subject:"Re\: \[videoblogging\] Google Video Revisited"

right.M. Meiser, you seem to be making sense but only from an anarchist's point of view... those who are less interested in these distinctions and could be happy with shuffling terminology all around their vocab in relation to this topic. This is fine and dandy This discussion is less about how it can be feasible to
intermix.and apply vlog to this and that all all the in betweens. There is no stopping loose usage. I'm not even trying to police it. I'm just saying... as are Andreas and Steve, that their are indeed distinctions clear ones. And most importantly, i see zero risk and degrade by talking about these distinctions... as they can lead to more clarification to the familiar 'parts' of digital media distribution on the internet.
Books are being written... curriculums are being formed Tutorials are being molded.It helps a great to deal to use accurate language to convey each and the sum of all parts.It's not necessary. People in the end choose to adopt and adapt language the way they want.
But for those interested and willing to offer structural descriptions and distinctions now, it helps mold the language into a more manageable state. Saying 'vlog' is many many things, even if the 'log' part is missing is counter-productive in this discussion.
Also, i'd like to add a minor ammendment to my last stated argument. This will cover those who think a blog must have RSS to be a blog hence a videoblog must have RSS, something i disagree with but here is another fact:
Fictional Example:HotVideoNews, Inc is a web log (blog) that includes video created by independent/amateur video journalists. They use Wordpress and have all the bloggy features enabled. They attach, link to and/or embed video in their blog posts. They also have an RSS feed.
Does this sound like a videoblog?The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing audience that their is a new video and story posted. Users follow the permalink and watch the video on the web site. The business logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic to the site is maximized. Revenue depends on it through sponsor ads and the such.
So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media attachments so aggregators can download them. What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.
What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite. Some dont have the blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.
This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming more common. They will have a regular web page and associate their 'Channel' with it. It makes sense for some projects and businesses.So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch as Internet Video or Internet TV or even IPTV for that job. Not 'vlog'.
It's clear as day to me.sull On 12/27/05, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Hi Michael,You just found someone.I agree with Andreas.
Here's my distinction between video blogging and video podcasting.Let's see if I can get at least one person to agree with me.Andreas?RSS feeds that don't have an accessible Video blog, where you can watch
a video, are not video blogs, they are just video podcasts.I'm starting to see web pages that have NO VIDEO on them.They aren'teven blogs.Just static web pages. These pages require you tosubscribe via iTunes to watch the videos. No blog there.So it's not a
videoblog, just a videopodcast.On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Michael Meiser wrote: As for trying to separate vlogging from video podcasting... absurd... no two people would ever agree to some distinction or even that they
are different.--Steve--Home Page - http://stevegarfield.comThe Instapundit of vlogging, without the right-wing politics! - ChuckOlsen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/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

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Richard Bennett-Forrest

It's clear as day to me.

I guess it depends upon the weather...



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Andreas Haugstrup

First things first: Michael Sullivan said what I wanted to say, 100%.

Steve, the only ammendment to what you wrote below is that the reciever  
has a lot more to say in digital media than in traditional media.

Thus while you create a videoblog - a good example of one, actually - your  
readers can transform that into what I label a video podcast (vodcast to  
Sullivan; just VOD if you want to be simple). It takes two sides to make a  
medium. Previously the reciever could just recieve. A tv program would  
always be a tv program because no one on the recieving end could change  
anything.

With digital media the reciever can change the medium because they have a  
larger degree of control. For example any reader can take your videoblog  
and transform it into a vodcast. They can take the video file out of it's  
blog and move it to a tv or an iPod. In that reading situation your  
videoblog is no longer a videoblog, but a vodcast.

Of course it's not a 1:1 transformation. The content changes (and the  
reception changes) - they are different media after all.

My simple point in all this has been that there exist two different media:  
videoblog and vodcast. And content which works well in one medium might  
not work well after being transformed into the other. My initial thesis is  
that traditional tv content works really well in vodcasting - and thus  
creators can learn a whole lot from tv production - while videoblogging is  
not suited for traditional tv content and requires new ways of writing  
and reading. It's not something I've dug deep into as my focus has  
always been on videoblogging and not differences between videoblogging and  
vodcasting.

- Andreas

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:17:13 +0100, Steve Garfield  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi Michael,

 You just found someone.  I agree with Andreas.

 Here's my distinction between video blogging and video podcasting.
 Let's see if I can get at least one person to agree with me.  Andreas?

 RSS feeds that don't have an accessible Video blog, where you can watch
 a video, are not video blogs, they are just video podcasts.

 I'm starting to see web pages that have NO VIDEO on them.  They aren't
 even blogs.  Just static web pages. These pages require you to
 subscribe via iTunes to watch the videos. No blog there.  So it's not a
 videoblog, just a videopodcast.

 On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Michael Meiser wrote:

 As for trying to separate vlogging from video podcasting... absurd...
 no two people would ever agree to some distinction or even that they
 are different.

 --Steve



-- 
URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ 
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Verdi

So what do you call it if there is no blog, just a feed with videos,  
but the videos are interactive and among other things include links  
to blog posts?
-Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)

On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:

 The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing  
 the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog  
 post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing  
 audience that their is a new video and story posted.  Users follow  
 the permalink and watch the video on the web site.   The business  
 logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more  
 important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic  
 to the site is maximized.  Revenue depends on it through  
 sponsor ads and the such.

