On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:34:03 +0100, wtrainbow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> No. I was not trying to put down a definition. I don't know where you >> got that idea. A definition would include other factors that exclude >> Deperate Housewives in a blog template (because they are not read as a >> blog). > > Then what is your definition of videblog? You seem to prefer to refer to > yourself as a > videoblogger but aren't you a video podcaster as well if I can watch > your posts in iTunes? We weren't talking definitions until you came along. Do you realise how hot the waters tend to get when that topics comes around? There was a reason I was only making one point about there being a difference, and not a definition discussion. That said my current videoblog definition runs at 67,000 characters. I would summarize, but then you would just attack it as being a generalization (even though it has to be since it's a summary). I would be happy to send it to you, but it's in Danish. >> I was trying to get the point across that reading "videoblogs" in a >> blog, or in FireANT is a different ballgame than watching videoblogs >> on an iPod in the bus. > > True but you don't decide how a consumer views your video if you're > including a feed or > make it available as a download. If you truly wanted to be a true > videoblogger (i.e the > require the viewer to remain in the "context" of the blog) why even > offer RSS and allow > people to view the video in iTunes or other aggregators? You are creating problems where there are none. Many videoblogs can be remediated into vodcasts - I'm saying when you do it is no longer a videoblog, it is something else. I'm not calling judgement on anyone. I'm not saying that to be a "true" videoblogger you have to force your viewers to view your content in a certain way. That would be very silly, I'm all for the free movement of content - Meiser is the resident evangelist and I'm all behind him. What I *am* saying is that when you do move content from one media to another the content is not unaffected. Thus a videoblog moved to an iPod is no longer a videoblog for that viewing situation. >> I'm talking with Michael Meiser. He's a smart guy. I'm not trying to >> talk to a general audience - If I was I wouldn't drop names like >> McLuhan in the middle of things. > > Although it's not a general audience, this forum includes over 2000 > people. If you want to > behave like a bunch of mandarins why not keep it off list? I don't want to behave like a mandarin. My point is that I can't speak to the lowest common denominator every time. If I did we'd never get anywhere. >> Being informal and personal is a factor in blogs, but it's just as big >> a factor in what I called video podcasting. You can't distinguish >> based on it. > > You certainly can make distinctions based on content. Documentaries and > narrative films > are both movies but are cleary different (i.e. fiction and fact) in > their content. You don't > think these are useful distinctions? Read what I write instead of what you want to read. I was speaking of a specific situation. Since videoblogs and vodcasts both share the personal factor you cannot use that factor to distinguish between the two. It is only logical. - Andreas -- <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. ------------------------ 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/
