It's a great rant - but you can create your own individual feeds,  
using services like Feedburner or using the Show In A Box feed  
generator, that are format-specific.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Pat Cook <patsbl...@live.com> wrote:

 > Hi everyone:
 >
 > The problem isn't with the blog format itself, but rather with the
 > aggregation protocol used (RSS).
 >
 > I say this because for MONTHS now, I've been wanting to add 3GP  
versions of
 > my videos so that people with cell phones and other 3G portable  
devices can
 > subscribe to my videos just like people with iPods can since there  
are MANY
 > more phones and other devices out there than there are iPods  
themselves
 > (Mind you, this DOES NOT include the iPhone, which of course can  
just as
 > easily play anything encoded/transcoded for the iPod itself), but  
with RSS
 > 2.0 being as (For lack of a better word) "archaic" as it is, THE  
ONLY way I
 > know of that this can be done is if a SEPARATE blog is created.
 >
 > It's time for RSS 3.0 to be rolled out (And the sooner THE BETTER).
 >
 > Just my opinion...
 >
 > Cheers
 >
 > Pat Cook
 > patsbl...@live.com <patsblogs%40live.com>
 > Denver, CO
 > BLOGS & PODCASTS
 > AS MY WORLD TURNS - http://asmyworldturns.blogspot.com/
 > AS MY WEIGHT LOSS WORLD TURNS -
 > http://asmyweightlossworldturns.blogspot.com/
 > KB0OXD CYBERSHACK | HAM MUSINGS - http://kb0oxd.blogspot.com/
 > KB0OXD CYBERSHACK | SITE & STATION NEWS -
 > http://kb0oxdcybershacknews.blogspot.com/
 > THE LEFT WING CONSERVATIVE -
 > http://www.geocities.com/theleftwingconservative/
 > **COMING NOVEMBER 21 - Pat's OTR Podcast -
 > http://backtothefutureradio.blogspot.com/ **AND** THE RETURN OF
 > Back To The Future TV | THE COMMERCIALS (BOTH the iPod & Flash  
Versions)
 > **COMING SOON - Back To The Future TV | THE SHOWS (In iPod & Flash)
 >
 > From: schlomo rabinowitz
 > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:01
 >
 > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>
 > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Does the "Blog" format work for Vlogging
 > anymore?
 >
 > I've never been a fan of the blog format for video (even when putting
 > together the last Vloggercon, I was against making the site in the  
blog
 > format, but was alone in that thought).
 > Though I ended up not using it for my own personal videoblog site  
(many
 > hours of discussion with web/dev friends steered me away), I still  
believe
 > using something like Sweetcron could be an interesting way of  
showing your
 > work.
 >
 > <http://www.sweetcron.com/>
 >
 > Especially when people are putting various sorts of videos on a  
variety of
 > video hosts. For instance, some people put teasers on youtube and  
Behind
 > The Scenes on Vimeo. But you want a site that will aggregate all  
of that
 > content.
 >
 > Anyway, my two cents. Blog is Dead, Long Live the Blog.
 >
 > Schlomo Rabinowitz
 > http://schlomo.tv - finally moving to wordpress
 > http://hatfactory.net - relaxed coworking
 > AIM:schlomochat
 >
 > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Rupert  
<rup...@fatgirlinohio.org<rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org>>
 > wrote:
 >
 > > I did a video rant about this a couple of weeks ago.
 > >
 > > I've been thinking about different layouts and ways of presenting
 > > things since then.
 > >
 > > Great thoughts, Ron - particularly what you note how we're
 > > comfortable with line-by-line communication in a vertical  
format, but
 > > how it's limited the success of the traditional videoblog - and how
 > > daunting it is for a viewer to face a bunch of videos in a line  
down
 > > the page.
 > >
 > > I've seen this problem when watching people go to my videoblog.
 > > It's not just a problem for the viewer, it's a problem for the  
producer.
 > >
 > > Reading your post made me realise how much I've forced myself to  
like
 > > the blog format because that's what everyone uses - even though
 > > initially I thought it sucked. But when we started out, it was the
 > > easiest way to do publishing and podcasting.
 > >
 > > Now I've totally fallen out of love with the blog format. So  
much so
 > > that I can't seem to drum up the motivation to put any energy into
 > > making videos until I can feel good about how I publish them.
 > >
 > > I've been thinking about the successful shows you mentioned - FU,
 > > Ninja, Rocketboom. Wreck & Salvage and LoFi St Louis have good new
 > > designs, too - which encourage people to browse more freely and  
don't
 > > force the reader to deal with this heirarchy of freshness/ 
relevance.
