when i said:
"many are generated from video sharing sites where random people are uploading random videos that may be considered viral vids are just stupid shit...."

i didnt mean viral vids are stupid shit ;-)  mistyped.  i meant viral vids OR stupid shit... though a viral vid can be stupid shit. aye.  nevermind.

On 2/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
right.
i too was skeptical of the math.... but like i have time to truly confirm such a scenario... nope.
but in general i was interested in the thought about bandwidth abuse by software.  its not something talked much about... maybe because its a non-issue.... but i would need to investigate all variables to know for sure. 

for instance... even though the article was in no way discussing media aggregators like FA, i sometimes wonder if such apps are efficient as they should be.  This is both a technical query and a user tendency query....

with the latter, i refer to IF a user intentionally downloads media that they want to consume or plan to consume at some point... or if they are just grabbing everything and then making the decision as to what they are interested in watching afterwards.  If that is a common.....trend..... then their is definately wasted bandwidth since a download is completed before a user decides what they care to watch.  If they download overnight entire channels... then only actually watch a few videos from say 10 or 15 downloaded, then this is not efficient use of an application and as a result is abusing the hosting service... costing them and possible the content creators money.

this undesirable scenario would prob be more likely with the plethora of what i call 'orphaned feeds' that some directories store.  these are typically feeds that services generate....based on tags, user uploads, meta-feeds etcetera.  they are channels without any true parent... that is to say they are not vlog projects managed and created by people with an intention, a genre, an actual audience..... produced by the content creator(s).... videoblogs ;-)  rboom, apperceptions, pouringdown, dltq etc. where you have a good idea of the content you are going to get and you are subscribed because you generally like it, trust it or are at least giving it a chance before you unsubscribe. 
with orphaned feeds, you really never know what will come down the pipe.... many are generated from video sharing sites where random people are uploading random videos that may be considered viral vids are just stupid shit....

if people download then filter/discard instead of the opposite.... we got a wasted bandwith problem.  again, i am not faulting the software. just a thought in my head.... maybe its not at an epidemic level... but how would I know either way? The same holds true for some web sites that download media before a user actually makes a deliberate request.  no good. 

i guess it comes down to trusting the content you are subscribed to... which is more difficult to do with these orphaned feeds than a true channel.  i suppose their is no solution if this is even a real problem ;-) 

thoughts on this speculation?  i should go fix my leaky faucet now.

sull


On 2/16/06, Markus Sandy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i understand and agree, i was mainly just diving deeper into how the bandwidth was consumed vs cached.

the main point is that they are different for these apps; but then so are their purposes and hence the difficulty in comparison as you say



Joshua Kinberg wrote:
I'm sorry... I meant to say, you were comparing a media aggregator
like FireAnt to a standard web browser in terms of bandwidth usage,
whereas the article pointed out was describing a regular text based
News Aggregator to a web browser in terms of bandwidth usage.


I think its silly to compare a New Aggregator to a browser and claim
the aggregator is the greater bandwidth hog... however a media
aggregator will certainly consume bandiwdth as its primary purpose is
to download large media objects.


-Josh


On 2/16/06, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, actually, i was comparing the two equally

Joshua Kinberg wrote:

You're talking more about a media aggregator like FireAnt as opposed
to a browser.


--

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

http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://node101.org
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com

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




Yahoo! Groups Links








    
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


-- 

My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Use


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






--
- - - -
Sull
http://vlogdir.com



--
- - - -
Sull
http://vlogdir.com


SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Use


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to