Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
There are a lot of uses for RSS beyond aggregation and aggregators.RSS is simply the standard that has taken precendence for delivery of microcontent, i.e. blog entries/news, and now podcasts/media/video. For video this provides much needed contextual metadata that is otherwise not present or very hard to access because its embedded inside the files (which are large) and cannot be easily queried or requested without access to the whole file. This metadata is a beginning foundation for something much larger than video-on-demand services, but also filtering, search, linking, discovery, and much more. Open standards like this push the web forward... sure RSS and the interfaces for consuming it could be better. All it is is an XML format for encapsulation of data. What you do with it from that point is completely open and it will transform the way we interact with media and content in profound ways that are only now emerging and many that have yet to be explored. -JoshOn 2/16/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few articles I have read this week suggest so. well, not entirely, but you'll understand the context one you read. This goes towards the battle of the web and the breaking apart of content and context. http://squeetblog.blogspot.com/http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/03/rss-is-90-awful/ http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/15/fine-you-win-rss-sucks/What do you think? How does/can this apply to videoblogging?- - - - Sull http://vlogdir.com 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 . 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
well put. all true. i commented on the -rss is aweful- article to that effect... the authors were focusing not on RSS as much as the tools that utilize RSS.On 2/16/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a lot of uses for RSS beyond aggregation and aggregators.RSS is simply the standard that has taken precendence for delivery of microcontent, i.e. blog entries/news, and now podcasts/media/video. For video this provides much needed contextual metadata that is otherwise not present or very hard to access because its embedded inside the files (which are large) and cannot be easily queried or requested without access to the whole file. This metadata is a beginning foundation for something much larger than video-on-demand services, but also filtering, search, linking, discovery, and much more. Open standards like this push the web forward... sure RSS and the interfaces for consuming it could be better. All it is is an XML format for encapsulation of data. What you do with it from that point is completely open and it will transform the way we interact with media and content in profound ways that are only now emerging and many that have yet to be explored. -JoshOn 2/16/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few articles I have read this week suggest so. well, not entirely, but you'll understand the context one you read. This goes towards the battle of the web and the breaking apart of content and context. http://squeetblog.blogspot.com/http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/03/rss-is-90-awful/ http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/15/fine-you-win-rss-sucks/What do you think? How does/can this apply to videoblogging?- - - - Sull http://vlogdir.com 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 . 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 . -- - - - - Sullhttp://vlogdir.com 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
BTW, the bandwidth question is kind of silly... you'd use up more bandwidth if those people were viewing your website with all the images and style formatting and so forth. Back to my point about data though... RSS just happens to be the de facto standard and the one with the widest support. That's not to say there's any problem with other formats like Atom or even the proposed microformats for blog entries (see Andres's meta-profile for blogs as an early example). Yet still, RSS has the widest adoption and support... especially in terms of podcasting since Blogger doesn't even support Atom 1.0 yet (which does have a rel=enclosure element that no one uses). -josh On 2/16/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a lot of uses for RSS beyond aggregation and aggregators. RSS is simply the standard that has taken precendence for delivery of microcontent, i.e. blog entries/news, and now podcasts/media/video. For video this provides much needed contextual metadata that is otherwise not present or very hard to access because its embedded inside the files (which are large) and cannot be easily queried or requested without access to the whole file. This metadata is a beginning foundation for something much larger than video-on-demand services, but also filtering, search, linking, discovery, and much more. Open standards like this push the web forward... sure RSS and the interfaces for consuming it could be better. All it is is an XML format for encapsulation of data. What you do with it from that point is completely open and it will transform the way we interact with media and content in profound ways that are only now emerging and many that have yet to be explored. -Josh On 2/16/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few articles I have read this week suggest so. well, not entirely, but you'll understand the context one you read. This goes towards the battle of the web and the breaking apart of content and context. http://squeetblog.blogspot.com/ http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/03/rss-is-90-awful/ http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/15/fine-you-win-rss-sucks/ What do you think? How does/can this apply to videoblogging? - - - - Sull http://vlogdir.com SPONSORED LINKS Individual FireantUse 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 . 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