 So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with  
 enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media  
 attachments so aggregators can download them.
 What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.

 What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.

 As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.  Some dont have the  
 blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with  
 enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.
 This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming  
 more common.  They will have a regular web page and associate their  
 'Channel' with it.  It makes sense for some projects and businesses.

 So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these  
 scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch as  Internet  
 Video or Internet TV or even IPTV for that job.  Not 'vlog'.

 It's clear as day to me.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
AIDS in India: A lurking bomb. Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

enhanced vodcasthey, if CDs can be enhanced with interactive features, why not a vodcast ;-)On 12/27/05, Verdi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:So what do you call it if there is no blog, just a feed with videos,
but the videos are interactive and among other things include linksto blog posts?-Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote: The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing
the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing audience that their is a new video and story posted.Users follow the permalink and watch the video on the web site. The business
logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic to the site is maximized.Revenue depends on it through sponsor ads and the such.
So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media attachments so aggregators can download them. What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog.
What is missing is the vodcast/podcast. As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.Some dont have the blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog.
This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming more common.They will have a regular web page and associate their 'Channel' with it.It makes sense for some projects and businesses.
So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch asInternet Video or Internet TV or even IPTV for that job.Not 'vlog'.
It's clear as day to me. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--AIDS in India: A lurking bomb. Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/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

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] Google Video Revisited

Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)I think you 're right! did Adrian Miles do something like that yet?
On 12/27/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what do you call it if there is no blog, just a feed with videos,but the videos are interactive and among other things include linksto blog posts?-Verdi (who thinks that sounds like a cool experiment)
On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote: The difference in this example is the RSS Feed is not utilizing the item 'enclosure' to syndicate the video away from the blog post instead the RSS Feed is used to alert a subscribing
audience that their is a new video and story posted.Users follow the permalink and watch the video on the web site. The business logic in doing this supports the idea that web traffic is more
important and an executive decision is made to assure that traffic to the site is maximized.Revenue depends on it through sponsor ads and the such. So here we have a situation where RSS is used, just not with
enclosures or mRSS or any XML spec that allows for easy media attachments so aggregators can download them. What we have here is definately a blog and definately a videoblog. What is missing is the vodcast/podcast.
As Steve pointed out, some do the opposite.Some dont have the blog but use software that generates the RSS feed with enclosures... This is the vodcast/podcast with a missing blog. This is a different approach but instances of this are becoming
more common.They will have a regular web page and associate their 'Channel' with it.It makes sense for some projects and businesses. So, i dont agree that 'vlog' should encompass all of these
scenarios... instead you should look at terms suuch asInternet Video or Internet TV or even IPTV for that job.Not 'vlog'. It's clear as day to me.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--AIDS in India: A lurking bomb. Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/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

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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Verdi


On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:

 enhanced vodcast

I guess what I'm talking about is putting the blog into the video.  
Can a blog be in a video?
-Verdi



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited




well first of all, the video and the video wrapper  are parallel.the wrapper can provide interactive functionality, some of which could be bloggy.possibly even embedding a web browser for bloggy stuff. Ever make a Quicktime Skin? 
If I were to explain what something like this is to someone else, I'd say it was Interactive Video which has integrated blog, ecommerce, chat, xml channel browser, photo album and send to friend.what do you think?
sullOn 12/27/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: enhanced vodcastI guess what I'm talking about is putting the blog into the video.Can a blog be in a video?-Verdi Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/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
  
  
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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-27 Thread Joshua Kinberg

as neato and whizbang as that sounds in terms of interactivity, its
not something that an individual can produce and distribute easily
without a highly technical skill set and expensive authoring tools at
their disposal.

I'm much more interested in the democratizing aspects that are enabled
due to the quite simple and elegant videoblog as we know it.

-josh


On 12/27/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  well first of all, the video and the video wrapper are parallel.
 the wrapper can provide interactive functionality, some of which could be
 bloggy.
 possibly even embedding a web browser for bloggy stuff.  Ever make a
 Quicktime Skin?
 If I were to explain what something like this is to someone else, I'd say it
 was Interactive Video which has integrated blog, ecommerce, chat, xml
 channel browser, photo album and send to friend.

 what do you think?

 sull

 On 12/27/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  On Dec 27, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
 
   enhanced vodcast
 
  I guess what I'm talking about is putting the blog into the video.
  Can a blog be in a video?
  -Verdi
 
 
 
 
 
  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 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.

