Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [podcasters] Re: Directory of Directories

Expand Messages
  • Rob Usdin
    ... different medium than radio. It needs its own approach to programming. If you think traditional style radio will port over seamlessly, think again. Mass
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      >>> Really guys, This talk of big vs small in podcasting? Podcasting is a
      different medium than radio. It needs its own approach to programming.
      If you think traditional style radio will port over seamlessly, think
      again. Mass appeal will occur with programming that people want in a
      format that works for podcasting. Marketing that program is a money
      game. But it will always be the content and form it takes that'll make
      the hit that drives podcasting into the mainstream and keeps it there. <<<

      Here's the thing - if podcasting is a different medium then radio, then why
      are companies like Clear Channel, Virgin, NPR and others who are making
      their content available in podcasts referring to it AS podcasts? Why
      bother? Why not just say "Hey we're making the highlights of our morning
      show available as an MP3 every day on our website"?

      Let's look at it this way - would you say blogs are a different medium? Or
      is it just that they are a new way of delivering an existing medium (the
      written word)? Wouldn't you say that's the same as podcasts? Just because
      the entry is easy, doesn't make any podcasts any less "audio content" then
      traditional radio - it's just leveling the playing field, right? I can
      listen to Dawn and Drew, then I can catch a 10 minute "highlight reel" of
      what Elvis Duran did on Z-100 yesterday morning, and then I can listen to
      Reel Reviews, maybe check out the Dragon Page, and finally catch the
      technology podcast from The BBC's World program. It's my own station - with
      my own interests and schedule. Same thing with blogs - my RSS feed reader
      lets me see CNN, Engadget, MicroPersuasion and my friend Andrew's blog all
      at the same time - showing me all the headlines and I pick and choose what I
      want to read. The playing field is LEVEL. That doesn't make CNN less
      important to me. Nor does it mean that my friend's blog is a different
      medium then CNN - it's still all written word.

      Traditional radio WILL port over seamlessly - because people know it and
      know the players. I think they won't be listening as MUCH - but they will
      be listening to the GOOD stuff from traditional radio - because it'll be
      condensed into smaller shots of concentrated content. I'd love to hear the
      "best of" what Howard Stern says each day. I can't stand to sit through 4+
      hours of his show - but when he's funny, man - he hits the nail on the head.
      So what if I could get 30 minutes of his best stuff that day in a podcast?
      I don't know if I'd pay for it, but for free, sure - I'd listen.

      So are they a different medium, or just a new way of delivery? Well, I
      think that if podcasters want to be known as a new medium entirely - they
      need to make a concerted effort to make sure that THEIR content is labeled
      as podcasts - and that traditional radio content is NOT. Educate the public
      that PODCAST = average joe user produced content. How will THAT happen? It
      won't. Why? Because even blogs are NOT being used that way. Sure -
      average joe produces his own content with a blog. So does, say - Stony
      Field Farms, and even Microsoft. Wow. Does that make average joe's content
      "not written word"? Not in the least. and you can bet your bippy since
      blogs came along that corporate America is catching on to podcasting a LOT
      quicker than blogs. Do bloggers consider themselves a new medium? Or just
      a new way of producing and distributing an exisiting medium - the written
      word?

      Podcasting is a repackaging and relabeling of audio content with a new
      distribution mechanism that allows entry for all. I'm not saying this is a
      bad thing, I'm just trying to tell it like it IS.

      --*Rob



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rob Usdin
      And let me just add - as an addendum - I see podcasting as a MOVEMENT - NOT a medium. THAT is my point ultimately. _____ From: Rob Usdin
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        And let me just add - as an addendum - I see podcasting as a MOVEMENT - NOT
        a medium. THAT is my point ultimately.


        _____

        From: Rob Usdin [mailto:rob@...]
        Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:07 AM
        To: podcasters@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [podcasters] Re: Directory of Directories


        >>> Really guys, This talk of big vs small in podcasting? Podcasting is a
        different medium than radio. It needs its own approach to programming.
        If you think traditional style radio will port over seamlessly, think
        again. Mass appeal will occur with programming that people want in a
        format that works for podcasting. Marketing that program is a money
        game. But it will always be the content and form it takes that'll make
        the hit that drives podcasting into the mainstream and keeps it there. <<<

        Here's the thing - if podcasting is a different medium then radio, then why
        are companies like Clear Channel, Virgin, NPR and others who are making
        their content available in podcasts referring to it AS podcasts? Why
        bother? Why not just say "Hey we're making the highlights of our morning
        show available as an MP3 every day on our website"?

        Let's look at it this way - would you say blogs are a different medium? Or
        is it just that they are a new way of delivering an existing medium (the
        written word)? Wouldn't you say that's the same as podcasts? Just because
        the entry is easy, doesn't make any podcasts any less "audio content" then
        traditional radio - it's just leveling the playing field, right? I can
        listen to Dawn and Drew, then I can catch a 10 minute "highlight reel" of
        what Elvis Duran did on Z-100 yesterday morning, and then I can listen to
        Reel Reviews, maybe check out the Dragon Page, and finally catch the
        technology podcast from The BBC's World program. It's my own station - with
        my own interests and schedule. Same thing with blogs - my RSS feed reader
        lets me see CNN, Engadget, MicroPersuasion and my friend Andrew's blog all
        at the same time - showing me all the headlines and I pick and choose what I
        want to read. The playing field is LEVEL. That doesn't make CNN less
        important to me. Nor does it mean that my friend's blog is a different
        medium then CNN - it's still all written word.