Hello Michael,On 2/16/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few articles I have read this week suggest so. well, not entirely, but you'll understand the context one you read. This goes towards the battle of the web and the breaking apart of content and context. http://squeetblog.blogspot.com/http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/03/rss-is-90-awful/ http://www.alwaysbeta.com/2006/02/15/fine-you-win-rss-sucks/What do you think? How does/can this apply to videoblogging?I do think that alot of current practice with RSS (and Atom) is a bit dumb and wasteful. However, the are already solutions in place for alot of these problems. (People have already solved these problems before.) For example, given that we get RSS (and Atom) feeds via HTTP we can use HTTP conditional gets. Let me elaborate (for those that don't know what HTTP conditional gets) Most web clients (like web browsers) have a cache where they store stuff they already downloaded. They use this so they don't download the same exact file over and over again. (Doing this makes things faster.) So (with an HTTP conditional get), the web client says to the web server I want to download this file,... but only give me it if it changed, else don't bother, and just tell me it is the same, and grab it from my cache. Currently, the only 2 HTTP conditional gets that are defined in IETF RFCs are: If-None-Match with ETag and If-Modified-Since with Last-Modified. (Although, just out of coincidence, I've been talking about creating another one over on the P2P hackers mailing list that's used to shunt a web client over to a P2P network, so it can get the file from there. It's even motivated by vlogging, vidcasting, Internet TV, or whatever you want to call it. But anyways,) Making use of HTTP conditional gets would reduce the bandwidth problems.But that's only part of the problem. What about notification? I think that that's an active area of development. And we'll see things coming out for this in the coming the next few years. I think alot of the large companies in this are pushing for a kind of P2P system for this. (Wish I remember the name of the mailing list that this is being discussed on. It was mesh something... or something like that.) In the long run, I think we'll see a reinvention of NNTP and USENET.So, RSS (and Atom) good... but more people need to start using HTTP properly. (And we need are few more technological advancements.) See ya-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/___ Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/ 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
i agree bandwidth question is silly and that the application usage is more the issue i also like your example, but i think it bears rethinking. consider a typical vlog... In the first time visit scenario, the browser most likely consumes less bandwidth than the aggregator. This depends mainly on how much media is automatically downloaded versus how much is viewed in browser. I think a person is likely to be more selective in the browser. in the repeat visit scenario, much of the website and/or media is already cached in both cases. in this case (and assuming no recent formatting changes to the vlog's template), it is generally just the page html and the most recent image that needs to be fetched as the stylesheets, scripts and other images will most likely have been cached during previous visits. on the other hand, a media aggregator will download a comparably sized document if there are full descriptions) and the new content. Again, we may choose not to view the content once we see the title and so the browser again may be more efficient. But then who wants to wait on the browser? Not me. :) I love fireant. And we have not even addressed the issue of how many times do you visit a site via your aggregator vs browser question. Joshua Kinberg wrote: BTW, the bandwidth question is kind of silly... you'd use up more bandwidth if those people were viewing your website with all the images and style formatting and so forth. -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
