Interesting observation. I don't notice any change. But then again I always got about two comments a week. :)
But I'd like to hear from a few vloggers who get more comments. Who are posting about the same amount of videos as they did a year or two ago. The community has changed, it's gotten a lot bigger, I wonder if it's gotten less personal though. BTW, I still leave a couple comments a day too. Maybe a few less come to think of it. I still watch about... 20 - 30 videos a day. Probably a few less then I used to, but I'm far more selective. probably skim about 80 vlog posts (the text) or more a day, but I don't watch them all obviously. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 3/6/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Elbows's link to the old discussion on YouTube brought up something > I've wanted to ask for a while. > > It seems to me, looking around a lot of vlogs, that there are less > comments than there used to be. Is this a recognised thing in the > blogosphere or vlogosphere? Have other people noticed the same > thing? Or am I wrong? > > I would imagine that a huge attraction for people on YouTube is that > there's so much commenting. Even if some of the comments are not > very nice. > > I watch most vlogs while travelling on the Tube or train, so I don't > always remember to comment. I'm trying hard to get better at it. > Have aggregators and mobile devices reduced interaction? > > Rupert > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org/ > http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ > > > On 7 Mar 2007, at 00:17, caroosky wrote: > > Steve, > Great observations, especially the fact that we are each experts in > finding differences. > > I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "If the only tool you have in your > kit is a hammer, every problem you encounter starts to look like a > nail." > > As someone spending a great deal of time thinking about how to build > social tools, I'm perhaps all too quick to criticize YouTube's hammer > (in this case, their comment feature). In doing this, I'm not about > to criticize content creators who use YouTube for what it does best: > getting video up on the web and available to a massively large > potential audience. I put things on YouTube when that is my goal. > When I want to have more control over my files, and need to use the > content in many different ways, I've found blip.tv to be an > indispensible tool. > > But if I want to have conversations using video content as the > starting point, I wouldn't think of YouTube. This is partly because > of an admittedly snobbish opinion of the quality of conversation > taking place there, but it's also because I don't think the commenting > system they have deployed is good for much else beyond the quick > drive-by style comment. This snobbery does not extend to content > creators, though. > > And while I'm making admissions, I will additionally confess that I am > wildly idealistic about how our collective community of content > creators can mold and shape the fabric of the internet, as well as the > discussions taking place not only in this medium, but offline as well. > But as a builder of tools, I try (although I probably don't > always succeed) to just build something cool, and then let others tell > me how they prefer to use it. I am often surprised to learn the ways > that people are using a tool for an advantage I never would have > imagined in a hundred years. The creativity of others is inspiring, > to say the least. > > And much of that inspiration is viewable on YouTube. > > Best, > Carter Harkins > http://crowdabout.us > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > There was some talk in this group about youtuber's that I thought was > > a bit snobbish a while ago, because it made me rant, but it was > > probably only mild and it can be hard to seperate criticism of the > > service with those using it sometimes. > > > > But on a certain level I would not be surprised if the 'brand > > repputation' of youtube can heavily influence the reputation of > > someone posting there. I could forsee plenty of exceptions, a show > > that gets enough attention will be talked about in terms of itself, > > that its on youtube is incidental. And this just re-inforces the fact > > that one off clips, copyrighted stuff, other popular 'viral' videos > > without a strong identity of their own are what will link most > > strongly to the word 'youtube'. > > > > If there is any snobbishness around, I suppose its bourn from some > > peoples high expectations and ideals about what videoblogging > would be > > used for. What I could describe as the 'liberal intellectual' wing > > could understandably make such noises sometimes. Reminds me of the > old > > days of British broadcast television... > > > > First there was the BBC, which was (and remains) very paternalistic. > > Lots of corporate agenda's focussed on their role in society as a > > public service, and lots of intellectual thinking on how the medium > > could be used for the masses to better themselves. Resulting in lots > > of high-brow programming that could be a bit stuffy. > > > > Then along came the first commercial channel, ITV, which didnt mind > > putting on lots of cheap popular entertainment, which got very high > > viewing figures, gave a lot of people what they wanted, but was > > regarded by the aforementioned BBC patriarch's as 'vulgar'. > > > > I guess its not a new phenomenon, and 'class' still matters, > > unfortunately, no matter if everyone pretends it doesnt mean anything > > anymore. vlogtellectuals vs youtube, bbc vs itv, music hall vs opera > > and stuff like that. > > > > Plus humans are dead good at noticing differences. What seperates us, > > why are they different, they seem like a different tribe. Even > > something like using webcams as the norm rather than DV cams can > > create a funny sort of divide and noticable difference. I have to be > > careful here too because class may play a role in that - for poorer > > humans, webcams are a lot more accessible. > > > > Anyway I just cant use the word youtube as one blanket description > for > > content type anymore. There seems to be 3 or 4 very different ways of > > using youtube. Much of the actual community/social aspect of it > seemed > > extremely similar to social networking sites, with the same age bias > > and some underlying sense of a lot of youthful energy , directed at > > the sorts of things young people focus on. So I was extremely happy o > > see how popular that old uk bloke is on there, geriatric1927 or > > whatever his handle is. Yes there are quite a lot of people past > their > > teens and 20's on there, but Im sure age is one imbalance that has a > > marked effect on youtube, its certainly responsible for many of the > > awful text comments. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Mark Day" <markdaycomedy@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Q: Why are videobloggers like mainstream media executives? > > > > > > > > A: They both look down on people who post videos on YouTube. > > > > > > > > Actually, that's unfair. To mainstream media executives (ba - > dum - > > > bing!) > > > > > > > > It's funny, as we like to say in comedy, because it's true. > > > > > > > > Just some food for thought. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Mark Day > > > > http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv > > > > http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy > > > > http://www.myspace.com/markday > > > > > > > > > For the most part, I agree with your generalization. Of course > > > generalizations don't apply to everyone and perhaps not even most > > > people, though one could gather from the conversations that go > on in > > > this group that you would be correct. > > > > > > YouTube is a vehicle... an arena. Nothing more and nothing less. > > > There are people that have technical issues with YT and complain > that > > > they're a closed environment. That really doesn't have anything > to do > > > with the posters, because it's not their choice. They're not the > > > management. YouTube just happens to be an easy way to put video on > > > the internet and distribute that video to a lot of people, > practically > > > immediately, and TOTALLY for free (assuming you already have the > > > computer equipment / camera). > > > > > > Unfortunately, the same thing that makes YT easy to get involved > with > > > makes it a source of endless buffoonery. The signal/noise ratio is > > > outlandish. Unfortunately for the prospect of YT being 'accepted' > > > outside of its own walls (not that it needs acceptance at all), > > > there's so much garbage on it that it's not likely that the casual > > > observer coming into contact with YT by accident is going to see > > > something that endears them to the site. Well... Unless you > count the > > > fact that there' so much pirated material on YT, but that's not > what > > > this discussion is about. > > > > > > Hopefully, with the successes of "shows" like Lonelygirl15 and > > > LisaNova, the YT environment will evolve into more than sending > video > > > chats back and forth and making comments about them. I think > that's a > > > really valuable use for YT, but the opportunity is there for the > same > > > people to apply themselves creatively and develop their > abilities at > > > broadcasting and communication, if that's what their goals are. For > > > some people, it's just easier to make videos and watch them online > > > than go to the mall and meet people, so that's what they do. > > > > > > Yes, there are people developing characters and creating > situations to > > > portray them in and making up comedy skits and stop-motion > videos and > > > all kinds of interesting, intelligent, progressive and VERY > TALENTED > > > stuff. Unfortunately, there's no way to find those except for > trial & > > > error. In 'defending' what's creative about YT, you also have to > > > defend what isn't creative, because there's no distinction. > There are > > > director accounts, but that doesn't mean that those channels > have been > > > held to any standard of quality, content-wise or > > > production-value-wise. It's like saying someone's a good basketball > > > player because they're on the varsity team, but you don't > mention that > > > they ride the bench and never set foot on the basketball court. :) > > > They get to wear the jacket, though. Everyone on YT is wearing the > > > same jacket. > > > > > > Meanwhile, you have people learning to put video on the internet > out > > > in the wild. No walled garden. No guaranteed visibility. No social > > > network to ping-pong your video around causing more views. No > "video > > > response" so you can automatically piggyback on a video that gets > > > viewed literally a million times. No ability to leech off of the > top > > > subscribed people/groups in the community just by mentioning their > > > names in the titles of your videos. No arbitrarily decided > > > "featuring" of your video....... > > > > > > There's going to be a certain amount of "looking down upon" by > people > > > who are doing MORE towards people who are doing LESS. It's just > > > natural. MLB players look down on AAA players. AAA players look > down > > > on little league players. World Cup soccer players look down on the > > > local American teams. NFL players look down upon CFL players. > People > > > making movies in Hollywood look down on independent filmmakers > without > > > the budget even to get someone to score their film properly. Does > > > this mean that CFL players can't make it to the NFL? No. It doesn't > > > mean that independent filmmakers aren't going to make it to > Hollywood > > > or make a film that has more value and integrity than films > currently > > > being produced in Hollywood. > > > > > > There's no doubt that there's SOME quality on YouTube. :) The > problem > > > is that without the ability to separate the "YT Elite" from the > > > garbage, all of youse have to stand together when someone > chooses to > > > evaluate the site as a whole. When someone posts a video of some > lady > > > slipping on a banana peel and gets 100,000 views for that on > YouTube, > > > that doesn't make them a good filmmaker. If they stole the video > from > > > somewhere else, they're less than that. There's no regulation > and no > > > quality control. > > > > > > It's like having your GED <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED>. > > > Basically, you can opt-out of High School and take a test. If you > > > pass that test, the government will agree that you have enough > > > knowledge that you WOULD HAVE graduated High School if you had > > > bothered (or been able, in some circumstances) to go. :D Are people > > > with GEDs looked down upon? Yep. Does it mean they can't do the job > > > you're hiring for? Nope. They might be the best applicant for the > > > position. However, they're still going to be categorized with > > > alllllll the rest of the people that walked through the doors of > the > > > emploment office with evidence that they passed one test on one day > > > instead of going to High School and graduating like everyone else. > > > Even if you dropped out of High School to get a job to help your > > > mother pay the rent, you're going to be stigmatized along with the > > > kids that spent all day smoking pot and ditching class..... Same > > > thing with YouTube. > > > > > > -- > > > Bill C. > > > http://ReelSolid.TV > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