  



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-26 Thread Michael Meiser

Deidre, there's all sorts of ways one might link be viewing your videos outside of a software based aggregator even if they're not visual links in the page. To start with Mefeedia will make those visible... but far more importantly... if you are using feedburner... all the mRSS information would be handed off to Yahoo video search... I get crazy amounts of traffic from yahoo video search. It makes no difference wether the video is simply a hidden enclusure or a visible link to such intermediaries.-MikeOn Dec 24, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: Representative or not, the actual statistics may tell us something. I have one video (so far) that is available in the three formats under discussion:M4V - viewed in iTunes, but also by some feed readers/aggregators. SWF - viewable in some feed readers/aggregators.NB: For this particular video (carols), neither the the M4V nor the SWF is linked from anywhere on the site except my RSS feed, so presumably all views of these are coming through readers of some sort. And FeedBurner doesn't nearly cover this number, because many people are subscribed directly to my original feed on my site (trying to shift everything to FeedBurner, that will take time). Which video is picked up by which aggregator and why is a mystery to me. FireANT shows both, some show one or the other randomly for no reason that I can figure out.FLV - viewable (as far as I understand) only on the web page http://beginningwithi.com/vlog/051204.html where the player is also available. I ran an Analog report from Dec 9th (when these files were posted) to today. Here are the rsesults: 225 8.49% 24/Dec/05 00:27 /video/carols.m4v127 24/Dec/05 00:03 http://www.beginningwithi.com/video/carols.m4v (I have two domain names right now) -352 total m4vs155 7.46% 23/Dec/05 19:45 /video/carols.flv28 1.35% 23/Dec/05 05:25 /video/carols.swfSo, Josh is right: FLV is viewed on the page more than SWFs are downloaded/viewed in aggregators. But M4V whips the pants off both. I would really LOVE for Apple to be giving us all some stats from iTunes... It is worth noting that, over this same period, 3679 SWFs in total were viewed, one way or another, vs 1209 views of other types of video on my site (M4V, MOV, MP4, and WMV). I will have to look more closely at the details to see how significant this is, however, as about half of my videos only exist in SWF (I started doing M4Vs in October, and use WMVs only for special purposes which require high quality). Michael, I don't think I qualify as an A-list blogger, but thanks for the compliment of saying so!-- 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.

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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Joshua Kinberg

I'm not trying to get into a web traffic pissing contest, but when
people qualify their stats with percentages and make inferences as to
some kind of larger trend, then it helps to know the sample size we're
talking about and whether or not its statistically significant.

-josh


On 12/24/05, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
  gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?


 Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky.

 A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared
 to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same
 video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general
 Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but
 ordinary folks looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly),
 rather than searching within the general category videoblogs.
 Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my
 viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully
 viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the
 folks who ask about Flash in this group.

 As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so
 I don't see a lot of point in playing My Feedburner's bigger than yours.
 My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good
 enough for me.

 --

 best regards,
 Deirdré Straughan

 www.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.

  



 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Michael Meiser

I'mm apparently missing half the conversation but... what the heck is FireANT's traffic rpresentative to in comparison to iTunes... and next too google... really all of us are insignificant... But google would never say... what's the significance of my tiny little site ... when someone does a search for "michael meiser" I'm more than significant enough, in fact I'm the omnipitent mast of my domain bitches. :)This is like rocketboom pissing on other vlogs, not that they have... in the big picture the difference between a rocketboom and a Dierdre Straighan isn't really a difference at all.. their both pretty long tail. What's important is in aggregate we're begining to be one significant as mother fucking aspect of media much like open source software and the blogs that have come before us.So, this sounds like an a-list blogger pissing contest. BTW, on a related note Crooks and Liars trounced Rocketboom in the webbys. I don't know if you follow Crooks and Liars, but if you do you should ask yourself what's significant. Rocketboom is representative of me... Dierdre's website is representitive of me and that's all I give a crap about. It's the first visitor that matters and that's me.http://tinyurl.com/d9s56original url.http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?range=2ysize=largecompare_sites=rocketboom.comy=rurl="">On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote: On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your sitegets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky. A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but "ordinary folks" looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly), rather than searching within the general category "videoblogs". Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the folks who ask about Flash in this group. As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger than yours." My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good enough for me. -- 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.

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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Markus Sandy









generally speaking, large sample sizes are *not* required in order for
the sample to be representative

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers






Deirdre Straughan wrote:

  
  On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?
  
  
  
Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky. 
  
A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be
compared to itself via relative number of downloads of different
formats of the same video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE
representative of the general Internet population since my viewers are
mostly NOT videobloggers but "ordinary folks" looking for material
about specific topics (Italy, mostly), rather than searching within the
general category "videoblogs". Videobloggers tend to have every
possible video codec installed already; my viewers probably don't. So
the fact that they seem to be successfully viewing Flash on my site
does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the folks who ask about
Flash in this group. 
  
As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long
tail, so I don't see a lot of point in playing "My Feedburner's bigger
than yours." My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with
it - that's good enough for me.
  