You're talking more about a media aggregator like FireAnt as opposed to a browser. Sure, FireAnt will use up the bandwidth required to download the media, so would your browser if you were viewing as much media. But the article is describing regular News Readers as consuming too much bandwidth which is untrue compared to browsers. Your blog header image is likely a larger file than your RSS feed. And, if your News Reader is any good, it should cache feeds or use conditional GETs as Charles pointed out, thus the bandwidth is minimal assuming that the feed isn't updated literally *all* the time. Besides, we're talking mostly about computers with broadband access... a 25k document is hardly worth crying about unless you're literally slammed with a a ton of simultaneous users. Even then its hardly any bandwidth on the receiving end. -Josh On 2/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree bandwidth question is silly and that the application usage is more the issue i also like your example, but i think it bears rethinking. consider a typical vlog... In the first time visit scenario, the browser most likely consumes less bandwidth than the aggregator. This depends mainly on how much media is automatically downloaded versus how much is viewed in browser. I think a person is likely to be more selective in the browser. in the repeat visit scenario, much of the website and/or media is already cached in both cases. in this case (and assuming no recent formatting changes to the vlog's template), it is generally just the page html and the most recent image that needs to be fetched as the stylesheets, scripts and other images will most likely have been cached during previous visits. on the other hand, a media aggregator will download a comparably sized document if there are full descriptions) and the new content. Again, we may choose not to view the content once we see the title and so the browser again may be more efficient. But then who wants to wait on the browser? Not me. :) I love fireant. And we have not even addressed the issue of how many times do you visit a site via your aggregator vs browser question. Joshua Kinberg wrote: BTW, the bandwidth question is kind of silly... you'd use up more bandwidth if those people were viewing your website with all the images and style formatting and so forth. -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
no, actually, i was comparing the two equally Joshua Kinberg wrote: You're talking more about a media aggregator like FireAnt as opposed to a browser. -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
I'm sorry... I meant to say, you were comparing a media aggregator like FireAnt to a standard web browser in terms of bandwidth usage, whereas the article pointed out was describing a regular text based News Aggregator to a web browser in terms of bandwidth usage. I think its silly to compare a New Aggregator to a browser and claim the aggregator is the greater bandwidth hog... however a media aggregator will certainly consume bandiwdth as its primary purpose is to download large media objects. -Josh On 2/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no, actually, i was comparing the two equally Joshua Kinberg wrote: You're talking more about a media aggregator like FireAnt as opposed to a browser. -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
i understand and agree, i was mainly just diving deeper into how the bandwidth was consumed vs cached. the main point is that they are different for these apps; but then so are their purposes and hence the difficulty in comparison as you say Joshua Kinberg wrote: I'm sorry... I meant to say, you were comparing a media aggregator like FireAnt to a standard web browser in terms of bandwidth usage, whereas the article pointed out was describing a regular text based News Aggregator to a web browser in terms of bandwidth usage. I think its silly to compare a New Aggregator to a browser and claim the aggregator is the greater bandwidth hog... however a media aggregator will certainly consume bandiwdth as its primary purpose is to download large media objects. -Josh On 2/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no, actually, i was comparing the two equally Joshua Kinberg wrote: You're talking more about a media aggregator like FireAnt as opposed to a browser. -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links 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/ -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
right.i too was skeptical of the math but like i have time to truly confirm such a scenario... nope.but in general i was interested in the thought about bandwidth abuse by software. its not something talked much about... maybe because its a non-issue but i would need to investigate all variables to know for sure. for instance... even though the article was in no way discussing media aggregators like FA, i sometimes wonder if such apps are efficient as they should be. This is both a technical query and a user tendency query with the latter, i refer to IF a user intentionally downloads media that they want to consume or plan to consume at some point... or if they are just grabbing everything and then making the decision as to what they are interested in watching afterwards. If that is a common.trend. then their is definately wasted bandwidth since a download is completed before a user decides what they care to watch. If they download overnight entire channels... then only actually watch a few videos from say 10 or 15 downloaded, then this is not efficient use of an application and as a result is abusing the hosting service... costing them and possible the content creators money. this undesirable scenario would prob be more likely with the plethora