 > >
 > > For me, I think there may be an element of needing more interlinked
 > > networking between producers - to allow people to browse outside of
 > > your own videos. Jesus, that sounds like a web-ring. But isn't that
 > > the best thing about YouTube? That you can choose to see more  
videos
 > > by the same person or jump to something related but made by someone
 > > totally different?
 > >
 > > I don't know. I'm stuck. But it's good to read your thoughts on it.
 > >
 > > Rupert
 > > http://twittervlog.tv
 > >
 > > On 10-Dec-08, at 10:05 AM, Ron Watson wrote:
 > >
 > > Great topic, Heath!
 > >
 > > I've been doing online video since 1998, and I was very excited  
with
 > > the explosion of digital video in 2005. It was awesome!
 > >
 > > I dabbled with wordpress and the blog format for a while, but it  
was
 > > obvious to me rather quickly that the long vertical videoblog (and
 > > blog, for that matter) was a dead end in terms of viability.
 > >
 > > It's daunting to scroll down a page and see an hour of video. It
 > > makes the small, short flicks and turns them into a day long  
endeavor.
 > >
 > > I think the traditional blog format is great for RSS feeds and for
 > > archival purposes, but as far as presentation of content, it's not
 > > good for holding people's attention.
 > >
 > > If you're content is very special or totally rock solid, you can  
hold
 > > an audience, but you are fighting against a faulty design.
 > >
 > > There are 2 ways in which the traditional blog layout fails for  
video
 > > blogging.
 > >
 > > Story telling and Community.
 > >
 > > ---
 > > Story Telling
 > > ---
 > >
 > > I took a critical look at a person from this list's new project,  
and
 > > that's what I found to be the critical fault in the presentation of
 > > content. He had all this great content, a really sweet, honest and
 > > appealing vibe, beautiful theming, but it all went out the window
 > > when I scrolled down the page and saw 15 5 minute videos all
 > > presented as a running commentary - essentially a very long  
monologue.
 > >
 > > I have no doubt that the content was personally appealing  
(although I
 > > couldn't watch it because of bandwidth constraints - :-( ) but  
when I
 > > saw that scrolling list, it just seemed like a Herculean task to go
 > > through it. I really was intrigued by the vibe set up by the  
site and
 > > my personal belief system, but when I saw the layout of the  
content,
 > > I was turned off. I didn't want to watch that much on one topic.
 > >
 > > When you post 30 things on one page, it devalues all of them. It
 > > triggers the idea of a lack of quality - like "this thing couldn't
 > > stand on it's own so he put 30 on one page."
 > >
 > > I suggested that he set up in a landscape format (as opposed to
 > > portrait, or blog) which would embrace his theme, keep relevant
 > > content on the page at all times, be an efficient use of space and
 > > would let each video (or 2) be it's own story.
 > >
 > > I could actually see myself watching all 15 videos with this  
kind of
 > > layout if the content was good with some clever storytelling.
 > >
 > > Leave me with a cliffhanger, or give me a text based teaser to draw
 > > me into the next video.
 > >
 > > ---
 > > Community
 > > ---
 > > Also, this kind of a layout creates a dialogue. I watch it then I
 > > talk about it. It's the give and take, the interaction with the
 > > viewer that we're all looking for.
 > >
 > > Let me watch a video and digest it. Then I'll comment on it.
 > >
 > > The traditional blog format reminds me of online tit for tat email
 > > communication that I find becomes 2 dueling monologues. When you
 > > create a series of communication, or a series of argument, there  
is a
 > > critical loss of context. We forget what we were talking about. The
 > > discussion becomes about the minutia or the meta, and the greater
 > > understanding or message is lost. It quite literally is the
 > > presentation of parts - the parts are greater than the whole.
 > >
 > > I don't think it works well for online communication, and I don't
 > > think it works well for communicating with multimedia content.
 > >
 > > It isolates the viewer, it isolates the content creator, and it
 > > isolates the content itself.
 > >
 > > It looks like it's all connected, but in reality it's just a list.
 > > It's like a quoted, line by line email argument as opposed to a  
well
 > > thought out and crafted piece of prose.
 > >
 > > JMHO...
 > >
 > > ---
 > > Tunnel Vision
 > > ---
 > >
 > > I'm in the process of creating a large community website based  
on dog
 > > sports. It's very ambitious, and I'm going to be facing competitors
 > > that have very deep pockets. It's pretty intimidating, to tell the
 > > truth.