  
-- 
best regards,
Deirdr Straughan
  
  www.beginningwithi.com
(personal)
  www.tvblob.com (work)



-- 

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



  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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Deirdre Straughan

Representative or not, the actual statistics may tell us something. I have one video (so far) that is available in the three formats under discussion:M4V - viewed in iTunes, but also by some feed readers/aggregators.
SWF - viewable in some feed readers/aggregators.NB: For this particular video (carols), neither the the M4V nor the SWF is linked from anywhere on the site except my RSS feed, so presumably all views of these are coming through readers of some sort. And FeedBurner doesn't nearly cover this number, because many people are subscribed directly to my original feed on my site (trying to shift everything to FeedBurner, that will take time).
Which video is picked up by which aggregator and why is a mystery to me. FireANT shows both, some show one or the other randomly for no reason that I can figure out.FLV - viewable (as far as I understand) only on the web page
http://beginningwithi.com/vlog/051204.html where the player is also available. I ran an Analog report from Dec 9th (when these files were posted) to today. Here are the rsesults:
225 8.49% 24/Dec/05 00:27 /video/carols.m4v127 24/Dec/05 00:03 http://www.beginningwithi.com/video/carols.m4v (I have two domain names right now)
-352 total m4vs155 7.46% 23/Dec/05 19:45 /video/carols.flv28 1.35% 23/Dec/05 05:25 /video/carols.swfSo, Josh is right: FLV is viewed on the page more than SWFs are downloaded/viewed in aggregators. But M4V whips the pants off both. I would really LOVE for Apple to be giving us all some stats from iTunes...
It is worth noting that, over this same period, 3679 SWFs in total were viewed, one way or another, vs 1209 views of other types of video on my site (M4V, MOV, MP4, and WMV). I will have to look more closely at the details to see how significant this is, however, as about half of my videos only exist in SWF (I started doing M4Vs in October, and use WMVs only for special purposes which require high quality).
Michael, I don't think I qualify as an A-list blogger, but thanks for the compliment of saying so!-- 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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Joshua Kinberg

for the record, I'm not trying to get into a competition regarding web
traffic between one site or another. But yes, I do believe that
general statements of trends based on statistics should be qualified
by a representative sample size. If I say 50% of my viewers prefer X,
and I'm talking 10 out of 20 people, and I know all 20 people because
they're my friends, then those stats may or may not be indicitive of
any larger trends outside of those 20 people. There is not enough data
to make any real claim on anything, and there is certainly no control
group to offset any oddities that pertain to the particular sample
group.

This is statistics 101...

-Josh

On 12/24/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'mm apparently missing half the conversation but... what the heck is
FireANT's traffic rpresentative to in comparison to iTunes... and next too
google... really all of us are insignificant... But google would never
say... what's the significance of my tiny little site ... when someone does
a search for michael meiser I'm more than significant enough, in fact I'm
the omnipitent mast of my domain bitches. :)

This is like rocketboom pissing on other vlogs, not that they have... in the
big picture the difference between a rocketboom and a Dierdre Straighan
isn't really a difference at all.. their both pretty long tail. What's
important is in aggregate we're begining to be one significant as mother
fucking aspect of media much like open source software and the blogs
that have come before us.

So, this sounds like an a-list blogger pissing contest. BTW, on a related
note Crooks and Liars trounced Rocketboom in the webbys. I don't know if
you follow Crooks and Liars, but if you do you should ask yourself what's
significant. Rocketboom is representative of me... Dierdre's website is
representitive of me and that's all I give a crap about. It's the first
visitor that matters and that's me.

http://tinyurl.com/d9s56

original url.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?range=2ysize=largecompare_sites=rocketboom.comy=rurl=http%3A//www.crooksandliars.com/

On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:

On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?

Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky.

A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared
to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same
video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general
Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but
ordinary folks looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly),
rather than searching within the general category videoblogs.
Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my
viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully
viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the
folks who ask about Flash in this group.

As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail, so
I don't see a lot of point in playing My Feedburner's bigger than yours.
My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it - that's good
enough for me.

--
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan

www.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.

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 Sponsor ~--
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Joshua Kinberg

Umm... then you need lots of little samples as opposed to a single
large sample to notice any trends.

-Josh


On 12/24/05, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  generally speaking, large sample sizes are *not* required in order for the
 sample to be representative

  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers






  Deirdre Straughan wrote:



 On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  At the risk of sounding like a jerk, do you really think your site
  gets enough traffic to provide a representative sample of anything?


  Uh, yeah, that did sound pretty jerky.

  A small sample is nonetheless a sample, especially when it can be compared
 to itself via relative number of downloads of different formats of the same
 video. Perhaps my sample of viewers is MORE representative of the general
 Internet population since my viewers are mostly NOT videobloggers but
 ordinary folks looking for material about specific topics (Italy, mostly),
 rather than searching within the general category videoblogs.
 Videobloggers tend to have every possible video codec installed already; my
 viewers probably don't. So the fact that they seem to be successfully
 viewing Flash on my site does seem to me to have some useful meaning to the
 folks who ask about Flash in this group.

  As for viewership, we are all (even Rocketboom) way out on the long tail,
 so I don't see a lot of point in playing My Feedburner's bigger than
 yours. My audience is small but growing, and I'm having fun with it -
 that's good enough for me.

  --
  best regards,
  Deirdré Straughan

  www.beginningwithi.com (personal)
  www.tvblob.com (work)

  --

 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


  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 Sponsor ~-- 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

We're speaking past eachother, I think. There are two kinds of  
videoblogging - for the sake of the argument we can call one  
videoblogging and the other video podcasting.

The first includes aspects of the blog. It's a remediation of the blog and  
tv (among others). Think McLuhan. The latter is a transparent remediation  
of tv. It's faithful to tv.