of what i call 'orphaned feeds' that some directories store. these are typically feeds that services generatebased on tags, user uploads, meta-feeds etcetera. they are channels without any true parent... that is to say they are not vlog projects managed and created by people with an intention, a genre, an actual audience. produced by the content creator(s) videoblogs ;-) rboom, apperceptions, pouringdown, dltq etc. where you have a good idea of the content you are going to get and you are subscribed because you generally like it, trust it or are at least giving it a chance before you unsubscribe. with orphaned feeds, you really never know what will come down the pipe many are generated from video sharing sites where random people are uploading random videos that may be considered viral vids are just stupid shit if people download then filter/discard instead of the opposite we got a wasted bandwith problem. again, i am not faulting the software. just a thought in my head maybe its not at an epidemic level... but how would I know either way? The same holds true for some web sites that download media before a user actually makes a deliberate request. no good. i guess it comes down to trusting the content you are subscribed to... which is more difficult to do with these orphaned feeds than a true channel. i suppose their is no solution if this is even a real problem ;-) thoughts on this speculation? i should go fix my leaky faucet now.sullOn 2/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i understand and agree, i was mainly just diving deeper into how the bandwidth was consumed vs cached. the main point is that they are different for these apps; but then so are their purposes and hence the difficulty in comparison as you say Joshua Kinberg wrote: I'm sorry... I meant to say, you were comparing a media aggregatorlike FireAnt to a standard web browser in terms of bandwidth usage,whereas the article pointed out was describing a regular text basedNews Aggregator to a web browser in terms of bandwidth usage. I think its silly to compare a New Aggregator to a browser and claimthe aggregator is the greater bandwidth hog... however a mediaaggregator will certainly consume bandiwdth as its primary purpose isto download large media objects. -JoshOn 2/16/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no, actually, i was comparing the two equallyJoshua Kinberg wrote: You're talking more about a media aggregator like FireAnt as opposedto a browser. --My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links 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/ -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use
Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
I am going to jump in on this thread (a rare thing!) Michael Sullivan wrote: this undesirable scenario would prob be more likely with the plethora of what i call 'orphaned feeds' that some directories store. these are typically feeds that services generatebased on tags, user uploads, meta-feeds etcetera. they are channels without any true parent... that is to say they are not vlog projects managed and created I am a big fan of the blip.tv general feed, as I get to see a great cross-section of what's being produced out there in the participatory culture. It's not quite as wide a range as say youtube, but its still pretty diverse and the quality is quite high. However, if i chose to auto-download every enclosure in that feed, I would be quickly overwhelmed and waste lots of bandwidth. I've been thinking a lot about how you can bridge the auto-download vs. no-download approach, and basically I think some sort of partial, ahead of time cacheing could be interesting. I know there are some commercial streaming video applications already doing this. You figure out which content the viewer might like to watch, and then cache the first minute of it, so that playback starts immediately. Over time, perhaps, the application could build a model of what to cache, how much, etc. Just ramblings for now, but an approach that, if implemented right, could enable a great user experience that is also efficient. by people with an intention, a genre, an actual audience. produced by the content creator(s) videoblogs ;-) rboom, apperceptions, pouringdown, dltq etc. where you have a good idea of the content you are going to get and you are subscribed because you generally like it, trust it or are at least giving it a chance before you unsubscribe. So, another idea I've had, and that works in I/ON (or at least in a soon to be released version), is that you can subscribe to a bunch of feeds, but only download content that matches certain keywords or other criteria. That way you can keep an eye on blip, but only download content regarding food or brooklyn (two of my favorite topics). if people download then filter/discard instead of the opposite we got a wasted bandwith problem. again, i am not faulting the software. just a thought in my head finally, my third thought, is that using bittorrent or a similar protocol would mean that people could autodownload, and then become nodes themselves, causing the bandwidth of the original host not to be wasted at all. basically, if we can figure out how to make true p2p dead-simple for desktop aggregators, then we get the best of both worlds - quick start, no buffering playback, ability to sync to mobile players *and* reduction in bandwidth headaches for content distributors. thoughts on this speculation? i should go fix my leaky faucet now. those are my thoughts. drip drip. +nathan 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] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
