this group, 
  send an email to:>  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
  > c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is 
  subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > 
  -->

  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Devlon

I like this idea.  It's almost like the reviews, but shorter and
easier for me as a user to indicate that I liked a feed (instead of
typing up a review)

Reviews are still great and very helpful.

On 11/27/05, Eric Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  One of the things I pinged the good folks about Podcast Pickle about was
> ratings based on
>  a USER's favorite vlogs. While popularity and star systems have their place
> in certain cases,
>  what's most important to me is how my favorites rank other vlogs.
>
>  For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I want to look
> at his personal
>  list of favorites, see how he ranks them. If I'm giving trust to Peter as a
> filter, then his
>  rankings really really matter. To *me*.
>
>  Two cents.
>
>  ER
>
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>  >
>  > Peter of MeFeddia says:
>  >
>  > "1 example is: I
>  > don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a
>  > mindset of "popularity is important".
>  >
>  > Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are actually very
> important and should
>  be allowed.  That is especially true when the star ratings are accompanied
> by text
>  critiques.
>  >
>  > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the "anointed few".
>  >
>  > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
>  >
>  > Videographer, Writer, Activist
>  > Advisor: The Immortality Institute
>  > Hoboken, NJ
>  > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
>  > 201-656-3280
>  >
>  >
>  >   - Original Message -
>  >   From: petertheman
>  >   To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>  >   Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:29 AM
>  >   Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >   > > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories.
>  >   That is why
>  >   > > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory" that
>  >   will become
>  >   > > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and
>  >   manipulated
>  >   > > and even "closed" directories.
>  >
>  >   I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.
>  >   They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having
>  >   *open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeedia
>  >   open, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: I
>  >   don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a
>  >   mindset of "popularity is important".
>  >
>  >   Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (because
>  >   you have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't
>  >   like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version
>  >   (coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just
>  >   that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or what?)
>  >   but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's just
>  >   amount of videos watched. But that's not that great.
>  >
>  >   So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?
>  >
>  >   Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to
>  >   videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about.
>  >
>  >   Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an equal
>  >   chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in the
>  >   directory. It means that you don't just promote the popular and
>  >   commercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknown
>  >   vlogs too.
>  >
>  >   Enough ranting!
>  >   Peter
>  >   --
>  >   http://mefeedia.com
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
>  --
>  >   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>  >
>  > a..  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>  >
>  > b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  >  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >
>  > c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
>  --
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Frank Carver

Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are actually
> very important and should be allowed.  That is especially true when
> the star ratings are accompanied by text critiques.
> I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the "anointed few".

To me the point is more fundamental. A "star system" or any other form
of single rating is at best _evaluative_ without being _informative_.
In most cases it's ao much worse as to be effectively useless of even
deceptive.

The problem is fundamentally this: the author of the rating has to
choose one single "axis" on which to rate a piece. But this axis is
probably not the one that any given reader wants to know. Worst of
all, most reviewers don't even make clear _what_ axis they assumed was
most significant.

Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, Eric Rice wrote:
> For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I want
> to look at his personal list of favorites, see how he ranks them. If
> I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his rankings really
> really matter. To *me*.

So we have Eric looking for ratings on "coolness". (whatever that
means).

Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
> I have been talking about the need for people to direct us to really
> important vlogs. Let me take a stab at doing this here. I hope you
> will indulge me and look at these two links.

Randolfe implies some sort of rating on "importance". (whatever that
means).

In the past I've read messages on this list that seemed to prefer
rating on "quality", "brevity", "most personal", "most professional",
"best editing", "most local", "most entertaining" and as many other
hard-to-define things as you can think of.

Take a look at the "star" ratings on Amazon (for example) and see if
you can guess what aspect the authors of the ratings were considering.

Now look at how the ratings polarize. "Good" ratings vie with each
other to get better. Bad ones get worse. Few are left in the middle.

It's a natural process. Nobody has seen or read everything. So when
you encounter something you like, you give it a good rating. Then, a
bit later, you encounter something you like a bit better, or your
opinions change, so you give another item a higher rating. Then guess
what, a bit later you find something you like even more. So you have
to give that an even better rating.

Soon, you find yourself giving everything you like top marks. And the
same effect happens at the bottom end of the scale. There's always
something you will dislike more. But fewer of these ratings get
published, for fear of hurting people's feelings.