The difference is easiest to see in reading patterns. Videoblogging are  
read like blogs, they are small pieces loosely joined (by the reader). The  
latter is read like tv, one at the time. Seperated, passively.

Read this for an intermission URL:  
http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog/archives/2005/12/24/tv-killed-voggings-star/  


When I say embedded video gives the best reading experience for web video,  
I am talking about videoblogging. A blog entry is *not* the frames that  
make up the video. It is also the surrounding blog post, the comments, the  
title, the sidebar, the entire network around it (inbound and outbound  
links). That is what makes blogging different from old media. When you  
take the video and move it to an iPod it may be the same frames, but it is  
not the same Work - it is the same video, but a new media and different  
content.

I make videoblogging, and my personaly interest is videoblogging. Content  
that works well in a videoblogging setting is different from content that  
works well in a video podcasting setting. Just as there is content which  
works better on tv than in radio (a boxing match comes to mind). Thinking  
they're the same is naive.

- Andreas

PS. Did evilvlog begin censoring itself?


On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:33:34 +0100, Michael Meiser  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Andreas, I understand your perspective, and respect and find your
 methods interesting, but there's thousands and thousands of people
 who disagree with your idea of best practices.

 Alternatively... I think getting all my vlogs automatically
 downloaded and synced to my video ipod is the best thing ever. I
 watch them on my TV while working on my laptop, and through mefeedia
 am able to easily work, or if I see something interesting... quickly
 find the original post and follow up on it. The disconnect that I
 thought would happen do to putting videos on TV has NOT happened in
 fact... I find i can comment and follow more vlogs. If I miss
 something I just hit the pause button or rewind on the iPod... if I
 am bored with a clip I skip it...  All the while I can follow along
 on mefeedia on my laptop... tagging things, marking favorites...
 following up on links from Steve G.'s Vlog soup.. or rocketboom's
 links.  All we need to do in my opinion is make it even easier to
 follow along through mefeedia with what's happening on the TV by
 improving our web based queue and our RSS queue which plays back
 through the video ipod.

 Finally, I also like embedded flash for in browser play back, as
 probably does Jay.. that's not the problem... the problem is when
 there is NO alternative link. It drives me up the wall. How can I
 download it... how can I rip it to my ipod, how can I share it with a
 friend... No this sort of flash playback is not going away... but
 video blogging is at least putting a serious dampner on DRM'd and
 locked down files like this and encouraging more openess and
 portability... which means more flexibility, increased accessibility,
 and enhanced useability.

 -Mike

 On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:

 On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:42:08 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
 i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
 all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
 to web pages to watch Flash videos.

 Embedded video is the best viewing experience for web video. It won't go
 away. For blog entries that mixes video with other forms (text, images)
 embedded video is much nicer. And it actually fits into the web context.

 I've never downloaded a video through subscription. I will start once I
 find videos I watch like a watch tv... passively. When I find videos
 where
 I don't want to (or can't) be a part of a dialogue around the videos.

 I use RSS to be notified if a blog has updated. It's great for that.

 - Andreas



-- 
URL:http://www.solitude.dk/
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
AIDS in India: A lurking bomb. Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-24 Thread Ronen




On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to install
Quicktime. Quicktime comes bundled with iTunes. If that's considered a wide enough compatability reach for abc, it should be for anybody. (At least anybody picking a single video format.)
My only problem with QT is that you have to pay for full-screen, instead of the now-standard 'double-click'.


  




  
  
  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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:42:08 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:

 i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
 i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
 all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
 to web pages to watch Flash videos.

Embedded video is the best viewing experience for web video. It won't go  
away. For blog entries that mixes video with other forms (text, images)  
embedded video is much nicer. And it actually fits into the web context.

I've never downloaded a video through subscription. I will start once I  
find videos I watch like a watch tv... passively. When I find videos where  
I don't want to (or can't) be a part of a dialogue around the videos.

I use RSS to be notified if a blog has updated. It's great for that.

- Andreas
-- 
URL:http://www.solitude.dk/
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited




just yesterday, http://www.downloadgooglevideos.com/ was up.. now it seems unavailable. it made it simple to download all the flv's from google video.unless i have the domain wrong?
On 12/23/05, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote: does the video get aggregated in your feed? or do you just link to the page with the flash player? JayJosh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the
video into an aggregator? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/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
  
  
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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Jay dedman

 I was never meaning to suggest Flash is the way to go for most people
 and also I didn't even expect hotlinking, etc into one's website or
 aggregator. I wasn't suggesting anyone on this list drop anything for
 Google.
 I really only just brought it up as a stepping stone for newbees or
 people who would want to do video without a committed life of
 videoblogging.
 I think its a good and easy way to get your videos online if you are
 not a hard core videoblogger. I think its much easier than any other
 solution, its dependable and fast and it seems like its a nice
 sandbox for people who would like to experiment with the idea of
 having video that they make online.

agreed.
maybe gogle might connect google video with blogger one day.
all the pieces are there.

i was just bringing up the flash discussion...becasue i see that its
becoming very popular in some circles.

jay


--
Adventures in Videoblogging
URL: http://www.momentshowing.net
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing
http://getFireAnt.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
AIDS in India: A lurking bomb. Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

My only problem is you can't vlog it because of the flash wrapper. I  
even tried vlogging the flash wrapper. Doesn't work.