Coincidence. I'm a fan of blip, and some others too. And as you were composing you message, Nathan, I was checking, coincidentally, the last 40 or so uploads on blip and was bored out of my tired mind. Arggh! I'm glad I didn't download any of them. I closed each one I clicked within a few seconds, never even reaching the midpoint. This comment has nothing to do with blip and everything to do with discovering content. As I read your comments, below, it became crystalline we need better methods for discovering media we want to watch. For any who missed it, Nathan's propped filtering concept, keywords. I'm guessing it will still suck bandwidth unnecessarily. BTW Nathan and all), the following is constructive commentary, my heart is in the right place on this, trust me. I remember vloggercon 2005 (during the blizzard in NYC last year) when Fireant was revealed to the group. The idea of having everything on your hard drive was insanely brilliant then. No waiting, no extra clicking, the cost savings appeared fantastic. Then a funny thing happened, a lot of people started putting video on blogs with RSS feeds. The a funnier thing happened, it became impossible to watch all of the media downloaded. The foie gras effect (tm) on my hard drive was damaging to not only my calendar but to my storage resources. The bandwidth issue was relatively invisible, though it was undeniably real though unseen in the short term, like the the economics of owning a horse it eats while you sleep. Bittorrent-like technology can move around the bandwidth costs for producers however it does nothing re helping me not get video I don't want to see. And to address the concept introduced earlier this week, it doesn;t solve the out-of-context problem. Go look at the vlog of someone you watch more than once. I'll use Daniel Liss and Erik Nelson for this example. When you go to these blogs you experience each work as part of a body of work, you see the design of their blog, you see the comments of others, you relate. When you watch a video on Daniel's blog itself you smile easier, you relate. Okay, maybe I'm not the typical video consume but I go for experience. It's like the difference between Nobu and Go Sushi, in on instance you can linger and enjoy, in the other you chow down and that's that. Yeah, it's like fast food using an aggregator, I've learned it's not for me. But again there's a market for FF and you can't argue with the business of the FF providers and I very much support Fireant and Nathan's project. Bandwidth is not the issue re asset discovery, though it is re ecology. RSS isn't inherently 3vil (Down Weagel, down. Sit.), though it is when deployed to fatten hard drives. Keywords may be part of it, but I don't think it's sufficient, I'd expect false positives and omissions to be problematic. The collective and collaborative brainpower in this group can, I'm sure, come up with an answer as to how to get the right stuff (call it project right stuff in a new thread if you have ideas) into a feed. My $ 0.02 this fine morning. Perhaps I'll have clearer thoughts later, sorry if this was rambling. cheers r On Feb 16, 2006, at 11:58 PM, Nathan Freitas wrote: I am going to jump in on this thread (a rare thing!) Michael Sullivan wrote: this undesirable scenario would prob be more likely with the plethora of what i call 'orphaned feeds' that some directories store. these are typically feeds that services generatebased on tags, user uploads, meta-feeds etcetera. they are channels without any true parent... that is to say they are not vlog projects managed and created I am a big fan of the blip.tv general feed, as I get to see a great cross-section of what's being produced out there in the participatory culture. It's not quite as wide a range as say youtube, but its still pretty diverse and the quality is quite high. However, if i chose to auto-download every enclosure in that feed, I would be quickly overwhelmed and waste lots of bandwidth. I've been thinking a lot about how you can bridge the auto-download vs. no-download approach, and basically I think some sort of partial, ahead of time cacheing could be interesting. I know there are some commercial streaming video applications already doing this. You figure out which content the viewer might like to watch, and then cache the first minute of it, so that playback starts immediately. Over time, perhaps, the application could build a model of what to cache, how much, etc. Just ramblings for now, but an approach that, if implemented right, could enable a great user experience that is also efficient. by people with an intention, a genre, an actual audience. produced by the content creator(s) videoblogs ;-) rboom, apperceptions, pouringdown, dltq etc. where you have a good idea of the content you are going to get and you are subscribed because you generally like it, trust it or are
Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste bandwidth?