 > >
 > > I'm working very hard to create a really nice looking site that has
 > > boatloads of functionality.
 > >
 > > One of the things that I've struggled with is the organizational
 > > heirarchy of the site - both in terms of navigation and content
 > > presentation. It's very hard.
 > >
 > > My greatest goal is to bring these heretofore disparate  
communities,
 > > 6 of them with very different mindsets but one common passion of
 > > working with dogs, together.
 > >
 > > I took that single mindedness and tried to force my needs, my  
comfort
 > > zone and my goals on them, the enduser. It would have failed.
 > >
 > > I wanted a simple menu structure that presented content and  
access to
 > > content from each community on each page. I wound up with a
 > > convoluted and hard to follow menu structure, kind of like what is
 > > currently on http://k9disc.com .
 > >
 > > It just wasn't compelling, and the goal of elegance and  
inclusiveness
 > > trumped the usability of the site. If I would have stuck with that
 > > model, my deep pocketed competitors would smoke me, of that, I'm  
sure.
 > >
 > > But stepping back and reevaluating my approach prompted me to make
 > > some changes that were a bit uncomfortable for me personally,  
and for
 > > my conceptualization of the project, but I got through it and think
 > > that I have a much better shot at developing a vibrant and engaged
 > > community as a result.
 > >
 > > I think that the videoblogging community, of the non-youtube sort,
 > > have gotten stuck in line by line communication. That's how so many
 > > of us communicate. It's also how the tools we use function.
 > >
 > > Look at this list.
 > >
 > > Look at twitter.
 > >
 > > Look at RSS.
 > >
 > > Look at the video blog.
 > >
 > > They're all the same.
 > >
 > > Not everybody likes the simplicity of twitter.
 > >
 > > Not everybody likes linear presentation of content.
 > >
 > > It's what so many of us know and understand, so it becomes what  
we do
 > > and how we do it.
 > >
 > > Thinking about it, I think this has been a major factor in the
 > > limited success of traditional videoblogging.
 > >
 > > Youtube won on presentation and community, and the presentation  
and I
 > > believe the community developed out of the landscape layout -
 > > relevant content on every screenshot, and the ability of every  
video
 > > to stand on it's own.
 > >
 > > Ask a Ninja?
 > >
 > > Epic Fu?
 > >
 > > Rocketboom?
 > >
 > > Blip?
 > >
 > > All of them landscape (esque) with one video per page.  
Storytelling.
 > >
 > > I know they're shows and not really videoblogs, but they're
 > > successful and well watched.
 > >
 > > Sure they have compelling content, but I think it has something  
to do
 > > with presentation as well.
 > >
 > > peace,
 > > Ron Watson
 > > http://k9disc.blip.tv
 > > http://k9disc.com
 > > http://discdogradio.com
 > > http://pawsitivevybe.com
 > >
 > > On Dec 10, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Heath wrote:
 > >
 > > > I have been doing a lot of thinking as I come close to my 3  
year mark
 > > > of vlogging. From the outset of vlogging almost everyone  
settled on
 > > > the blog format for their site. And I think at that time it  
worked.
 > > >
 > > > However, now.....I am not so sure. I mean every time you make a
 > > > video and post, that video moves down the list and soon it's  
off your
 > > > homepage in some cases, never to be seen again. Now for some,  
maybe
 > > > that is no big deal, but.....I think some of us all make a few  
videos
 > > > that we are especially proud of, and in the current blog/vlog  
format,
 > > > there is no easy way (I know we can sticky but if you sticky more
 > > > than a couple no one will ever see your new content on your  
site) to
 > > > show off those posts.
 > > >
 > > > It seems to me that there is a huge lack in the number of  
themes that
 > > > take advatage of vlogging. I mean with the explosion of online
 > > > video, you would think we would have more, but I only know of  
a small
 > > > handfull and most of those you have to pay for.
 > > >
 > > > I am just curious as to what you all think? I just don't  
know....I
 > > > mean part of me likes the blog/vlog format as it is, but I find
 > > > myself longing for a different way to show off my video's  
moreso the
 > > > ones that I want to showcase or ones that I am fond of...I mean I
 > > > could revlog but....
 > > >
 > > > So what do you all like and dislike about the current vlog  
format?
 > > > What would you like to see? Just curious...
 > > >
 > > > Heath
 > > > http://heathparks.com
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > >
 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 > >
 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 >
 >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to