I thought I heard something about a greasmonkey script or plugin for  
uncovering the permalink directly to the video so you can vlog it.  
But I never followed up on it and seem to have misplaced the reference.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:19 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
people use flickr (an off-site compilation).

I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.

The worst part is the verification process which takes at least a day
or more. The bit rate is not great though again, from the perspective
of making it easy for people to experiment with getting their videos
online, in an easy way which may help as a stepping stone to a more
dedicated and integrated way of doing it, it seems to be pretty good,
for free.





Yahoo! Groups Links









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
AIDS in India: A lurking bomb. Click and help stop AIDS now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/9QUssC/lzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

Doesn't work, tried it!

What happens is FireANT just downloads the shell flash app... which  
then is unable to reference the video over the internet.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:33 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

If you do a showpage source from your browser drop down menu, and
then scan the text for the object, the object reveals the direct
url to the video, in this case on Google video, the flash file which
is in fact there. You would just add the root url to the address
listed in quotes.

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

 Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
 that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
 or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like
 people use flickr (an off-site compilation).
 I just gave it a shot this week. If you have a gmail account, you
 just login and upload a video. It's pretty much that easy. They have
 assured me up and down and I have it in writing that they can not own
 it or do anything if I decide to take the video down one day.

 does the video get aggregated in your feed?
 or do you just link to the page with the flash player?

 Jay


 --
 Adventures in Videoblogging
 URL: http://www.momentshowing.net
 http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing
 http://getFireAnt.com


  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
 ~--
 Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the
 Sweet Life.
 http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
 
 ~-


 Yahoo! Groups Links











Yahoo! Groups Links









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

Ok, I'm a dunce, josh, you made this plugin? Perhaps there was  
another too. :(

Pardon, my earlier reference, next time I'll read every post first.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

 Josh K, don't you know of a method to hotlink or incorporate the
 video into an aggregator?

http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php

here how Josh hacked it out.
i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
to web pages to watch Flash videos.
but i wonder. seems very popular with the money men...Brightcove,
Google, YouTube.

Jay



--
Adventures in Videoblogging
URL: http://www.momentshowing.net
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing
http://getFireAnt.com




Yahoo! Groups Links










 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2jUsvC/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

Andreas, I understand your perspective, and respect and find your  
methods interesting, but there's thousands and thousands of people  
who disagree with your idea of best practices.

Alternatively... I think getting all my vlogs automatically  
downloaded and synced to my video ipod is the best thing ever. I  
watch them on my TV while working on my laptop, and through mefeedia  
am able to easily work, or if I see something interesting... quickly  
find the original post and follow up on it. The disconnect that I  
thought would happen do to putting videos on TV has NOT happened in  
fact... I find i can comment and follow more vlogs. If I miss  
something I just hit the pause button or rewind on the iPod... if I  
am bored with a clip I skip it...  All the while I can follow along  
on mefeedia on my laptop... tagging things, marking favorites...  
following up on links from Steve G.'s Vlog soup.. or rocketboom's  
links.  All we need to do in my opinion is make it even easier to  
follow along through mefeedia with what's happening on the TV by  
improving our web based queue and our RSS queue which plays back  
through the video ipod.

Finally, I also like embedded flash for in browser play back, as  
probably does Jay.. that's not the problem... the problem is when  
there is NO alternative link. It drives me up the wall. How can I  
download it... how can I rip it to my ipod, how can I share it with a  
friend... No this sort of flash playback is not going away... but  
video blogging is at least putting a serious dampner on DRM'd and  
locked down files like this and encouraging more openess and  
portability... which means more flexibility, increased accessibility,  
and enhanced useability.

-Mike

On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:42:08 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 i wonder if these Embedded Flash players will last?
 i obviously keep seeing aggregated video as being the way to go.
 all the video i watch ive downloaded through subscriptionnot gone
 to web pages to watch Flash videos.

Embedded video is the best viewing experience for web video. It won't go
away. For blog entries that mixes video with other forms (text, images)
embedded video is much nicer. And it actually fits into the web context.

I've never downloaded a video through subscription. I will start once I
find videos I watch like a watch tv... passively. When I find videos  
where
I don't want to (or can't) be a part of a dialogue around the videos.

I use RSS to be notified if a blog has updated. It's great for that.

- Andreas
-- 
URL:http://www.solitude.dk/
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.




Yahoo! Groups Links









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/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] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Joshua Kinberg

FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet play
FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.

I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based
aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice
to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to
skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing
with local files... its not about lean back for me. I'm always
clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
experience).

However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they
do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance
YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people using
Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file
is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may
be a core component of their business strategy.

