Re: [videoblogging] Google Video Revisited

[Michael Meiser]

Just for the record... I'm ALL about talking about the the different variations on the general vlog theme... I'm even about discussing the merits and assigning value judgments.... i.e. "Video RSS feeds without web pages SUCK!" However, I'm just not about making arbitrary labels for them....  i.e. "Man those video podcasts SUCK!"   Because while this linguistic corner cutting may work for you... 99% of people are not going to know that by "video podcast" you mean a "video feed" without web based blog. It's well beyond wether they might agree with your use of the terminology or not... your arbitrary assigning of terminologies is a hindrance to communication. I agree there are those "video feeds" that are just "video feeds"... so... there's the distinction... it's just a "video feed"... What I have an argument with... is this distinction that they are only "video podcasts" .... What is a podcast? Does a podcast mean that it only has an RSS feed? Do not like 99.9% of all audio podcasts have a web based blog element? One or two people might agree with you including Steve Garfield... but I would say it's an completely arbitrary assumption and therefore a terminology that's wanton for argument, trolling and flaming.... I'm saying just use specific known language to make your distinctions and everyone will be able to follow a lot easier....   Not: "The Washington Post has no video blog, they only have a video podcast." But, less argumentative.... "The Washington Post has no video blog, they only have an RSS video feed." It's less argumentative.. it's more clear. Or if you disagree then argue with this statement which I've also heard here... "The Washington Post has no video blog, they only have a vodcast." Honestly... I still don't know what that's suppose to mean, which is my point exactly...  If your going to discuss the language... then by all means discuss the language... BUT you're using your language in holding a discussion about the merits of these variations of videoblogging... which is confusing the issue between the value judgments you make with the terms...  Hence when I say... "Video feeds with ONLY a feed and no corresponding web page for commenting suck!"  people KNOW what I'm talking about...  Hence when you say "Video podcasts suck!"  people all jump up in arms saying "what the hell do you mean video podcasts suck?"... and then the conversation descends into the same old conversation about 'definitions'. If you don't intend it to descend into this conversation about terminology... and do intend to keep it as a platonic conversation about the merits of different variations on video blogging mechanisms you'd refrain from using those terms which confuse the issue and alienate people. While language does need to evolve and hence be experimented with... if it is NOT the point of your argument why make such assuming use of terminologies... why bother making up such arbitrary distinctions when there are perfectly good terms that do this... it's an "RSS video feed" or a "video feed".... not a "video podcast".... because while you can site perhaps 5 or 10 people who agree with you about your arbitrary use of the term "video podcast" and person B might site a couple dozen who see no such distinction and see video blog and video podcast as one in the same... and ALL OF THAT WOULD BE MUTE...  Because I'm saying to you right now the majority of people are probably scratching their heads and saying "video blog / video podcast? what in the heck are they all talking about!" So, in summary... do what you like... but know that in using terms such arbitrary terms unnecessarily you're the ones responsible for bringing about these debates about "defining" that I see so often and defeating your own attempts to have an interesting public conversation on the merits of the many flavors of video blogging. We only have these debates because in using these terms unnecessarily you've "posed the question" about them. People are merely asking the most obvious question..  "What do you mean video podcasting?" which leads right back to the same old silly "defining" discussion. :) I personally feel that.... if we're setting out to discuss distinctions we can have far more in depth conversations and make far more distinctions... as I pointed out in my last email... if we stick to the terms that already exist for such stuff...  In short there are THOUSANDS of variations on the video blog... some don't have RSS... some don't have permalinks... some have just RSS... while you can argue about their legitimacy or utility all you want... please do not just arbitrarily go... heh... those ones without permalinks... those one I'm going to call "video podcasts" even though I could just call them "video feeds with no corresponding web page" and everyone would know exactly what I was talking about. Anyway... it's all in good fun... I've indulged in the issue... it has nothing to do with the real issues which we claim to be discussing... it's just an offshoot, and arbitrary discussion of linguistics... make sure you dot your t's and cross your i's and spell everything correctly... other wise we'll get in to discussions on that too. :) I just address it because it keeps coming up... because I think it's funny people keep asserting arbitrary distinctions onto terms where perfectly fine terminologies exist. I leave you with this silliness. I took of my schooze and put on my shoes before I went out to by new schooze because I didn't want to look like and idiot for having on my schooze when I'm just buying a new pair of the same damn schooze. Completely absurd right? That's often how I feel when we get into these videoblogiobating conversations. :) I much prefer to say:  I took off my red shoes and put on my blue shoes before I went out to buy new red shoes because because I didn't want to look like an idiot for having my red shoes on when I'm just buying a new pair of the same damn red shoes. The point is I really like the red shoes obviously. Just like I really love video blogs... but you don't see me needlessly calling the red shoes "schooze" to distinguish them between all my other shoes when simply calling them my "red shoes" works just fine and dandy... and best of all... people can actually get what in the hell I'm talking about!  :) Sorry.. I find the whole issue hysterical... and best of all I know I'm not above ridicule for using unnecessary "linguistic shortcuts".... see I did it just there...  but I think I've made my point, which is outsiders must be scratching their heads and thing we're freaks when we start new arbitrary terms to make such distinctions.  And I don't really care if they thing we're freaks but I do care about them being able to participate in the conversation... because ACCESS and PARTICIPATION is what we're all about. So let's please try to stop using such exclusionary language. :) Cheers! and Peace! and Love!  and stuff! And no,  I may be many things Sull, but I'm no anarchist. :) -Mike On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote: 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. So say it's a video blog that has no enclosures or a video blog with no subscribable video feed... Call it a "wannabe video blog" if you like... or a poser... but please, please don't call it a videobloggiomasterbation.... unless of course you're trying to be funny. :)   I may even agree with you that it's not a video podcast and just a video blog... but if that really isn't the point of the conversation to 'define' so much as to "discuss the merits of" then why bother bringing it up? 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. Yeap... Check out the Washington Post's video podcast. :) 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. It's not clear as day to the other 99.9999% of the world who won't know what in the world your talking about unless your explain right along with your usage just what distinctions your making by using the term. So why not call these things "only a video feed..."  Calling it a "video podcast" is as about as arbitrary as me making the distinction that something is only a video podcast if it plays on your ipod... or the next guy claiming it's a video podcast only if it works in itunes... or the next guy claiming it's only a video podcast if it has apples RSS specification markup in it. Me... I could care less what you call it... call it a potato... what I care is how just how effective is it? what are the merits of just having and RSS feed with video and no website? Peace, - Mike 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'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 -- Home Page - http://stevegarfield.com "The Instapundit of vlogging, without the right-wing politics!" - Chuck Olsen ------------------------ 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 Directory http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 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.