Don't get me wrong. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of reviews. The more
description and evaluation and the broader the range of reviewers and
opinions the better, especially when they is qualified

("I thought the camera work was very professional, but I found myself
skipping quickly through what seemed a dull message. If you are
looking for a short, punchy and exciting piece, look elsewhere")

But I feel quite strongly that attempting to assign a single universal
number to anything is deluding both yourself and potential readers.
Let them read the review and make their own mind up which aspects are
important to them. Don't con them into thinking that you both
understand what they want to know, and can grade it on their own
scale.

In short. I'm with Peter. Bring on the reviews, but leave the
fools-gold of ratings at home.

-- 
Frank Carver   http://www.makevideo.org.uk

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-27 Thread Eric Rice


One of the things I pinged the good folks about Podcast Pickle about was 
ratings based on 
a USER's favorite vlogs. While popularity and star systems have their place in 
certain cases, 
what's most important to me is how my favorites rank other vlogs.

For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to know. I want to look at 
his personal 
list of favorites, see how he ranks them. If I'm giving trust to Peter as a 
filter, then his 
rankings really really matter. To *me*. 

Two cents.

ER


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Peter of MeFeddia says:
> 
> "1 example is: I
> don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a
> mindset of "popularity is important".
> 
> Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star ratings are actually very 
> important and should 
be allowed.  That is especially true when the star ratings are accompanied by 
text 
critiques.
> 
> I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the "anointed few". 
> 
> Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
> 
> Videographer, Writer, Activist
> Advisor: The Immortality Institute
> Hoboken, NJ
> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
> 201-656-3280
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: petertheman 
>   To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:29 AM
>   Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for
> 
> 
> 
>   > > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories. 
>   That is why
>   > > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory" that
>   will become
>   > > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and
>   manipulated
>   > > and even "closed" directories.
> 
>   I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.
>   They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having
>   *open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeedia
>   open, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: I
>   don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a
>   mindset of "popularity is important". 
> 
>   Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (because
>   you have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't
>   like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version
>   (coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just
>   that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or what?)
>   but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's just
>   amount of videos watched. But that's not that great.
> 
>   So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?
> 
>   Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to
>   videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about. 
> 
>   Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an equal
>   chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in the
>   directory. It means that you don't just promote the popular and
>   commercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknown
>   vlogs too.
> 
>   Enough ranting!
>   Peter
>   --
>   http://mefeedia.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
> a..  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
>   
> b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   
> c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
> 
> 

--
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for






Peter of MeFeddia says:
 
"1 example is: Idon't allow star ratings with 
reviews, because that would encourage amindset of "popularity is 
important".
 
Sorry to say that I disagree with you.  Star 
ratings are actually very important and should be allowed.  That is 
especially true when the star ratings are accompanied by text 
critiques.
 
I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of 
the "anointed few". 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The 
Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  petertheman 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:29 
  AM
  Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can 
  not be spoken for
  > > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted 
  through directories. That is why> > we as a community should 
  work to set up an "open directory" thatwill become> > the 
  accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted 
  andmanipulated> > and even "closed" directories.I am 
  (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.They have 
  their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having*open* 
  directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeediaopen, and there 
  are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: Idon't allow star 
  ratings with reviews, because that would encourage amindset of "popularity 
  is important". Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ 
  page (becauseyou have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I 
  don'tlike it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next 
  version(coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not 
  justthat it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or 
  what?)but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's 
  justamount of videos watched. But that's not that great.So 
  anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?Having a directory is 
  great for 2 things: to introduce newbies tovideobloggers, and to go find 
  some new stuff you didn't know about. Having an "open" directory means 
  that all videobloggers have an equalchance to get listed in the directory, 
  and to get discovered in thedirectory. It means that you don't just 
  promote the popular andcommercial stuff, but that you actively try to 
  promote the unknownvlogs too.Enough ranting!Peter--http://mefeedia.com 




  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for






I'm really glad to hear that!!
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The 
Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  petertheman 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:30 
  AM
  Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can 
  not be spoken for
  > Nevermind the fact that this is an easy path to an 
  exclusionary"clique" > of "accepted goodness." Plus, the secondary 
  part of Randy's point -- > that having an open, "accepted" directory 
  would prevent other "closed" > ones -- just won't happen. If anything, 
  I think the folks working > towards building/tweaking directories 
  should put their headstogether to > open up ratings, comments, 
  tags, feeds, etc etc.We are working on that :) Expect more open 
  goodness in the nextmonths, and if you don't get it, let us know! 
  API's.Peter




  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Lucas Gonze

On 11/26/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On mefeedia directory, for several months you see the same vlogs first and
> that is not likely to change since, afterall, they always appear first which
> increases exposure every time.