The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised that
Google made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process so
that I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure
they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend to
get mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (these
content owners would cringe at the thought of people potentially
downloading, remixing, redistributing their content). If they wanted
to make it easy for people to download, Google could have provided a
simple download link, but instead I took the time to do a little
hacking with a Greasemonkey script:
 http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php 

This type of hack is not always available with Flash Video. The
YouTube hack relies on another method, which again is a loophole that
YouTube could close if they wanted to (and I'm sure they do want to
based on some of my discussions with them, they probably just haven't
seen the Greasemonkey script yet). I've looked at Brightcove video
players and have not yet found a method to download the video files.
This is certainly by design -- the Brightcove player is an entire
Flash application, not a video embedded in a webpage, so there is very
little you can discover from a simple View Source of the HTML.

I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to install
Quicktime. Its just as hard to install the latest Flash Player plugin
if that's the case (the newest Flash Video requires version 8 of the
Flash plugin). If you are dealing with some sort of corporate blockage
when it comes to installing programs, then you won't be able to
install Flash plugin either.

All in all I have no problem with Flash Video. I do think however that
it is more often used to restrict the freedom of the viewer and
control the experience from the point of view of the service provider
(which may not be the same as the content creator) rather than to
enhance the experience for the viewer. If I want to download and view
the video later why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to put it on an
iPod, why can't I? If I want to aggregate it with other videos so that
I can view things in offline and skip around seemlessly, why not?

-josh


On 12/23/05, Michael Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 My only problem is you can't vlog it because of the flash wrapper. I
 even tried vlogging the flash wrapper. Doesn't work.

 I thought I heard something about a greasmonkey script or plugin for
 uncovering the permalink directly to the video so you can vlog it.
 But I never followed up on it and seem to have misplaced the reference.

 -Mike

 On Dec 23, 2005, at 1:19 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:

 Has anyone been keeping up with Google Video? I'm starting to think
 that it may be a good solution for people who are just starting out
 or want to incorporate video into their site with links, kinda like

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Deirdre Straughan




On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



flash video has grown on me. i used to spit on it in relation to videoblogging/vodcasting. the one gripe that still prevails is that you cant remix it so it excudes that part of this culture. which sucks bad. you could transcode flv to mp4 of course, but its another step and potential lossy issues.
How much remixing is really going on, though? I had a note on my site for a while offering remixable formats for anyone who asked. No one did. Of course, it may be simply that no one is interested in remixing MY video.
-- best regards,Deirdré Straughanwww.beginningwithi.com (personal)www.tvblob.com (work)





  
  
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] Google Video Revisited

but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime (in FireFox), there
were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play - HumanDog was
one, to my great frustration. With the new 1.5 version of Firefox it
seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that crashed
the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video.sadly, i too have had firefox 1.5 crashes in relation to quicktime... and some nightmares getting the two to jive. very annoyed, since i am a big firefox and quicktime user.
On 12/23/05, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(to do Flash Video well isstill rather difficult for the individual, there are many stepsinvolved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which isboth expensive and confusing).
I'm hardly proficient in Flash. I have the full software (got it at a bargain price), but have hardly used it. I got Sorenson Squeeze instead which is a lot easier.
Thanks to something you said in here a week or so ago, I'm now using the lovely Flash player by
Jeroen Wijering. This involves a bit more fiddling - it wouldn't be hard for someone more proficient than I to take his player a step further towards user-friendliness. hint hint
FWIW, I have rarely if ever had anyone say they couldn't see/play my videos. And I have had several compliments from people who really like the way it looks on the page.

I don't buy the argument that its hard for people to installQuicktime. Its just as hard to install the latest Flash Player pluginif that's the case (the newest Flash Video requires version 8 of theFlash plugin). If you are dealing with some sort of corporate blockage
when it comes to installing programs, then you won't be able toinstall Flash plugin either.I wouldn't have thought so, but, in spite of repeated installs of QuickTime (in FireFox), there were some sites whose QT video I simply couldn't play - HumanDog was one, to my great frustration. With the new
1.5 version of Firefox it seems to be even more broken - I ran into a site recently that crashed the browser completely if I tried to play a QT video. OTOH, I've never had a problem with Flash. YMMV.

All in all I have no problem with Flash Video. I do think however thatit is more often used to restrict the freedom of the viewer and
control the experience from the point of view of the service provider(which may not be the same as the content creator) rather than toenhance the experience for the viewer. If I want to download and viewthe video later why shouldn't I be able to? If I want to put it on an
iPod, why can't I? If I want to aggregate it with other videos so thatI can view things in offline and skip around seemlessly, why not?From what I can tell, a lot more people are viewing my SWF files in whatever aggregator than are viewing the FLV files directly on my site. So I don't see what the problem is?
-- 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
.