good thoughts. thanks for sharing them. i think this topic will have much relevance this year... and hopefully we can get some solutions out.i must try out newest I/ON. look forward to your next release then. this partial, ahead of time cacheing could be interesting.definately! like Robert, I have come to learn that my preferred way of consuming vlogs is via the web and email. I use all sorts of tools but its for my experimentation and learning keeping up with technology. But as a typical user i dont find myself using software to casually consume media. well, besides my web browser of course. there are times when i want to download an entire channel...for synching to my portable media player if i am going to commute... or if i plan to remix media for a project.. what i actually do in these cases is run the java applet on vlogdir which is a download manager it discovers all the enclosures and quickly copies them to my puter. this is convenient for me... can be used on any puter with nothing to install (assuming you can run java applets). it also lets me pick media a la carte style if i dont want all of the channel downloaded and can auto-resume. not perfect, but it works for a guy like me who only occasionally needs to grab a video or full channel to a specified location on my puter. otherwise i just watch using my browser. i find that when i do use a desktop media aggregator, my habits are the same as if i were on the web i pick a video here and there and download... usually need to wait a bit before it plays...same as web. since my style is inherit in me i dont reap the full benefits of a desktop aggregator which i feel is the ability to schedule downloads when I am not focused on the app but this benefit is not one i always need or desire... as robert mentioned too. and looping back to my original thought... it could be wasting bandwidth. also like robert, even though most vlogs use basic templates it is nice to experience everything in context of the creators 'home'. especially when the site itself is well-designed or has other interesting content such as a flickr photo block, a blogroll, a profile etc. i'm more satisfied with my experience when i am on the web itself. when this can easily transfer to TV... then i would be more comfortable with that platform. Its coming i feel the need to say that I think software like FA and all the rest including I/ON... are awesome... needed and useful. i am only speaking of my opinion here and my evolved approach to navigating within the vlogosphere. i get vlogs in my gmail and i browse directories and i browse the web. when needed, i use a file download applet on the web and occasionally i use all the different desktop media aggregators... mainly for staying tuned on the tech of it. i was using FA tonight and found myself playing more vids in the FA directory heheh. then i thought... wait i just downloaded this vid should I queue it and download it again just in case i want to watch it again? with this bandwidth topic on my mind... i chose not to ;-) maybe i'm just feeling the vlog clog since blip has seemed like IA lately we do need BitTorrent to become a hot topic again here... it used to be. died down though. Also... i still kinda like the dijjer.org project and similar projects.enough out of me.sullOn 2/16/06, Nathan Freitas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I am going to jump in on this thread (a rare thing!) Michael Sullivan wrote: this undesirable scenario would prob be more likely with the plethora of what i call 'orphaned feeds' that some directories store.these are typically feeds that services generatebased on tags, user uploads, meta-feeds etcetera.they are channels without any true parent... that is to say they are not vlog projects managed and createdI am a big fan of the blip.tv general feed, as I get to see a great cross-section of what's being produced out there in the participatoryculture. It's not quite as wide a range as say youtube, but its stillpretty diverse and the quality is quite high. However, if i chose to auto-download every enclosure in that feed, I would be quicklyoverwhelmed and waste lots of bandwidth. I've been thinking a lot abouthow you can bridge the auto-download vs. no-download approach, andbasically I think some sort of partial, ahead of time cacheing could be interesting. I know there are some commercial streaming videoapplications already doing this. You figure out which content the viewermight like to watch, and then cache the first minute of it, so thatplayback starts immediately. Over time, perhaps, the application could build a model of what to cache, how much, etc. Just ramblings for now,but an approach that, if implemented right, could enable a great userexperience that is also efficient. by people with an intention, a genre, an actual audience. produced by the content creator(s) videoblogs ;-)rboom, apperceptions, pouringdown, dltq etc.