I spent almost a year beating this problem in the Webjay popular
listing.  It is hard but doable.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Markus Sandy







they are all in my vlog roll at http://apperceptions.org


Randolfe Wicker wrote:

  
  
  
  Why don't you give us some of the
special links you have found.  I think posters here should start doing
that.  People can then make up their own mind as to how reliable
certain names on vlogging are.
   
  
   
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Markus Sandy 
To:
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com

Sent:
Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject:
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for


Michael Sullivan wrote:

>
> I believe in random listing of vlogs more so than any other
algorithm, 
> and I am aware that even randoms are imperfect. 
> So, i disagree that you *have* to sort by something.


good point! 

I have found more fun new vlogs randomly through Ro's (aka firehttp) 
videoblogging-universe ring video thumb clips than from any directory
search

of course, his ring is based on a directory - but the way they are 
presented to me is in fact randomly





-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://www.corante.com/events/feedfest/

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for






Why don't you give us some of the special links you 
have found.  I think posters here should start doing that.  People can 
then make up their own mind as to how reliable certain names on vlogging 
are.
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality 
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Markus Sandy 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:31 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit 
  can not be spoken for
  Michael Sullivan wrote:>> I believe in 
  random listing of vlogs more so than any other algorithm, > and I am 
  aware that even randoms are imperfect. > So, i disagree that you *have* 
  to sort by something.good point! I have found more fun new 
  vlogs randomly through Ro's (aka firehttp) videoblogging-universe ring 
  video thumb clips than from any directory searchof course, his ring is 
  based on a directory - but the way they are presented to me is in fact 
  randomlyInteresting aside: you can mathematically justify that the 
  best way to optimize many sorting operations is to *first* randomly 
  shuffle the data.  This is because "real world" data is often 
  "skewed" or "clumped" in ways that increase the need for 
  comparisons.   Maybe this applies to wetware 
  too.markus-- My name is Markus Sandy and I am 
  app.etitio.ushttp://apperceptions.orghttp://digitaldojo.blogspot.comhttp://spinflow.orghttp://wearethemedia.comhttp://www.corante.com/events/feedfest/aim/ichat: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]skype: msandyspin: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for






We need established and recognized guides.  
Vlogging is like film.  You know which reviewers you trust and you go to 
movies or avoid them on their recommendations.  That is what we need on the 
Internet regarding vlogs.  We need a www.VlogDigest.com site that does that for 
us.
 
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality 
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Michael 
  Sullivan 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:28 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit 
  can not be spoken for
  True, Josh.Again, it should be about letting users/audience 
  decide on which "filters" they feel are relevent to them finding content... 
  so, offering as many filtering options as possible makes sense.  every 
  approach can be debated against another, so use em' all! Obviously, 
  the whole digg.com approach seems to work well 
  too.  sull
  On 11/26/05, Joshua 
  Kinberg < 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  I 
agree here... but I think its a matter of allowing the community to 
determine what gets promoted. You can't be everything to everyone, 
butyou can create the infrastructure to enable various ways of 
findingstuff and pushing stuff up to the top. Categories, Search, 
Tags,Social Networks, Collaborative Filtering, Ratings, Reviews, 
Recommendations, Popular Lists, etc... are all ways of 
findingstuff/pushing stuff to the top. Each has a set 
ofadvanages/disadvantages, and may be a better or worse method 
forfinding whatever you're looking for. The easier you can make all of 
it, and the easier you can make it for users to 
shareinteraction/feedback data, whether implicit or explicit, then 
thesystem will thrive and flourish.-JoshOn 11/26/05, 
petertheman < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > > I think 
vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories.> That is 
why> > > we as a community should work to set up an "open 
directory" that > will become> > > the accepted 
norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and> 
manipulated> > > and even "closed" directories.>> 
I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) 
a believer in directories.> They have their pros and cons. And I do 
believe strongly that having> *open* directories is very important. I 
try hard to make Mefeedia > open, and there are things I still need 
to work on. 1 example is: I> don't allow star ratings with reviews, 
because that would encourage a> mindset of "popularity is 
important".>> Sorting by popularity is something I do on the 
/feeds/ page (because> you have to sort by something), but it's the 
easy way out. I don't> like it, and I'm adding other sorting options 
in the next version > (coming out end next week). The problem with 
popularity is not just> that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is 
this highschool or what?)> but also: what is the algorythm? Right 
now, in Mefeedia it's just > amount of videos watched. But that's not 
that great.>> So anyways, what does an "open" directory 
mean?>> Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce 
newbies to> videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't 
know about.>> Having an "open" directory means that all 
videobloggers have an equal> chance to get listed in the directory, 
and to get discovered in the > directory. It means that you don't 
just promote the popular and> commercial stuff, but that you actively 
try to promote the unknown> vlogs too.>> Enough 
ranting!> Peter> -- > http://mefeedia.com>>>>>>>> 
Yahoo! Groups 
Links>>>>>>> 
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to 
your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home pagehttp://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM~-> 
Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the 
web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
  - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth 
  and revelation from which new form is born" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - Th