-- 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] Google Video Revisited

I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cachevideos for local playback.
thats a hard fact. no doubt. Its nice to be able to play videos when offline
yup. except who here is ever offline? LOLI'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web without siginifcant latencyyes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i dont have problems playing video via the web. so i just dont think this reason has that much punch. my online experiences feel like offline experiences give or take a video once in a while from the
archive.org :( used to be worse... they are getting better. earlier, i described the different types of internet video consumers... many are like you and others here and many are so totally not. they enjoy watching videoblogs but they can be just as satisifed with an experience that is web based getting a vlog via email or browsing a directory during a work break... watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not catching up on 70 RSS channels. Me... I am a little bit of both. some days, i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10 sporatically during the day. I think the growing audience of Internet Video will be mostly this type
videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV etc is a branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that. so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and always will be.
i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it depends on the audience.sullOn 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet playFLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cachevideos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... justthe same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web basedaggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its niceto be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier toskip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealingwith local files... its not about lean back for me. I'm always
clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort offreedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the webwithout siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (Ihappen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
experience).However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because theydo not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps theyhave some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instanceYouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are notpart of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people usingFlash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well isstill rather difficult for the individual, there are many stepsinvolved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which isboth expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the fileis downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which maybe a core component of their business strategy.The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised thatGoogle made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process sothat I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure
they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend toget mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (thesecontent owners would cringe at the thought of people potentiallydownloading, remixing, redistributing their content). If they wanted
to make it easy for people to download, Google could have provided asimple download link, but instead I took the time to do a littlehacking with a Greasemonkey script:
http://www.joshkinberg.com/blog/archives/2005/11/greased_google.php This type of hack is not always available with Flash Video. TheYouTube hack relies on another method, which again is a loophole that
YouTube could close if they wanted to (and I'm sure they do want tobased on some of my discussions with them, they probably just haven'tseen the Greasemonkey script yet). I've looked at Brightcove videoplayers and have not yet found a method to download the video files.
This is certainly by design -- the Brightcove player is an entireFlash application, not a video embedded in a

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

2005-12-23 Thread Joshua Kinberg

 so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and 
 always will be.
 i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it 
 depends on the audience.

Ummm... yeah, there's a huge distinction there. Nimiq and Juice do not
play video. They certainly do not play any type of video (QT, WMV,
SWF, Real, etc.).

-josh


On 12/23/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
  videos for local playback.


 thats a hard fact.  no doubt.


   Its nice to be able to play videos when offline
 

 yup.  except who here is ever offline?  LOL


  I'm always clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort 
  of
  freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web without 
  siginifcant latency


 yes, there is truth to this, but overall as a broadband user... i dont have 
 problems playing video via the web.  so i just dont think this reason has 
 that much punch.  my online experiences feel like offline experiences 
 give or take a video once in a while from the archive.org :(  used to be 
 worse... they are getting better.

 earlier, i described the different types of internet video consumers... many 
 are like you and others here and many are so totally not.  they enjoy 
 watching videoblogs but they can be just as satisifed with an experience 
 that is web based getting a vlog via email or browsing a directory during 
 a work break... watching a handful of videos throughout the day... not 
 catching up on 70 RSS channels.   Me... I am a little bit of both.  some 
 days, i watch a ton of vlogs... most days i can only watch 2, 5, maybe 10 
 sporatically during the day.  I think the growing audience of Internet Video 
 will be mostly this type

 videoblogs on TiVo or other TV tube centric experiences via IPTV etc is a 
 branch of this topic... and i am not referring to that.

 so i am all about the fireants, nimiqs and juice etc... extremely useful and 
 always will be.
 i dont make a distinction really that one is better than the other... it 
 depends on the audience.

 sull




 On 12/23/05, Joshua Kinberg  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  FireAnt for Mac can play FLV, provided that the raw FLV file is
  syndicated, not the SWF wrapper. FireAnt for Windows does not yet play
  FLV, but it does play SWF. We are working on improving this.
 
  I think there are many benefits to being able to download and cache
  videos for local playback. This can become especially valuable if you
  want to watch a lot of videos from a lot of different sources... just
  the same way that people use RSS now. Some people like web based
  aggregators, but I've always preferred a desktop RSS reader. Its nice
  to be able to play videos when offline. I use a laptop and carry it
  with me, so my Internet connection is not permanent. Its easier to
  skip around and control your viewing experience when you're dealing
  with local files... its not about lean back for me. I'm always
   clicking around on different videos and I really enjoy this sort of
  freedom in my viewing experience. You cannot do this on the web
  without siginifcant latency even when dealing with Google Video (I
  happen to think Google Video is designed to be more of a Lean Back
  experience).
 
  However, not many people are syndicating FLV yet. Maybe because they
  do not want their video to play in another SWF wrapper. Perhaps they
  have some branding or special interactivity included in the SWF
  portion that they do not want to lose in syndication. For instance
  YouTube has a water mark and a few interactive features that are not
  part of the FLV but rather part of the SWF wrapper). Most people using
  Flash Video are not individual video creators, but rather
  upload-your-video-here type of services (to do Flash Video well is
  still rather difficult for the individual, there are many steps
  involved and you have to be rather proficient with Flash, which is
  both expensive and confusing). These services are probably not fond of
  the download-and-cache model of RSS enclosures because once the file
  is downloaded locally then they cannot track imprressions, which may
  be a core component of their business strategy.
 
  The next thing about Flash Video is that downloading it can be easily
  prevented by a good Flash designer. I'm actually really surprised that
  Google made it relatively easy to reverse engineer their process so
  that I could discover the direct download link for the video. I'm sure
   they do not want people to know about this loophole if they intend to
  get mainstream content owners to put their stuff onto Google (these
  content owners would cringe at the thought of people potentially
  downloading, remixing, redistributing their content). If they wanted
  to make it easy for people to download, Google could have provided a
  simple download link, but instead I took the time to do a

Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited