|
You are right. The question is beyond content or asking what "type" should be out there. It's more about now understanding how it can really spread and reach a tipping point where we are watching the second stage of the revolution happen. You are absolutely right... TV is a revolutionary medium. In fact, if I try to imagine a world pre-TV, I feel as if imprisoned culturally.
However, the rules of the TV medium got defined when the early stage innovators decided its technology.
The same holds true for videoblogging, and its confusion with video on internet. The innovations that happen now become the structural and social contexts on which people will play in the years to come. So, if tag (with its pop chatter) becomes the filtering mechanism, then the deep adaptation of it is going to be a barrier to entry for better forms of filtering.
And while I agree with your optimism that people will learn how to tune in and tune out, my belief is that a lot is going to depend on how well the technologies help people in doing that. At the very best, the technologies doing the filtering work out there either use -- popularity/rating, or tagging (both pop-culture), or directory (book-keeping), or just sheer randomness.
However, as Wikipedia has shown us, true filtration is a human task (which is why vloggers/human-aggregators like Ryanne become important). That has to be the case, isn't it? Because after all the meta information that we generate can only be understood by humans, and not machines.
Let me give an example. I started a photolog long time ago called Liliths Mirrors. And soon it was getting google top ranks when you searched for Liliths Mirrors. However, as you might imagine, my photolog naming was only metaphorical in nature, and had nothing to do with the actual (greek) myth of Lilith.
In other words, in the world of filtration of content on internet, whereas Google can at best become a better version of a bad yellow page, Wikipedia has evolved into meaningful tool that's mostly accurate.
The difference between a whole community filtering content, versus machines doing it using algorithms which only estimate the real world meta-data, is huge. My question: is there any conceivable way by which the community could participate in content conglomeration... rather than leaving it upon technology to come up with approximate ways? Is there any project out there that I am missing out on?
-Des
On 21-Apr-06, at 10:17 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: I'm much more comfortable with addressing this topic when the differentiation is on content and not on terminology. I don't believe at all that anyone should try to define 'vlog content'. Forget that. It was a bad idea early on and now it's utterly unachievable. Time to move on to the the important matters and that is how/why to create *more* meaningful content delivered via a videoblog and vodcast.
TV, the medium, is extremely revolutionary. Let us not forget the rich content that has come through on TV throughout its history. Because of it's power and it's intimate relationship with the masses, $$ started influencing the content, and the masses gradually get trained to accept the limits of what has been sent through the pipes to your homes.
Enter new technologies..... new ways to bring content to the masses.... to peoples homes and even onto their TVs. videoblogging and vodcasts are providing a great potential to enhance world cultures with fresh content from people that you were previously not able to easily 'consume'. This is the core of the grass roots open media revolution.
Verdi wrote:
"the desire to replicate TV and film on the web is drowning out the idea of people videobloggging to communicate."
The idea of Attention is relevant here. This presupposes that people who have an interest in 'communicating' and creating meaningful content... the type of content that many of us hope to see more of.... the type of content that can incubate change in the world....the type of content that spreads humanity..... will seize to exist or be born from millions of independent content creators, just because their is also alot of noise and more hollow types of content with focus on audience size and financial gain. I think this is fundamentally wrong to believe. And my proof of this is the amount of crappy content that saturates us already... that has been flooding culture for years.... and still, despite this potential 'drowning' effect, here we are - in the midst of a new revolution of media makers. But people have been making meanigful content all along..... they just had so many barriers and obstacles in the way. Now that can change.
So, I don't believe that the "idea of people videobloggging to communicate." will be lost no matter how much content is delivered via the Internet's mediums that is more representative of traditional entertainment offered by the magor broadcasting networks. If anything, people who truly dislike such content will learn how to better tune out and tune in.... now the choices for content sources are enormous. now, media makers have open venues to utilize. technology will keep advancing and projects will continue to emerge. people will find what they want to find, and fade out the rest.
See, it's not black and white. We need to deal with massive amounts of content and not try to reserve a medium for a specific type of content. Vlogging is not exclusive to any particular style and it is not right to want to elliminate and discriminate certain types of content creators in order to preserve individual ideologies.
Make the content you want to make. Consume the content you want to consume. Understand the reasons why advertising/sponsorship revenue can be important in this world and don't belittle content and creators if it/they depend on such supporting sources. It is the reality.
sull
On 4/21/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I feel this is a huge topic right now with videoblogging and the way
the world is starting to see perceive it (no thanks to the media)...so
I started a new thread.
The debate about what a videoblog is will go on forever and that's not
what this is about (imho)...but it is about what videoblogging _isn't_
How can we make sure that (as Verdi put it) the communication tool for
every person that has grown from a few people doesn't go the same way
as radio, etc.
On 4/21/06, robert a/k/a r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correct, Verdi. I'd go so far as to argue it's a nail for the coffin.
>
> The onus is on this collective intelligence of group to come up with a
> strategy to differentiate vlogging.
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:
>
> > ... And that the desire to replicate TV and film on the web is
>
> > drowning out the idea of people videobloggging to communicate.
>
--
~Devlon
http://loadedpun.com | http://mefeedia.com
http://8bitme.blogspot.com | http://devlonduthie.com
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
http://vlogdir.com
http://SpreadTheMedia.org
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