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for






There is something to be said for "most 
watched".  It doesn't mean that they are the best.  However, many of 
the best are the "most watched".
 
We might not like the roaring crowd but that is 
part of the "show business" that vlogging is about.
 
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality 
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Deirdre Straughan 
  To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:58 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit 
  can not be spoken for
  How about: reverse the listing, so that the LEAST "popular" are 
  shown first? Or show it most-to-least on one visit, least-to-most on the 
  next?-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal) 
  www.tvblob.com (work) 

  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Brad Webb

Tempered with the ability to find and stumble into other, fresh, new and 
interesting things, as well as rolling your own "good list" -- yeah, 
totally agree with this.

Michael Sullivan wrote:

> True, Josh.
> Again, it should be about letting users/audience decide on which 
> "filters" they feel are relevent to them finding content... so, 
> offering as many filtering options as possible makes sense.  every 
> approach can be debated against another, so use em' all!
>
> Obviously, the whole digg.com  approach seems to work 
> well too. 
>
> sull
>
> On 11/26/05, *Joshua Kinberg* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
> I agree here... but I think its a matter of allowing the community to
> determine what gets promoted. You can't be everything to everyone, but
> you can create the infrastructure to enable various ways of finding
> stuff and pushing stuff up to the top. Categories, Search, Tags,
> Social Networks, Collaborative Filtering, Ratings, Reviews,
> Recommendations, Popular Lists, etc... are all ways of finding
> stuff/pushing stuff to the top. Each has a set of
> advanages/disadvantages, and may be a better or worse method for
> finding whatever you're looking for. The easier you can make all of
> it, and the easier you can make it for users to share
> interaction/feedback data, whether implicit or explicit, then the
> system will thrive and flourish.
>
> -Josh
>
>
> On 11/26/05, petertheman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories.
> > That is why
> > > > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory"
> that
> > will become
> > > > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and
> > manipulated
> > > > and even "closed" directories.
> >
> > I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com )
> a believer in directories.
> > They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having
> > *open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeedia
> > open, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: I
> > don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would
> encourage a
> > mindset of "popularity is important".
> >
> > Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (because
> > you have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't
> > like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version
> > (coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just
> > that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or
> what?)
> > but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's just
> > amount of videos watched. But that's not that great.
> >
> > So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?
> >
> > Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to
> > videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about.
> >
> > Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an
> equal
> > chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in the
> > directory. It means that you don't just promote the popular and
> > commercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknown
> > vlogs too.
> >
> > Enough ranting!
> > Peter
> > --
> > http://mefeedia.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> sull
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and 
> revelation from which new form is born"
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directory
> http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere 
> Aggregator
> http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Individual 
> 
>  
>   Fireant 
> 
>  
>   Use 
> 
>  
>
>
>
> 
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> *  Visit your group "videoblogging
>   " on the web.
>
> *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Markus Sandy

Michael Sullivan wrote:

>
> I believe in random listing of vlogs more so than any other algorithm, 
> and I am aware that even randoms are imperfect. 
> So, i disagree that you *have* to sort by something.

good point! 

