Randy, I'd love to have a copy of that email! Heh heh... And bless you for leaving comments. You warm my heart, since that's what we really try to be about. In fact, when considering how to "rate" content on CrowdAbout, we considered doing a thumbs up or down approach, or a 5-star ratings system, but in the end, none of it made us very happy. We felt a truer measure of engaging content would be the amount of conversation it generated. So videos that have a lot of posts and comments are higher in the popular search.
Carter http://crowdabout.us --- In [email protected], "humancloner1997" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am surprised that no one seems to have encountered this notice while > exploring videos on YouTube. I sent it to myself as an email: > > "Subject: YOU TUBE DISCOURAGES COMMENTS!! > > You have recently posted several comments. > Please wait some time before posting another." > > I haven't counted the number of comments or the number of comments in > a certazin period of time that brings up that notice. > > I try to leave a rating and a comment on vlogs that show a lot of work > ow which contain something really unique. Sometimes, I'll find a > remarkable vlog with only one or two tags that has not gotten the > number of views I feel it deserves---so, I'll suggest they add more > tage words to increasze their viewership. > > There is a lot of "burn out" by vloggers. I go through 'dry' periods > myself. You knock yourself out to produce something exciting and you > get few views and limited feedback. > > Yes, the level of "discussion" in most vlogs is primitive. However, I > feel morally oblidged to encourage someone I feel has tried hard & > shown some skills but has otherwise not succeeded over-all. > > When I've done this, I've frequently gotten very thankful responses > from the person making the vlog. That's my idea of what this > video-blogging community thing is all about. It is an > artist-to-artist or videographer-to-videographer personal thing. > > I've been surprised at how unwilling some people (even videobloggers) > are to make comments. Even in giving ratings, they are demanding and > stingey. > > Most of the ratings I give are 5*'s. Sometimes, I do this because the > vlog might have ten ratings with an average of only 3 stars which I > feel is unfairly low. > > Only when a video is ugly and/or violent will I use the "hammer" of a > one-star rating. > > The best way to build community and encourage people who show promise > is to take the time and trouble to give them a pat on the back. > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > Hoboken, NJ > > > > --- In [email protected], "Mike Meiser" > <groups-yahoo-com@> wrote: > > > > 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 <rupert@> 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" <steve@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