I have found more fun new vlogs randomly through Ro's (aka firehttp) 
videoblogging-universe ring video thumb clips than from any directory search

of course, his ring is based on a directory - but the way they are 
presented to me is in fact randomly

Interesting aside: you can mathematically justify that the best way to 
optimize many sorting operations is to *first* randomly shuffle the 
data.  This is because "real world" data is often "skewed" or "clumped" 
in ways that increase the need for comparisons.   Maybe this applies to 
wetware too.

markus

-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://www.corante.com/events/feedfest/

aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Michael Sullivan




True, Josh.Again, it should be about letting users/audience decide on which "filters" they feel are relevent to them finding content... so, offering as many filtering options as possible makes sense.  every approach can be debated against another, so use em' all! 
Obviously, the whole digg.com approach seems to work well too.  sullOn 11/26/05, Joshua Kinberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I agree here... but I think its a matter of allowing the community to
determine what gets promoted. You can't be everything to everyone, butyou can create the infrastructure to enable various ways of findingstuff and pushing stuff up to the top. Categories, Search, Tags,Social Networks, Collaborative Filtering, Ratings, Reviews,
Recommendations, Popular Lists, etc... are all ways of findingstuff/pushing stuff to the top. Each has a set ofadvanages/disadvantages, and may be a better or worse method forfinding whatever you're looking for. The easier you can make all of
it, and the easier you can make it for users to shareinteraction/feedback data, whether implicit or explicit, then thesystem will thrive and flourish.-JoshOn 11/26/05, petertheman <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories.> That is why> > > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory" that
> will become> > > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and> manipulated> > > and even "closed" directories.>> I am (clearly, since I built 
Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.> They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having> *open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeedia
> open, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: I> don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a> mindset of "popularity is important".>
> Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (because> you have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't> like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version
> (coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just> that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or what?)> but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's just
> amount of videos watched. But that's not that great.>> So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?>> Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to
> videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about.>> Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an equal> chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in the
> directory. It means that you don't just promote the popular and> commercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknown> vlogs too.>> Enough ranting!> Peter> --
> http://mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Links>>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home pagehttp://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM~->
Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Deirdre Straughan




How about: reverse the listing, so that the LEAST "popular" are shown
first? Or show it most-to-least on one visit, least-to-most on the next?-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)
www.tvblob.com (work)


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Michael Sullivan




I dont see this as evil as long as it is done intuitively and not over-kill.If someone wants to invest in gaining a larger audience, that is up to them and they should have such options.  Important to remember to cater to many types of users, in a balanced manner.
sullOn 11/26/05, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think maybe that was supposed to be "popularity control"?i.e. prominent placement in a directory can lead to more click throughs?-JoshOn 11/26/05, petertheman <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > the directory is where the popular control lies> > now, especially when a directory is large and not open, as we have> > all learned.>
> Interesting.. what do you mean by "popular control", Andrew?>> Peter> --> http;//mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Links
>>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM~->Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator 
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog


  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Michael Sullivan

Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (becauseyou have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't
like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version(coming out end next week).I believe in random listing of vlogs more so than any other algorithm, and I am aware that even randoms are imperfect.
So, i disagree that you *have* to sort by something. I show latest 10 and Random 10 on main page of vlogdir... also generate another random 10 in the nav as well as a random vlog in each category, also via the nav menu. I think vlogdir achieves greater fairness in vlog exposure by doing this.
On mefeedia directory, for several months you see the same vlogs first and that is not likely to change since, afterall, they always appear first which increases exposure every time. It would be better to reverse that or change it to newest added to your directory. My opinion. And, i know you agree and are working towards such mindsets. :-)
sull On 11/26/05, petertheman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories.That is why> > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory" thatwill become> > the accepted norm. Otherwise, others will set up slanted and
manipulated> > and even "closed" directories.I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having
*open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeediaopen, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: Idon't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage amindset of "popularity is important".
Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (becauseyou have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don'tlike it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version(coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just
that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or what?)but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's justamount of videos watched. But that's not that great.So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?
Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies tovideobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about.Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an equal
chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in thedirectory. It means that you don't just promote the popular andcommercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknownvlogs too.
Enough ranting!Peter--http://mefeedia.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM~->
Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- sull- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directoryhttp://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Joshua Kinberg

I agree here... but I think its a matter of allowing the community to
determine what gets promoted. You can't be everything to everyone, but
you can create the infrastructure to enable various ways of finding
stuff and pushing stuff up to the top. Categories, Search, Tags,
Social Networks, Collaborative Filtering, Ratings, Reviews,
Recommendations, Popular Lists, etc... are all ways of finding
stuff/pushing stuff to the top. Each has a set of
advanages/disadvantages, and may be a better or worse method for
finding whatever you're looking for. The easier you can make all of
it, and the easier you can make it for users to share
interaction/feedback data, whether implicit or explicit, then the
system will thrive and flourish.

-Josh

On 11/26/05, petertheman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories.
> That is why
> > > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory" that
> will become
> > > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and
> manipulated
> > > and even "closed" directories.
>
> I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.
> They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having
> *open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeedia
> open, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: I
> don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a
> mindset of "popularity is important".
>
> Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (because
> you have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't
> like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version
> (coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just
> that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or what?)
> but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's just
> amount of videos watched. But that's not that great.
>
> So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?
>
> Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to
> videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about.
>
> Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an equal
> chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in the
> directory. It means that you don't just promote the popular and
> commercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknown
> vlogs too.
>
> Enough ranting!
> Peter
> --
> http://mefeedia.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for


> I think maybe that was supposed to be "popularity control"?
> i.e. prominent placement in a directory can lead to more click throughs?

Which goes back to my point about popularity not being the most
important thing with videobloggers. This ain't no high school. Which
is why we have reviews now, and next week it'll be easy to browse all
the reviewed blogs. No star ratings! No popularity context. But in
depth reviews that can really help you find some hidden gems. 

I truly really believe that the technology we build embeds the values
we hold. It's something to be aware of.

Cheers,
Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com/feeds/ (Almost 2000 feeds!)





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for


> > I think vlogging can be greatly impacted through directories. 
That is why
> > we as a community should work to set up an "open directory" that
will become
> > the accepted norm.  Otherwise, others will set up slanted and
manipulated
> > and even "closed" directories.

I am (clearly, since I built Mefeedia.com) a believer in directories.
They have their pros and cons. And I do believe strongly that having
*open* directories is very important. I try hard to make Mefeedia
open, and there are things I still need to work on. 1 example is: I
don't allow star ratings with reviews, because that would encourage a
mindset of "popularity is important". 

Sorting by popularity is something I do on the /feeds/ page (because
you have to sort by something), but it's the easy way out. I don't
like it, and I'm adding other sorting options in the next version
(coming out end next week). The problem with popularity is not just
that it encourages the "popular" mindset (is this highschool or what?)
but also: what is the algorythm? Right now, in Mefeedia it's just
amount of videos watched. But that's not that great.

So anyways, what does an "open" directory mean?

Having a directory is great for 2 things: to introduce newbies to
videobloggers, and to go find some new stuff you didn't know about. 

Having an "open" directory means that all videobloggers have an equal
chance to get listed in the directory, and to get discovered in the
directory. It means that you don't just promote the popular and
commercial stuff, but that you actively try to promote the unknown
vlogs too.

Enough ranting!
Peter
--
http://mefeedia.com 





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for


> Nevermind the fact that this is an easy path to an exclusionary
"clique" 
> of "accepted goodness." Plus, the secondary part of Randy's point -- 
> that having an open, "accepted" directory would prevent other "closed" 
> ones -- just won't happen. If anything, I think the folks working 
> towards building/tweaking directories should put their heads
together to 
> open up ratings, comments, tags, feeds, etc etc.

We are working on that :) Expect more open goodness in the next
months, and if you don't get it, let us know! API's.

Peter





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

2005-11-26 Thread Joshua Kinberg

I think maybe that was supposed to be "popularity control"?
i.e. prominent placement in a directory can lead to more click throughs?

-Josh

On 11/26/05, petertheman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > the directory is where the popular control lies
> > now, especially when a directory is large and not open, as we have
> > all learned.
>
> Interesting.. what do you mean by "popular control", Andrew?
>
> Peter
> --
> http;//mefeedia.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for