        Traditional radio WILL port over seamlessly - because people know it and
        know the players. I think they won't be listening as MUCH - but they will
        be listening to the GOOD stuff from traditional radio - because it'll be
        condensed into smaller shots of concentrated content. I'd love to hear the
        "best of" what Howard Stern says each day. I can't stand to sit through 4+
        hours of his show - but when he's funny, man - he hits the nail on the head.
        So what if I could get 30 minutes of his best stuff that day in a podcast?
        I don't know if I'd pay for it, but for free, sure - I'd listen.

        So are they a different medium, or just a new way of delivery? Well, I
        think that if podcasters want to be known as a new medium entirely - they
        need to make a concerted effort to make sure that THEIR content is labeled
        as podcasts - and that traditional radio content is NOT. Educate the public
        that PODCAST = average joe user produced content. How will THAT happen? It
        won't. Why? Because even blogs are NOT being used that way. Sure -
        average joe produces his own content with a blog. So does, say - Stony
        Field Farms, and even Microsoft. Wow. Does that make average joe's content
        "not written word"? Not in the least. and you can bet your bippy since
        blogs came along that corporate America is catching on to podcasting a LOT
        quicker than blogs. Do bloggers consider themselves a new medium? Or just
        a new way of producing and distributing an exisiting medium - the written
        word?

        Podcasting is a repackaging and relabeling of audio content with a new
        distribution mechanism that allows entry for all. I'm not saying this is a
        bad thing, I'm just trying to tell it like it IS.

        --*Rob



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



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

        ADVERTISEMENT

        <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129soeif2/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=gr
        oups/S=1705004726:HM/EXP=1112360807/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.
        netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here

        <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=
        :HM/A=2593423/rand=140325371>


        _____

        Yahoo! Groups Links


        * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/podcasters/


        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        podcasters-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:podcasters-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Michael Ridley
        Hank- Agreed with you on the metadata thing. I have started a page at the Technorati developer s wiki over at
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hank-

          Agreed with you on the metadata thing. I have started a page at the
          Technorati developer's wiki over at
          http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/PodcastMetadata to try to hack
          out a format for podcast metadata. It's just in the initial
          brainstorming phase right now. The format I've hacked out is based on
          XDMP (XHTML Meta Data Profiles) but I'm not sure if that's ultimately
          the right way to go or not. As I said, brainstorming. I'd love to
          get the community's input.

          Once we have a metadata format worked out, my goal is to make a simple
          web portal that will allow you to enter information about your podcast
          (kind of an online production tool) and then have it automagically
          generate the show notes page with both META and an HTML body outline
          information.

          THEN- we can create a search engine/directory that parses all this
          data so you can run queries like, "Show me all podcasts with Hank
          Lynch as a guest" etc.

          Thoughts...?

          -m
          http://www.secretelite.com/michael


          On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:28:37 -0000, hanklynch <hanklynch@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > And on the search thing....I have just under 20,000 live podcasts
          > indexed at PodRazor.com...(and it's podcastmania.com that might open
          > up) but indexing the podcasts based on the data supplied in rss and
          > ID3 tags is no picnic either. Categorizing should be done on a show
          > by show basis, since most change topic fairly regularly....but how do
          > you pull indexable terms from the sparse offerings of title and
          > description tags that are rarely filled out with any true relation to
          > the content of the podcast that acompanies the blog post.
          >
          > I need to go to the gym right now, so you'll all be spared the
          > standards rant (for the moment)...but it's on it's way at some point.
          >
          > -Hank
          >
          > --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Ozawa" <ryan@h...> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- "Harold J. Johnson" <harold.johnson@g...> wrote:
          > > > That was a fantastic idea, Ryan. I've added a link to your wiki to
          > > > audioblogs.info.
          > >
          > > Thanks, Harold. Of course, you're linked back. Had to make a place
          > > for you, but the beauty of a wiki is, you could've done it yourself,
          > too.
          > >
          > > I'm discovering early on that sorting out collections of links is no
          > > picnic. Since directory sites have forums and news sites sell
          > > software, drawing lines between a "community" versus a "project"
          > > versus a "group" (or "network") is pretty difficult.
          > >
          > > http://www.voxmedia.org/wiki/Podcasting
          > >
          > > You mentioned "PodcastRazor.com" going the open directory route, but
          > > given the above, I'm not sure if a wiki would work. Categories (and
          > > separate pages) in general can be a messy business (most shows cover
          > > six topics), let alone integrating RSS feeds and even dynamically
          > > pulling show notes (which I guess a wiki could do, but not out of the
          > > box).
          > >
          > > Just as Google "Search" trumped Yahoo's sorted "Directory," I think
          > > the key to any successful directory will be how much it indexes and
          > > how fast it answers search queries, and genres will be "nice but not
          > > neccessary."
          > >
          > > Ryan
          > >
          > > --
          > > Ryan
          > > HawaiiUP - Podcasting in paradise.
          > > http://www.hawaiiup.com
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • hanklynch
          ... haystacks. Exactly. We don t need transcripts per say, but good solid show notes or a well written summary is going to be what separates the well found
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > If we ever get to the point of show summaries, or even transcripts
            > (likely automatically generated ones), the volume of information would
            > be overwhelming. But talk about being able to find needles in
            haystacks.

            Exactly. We don't need transcripts per say, but good solid show notes
            or a well written summary is going to be what separates the well found
            shows from the rest, and thereby the well listened to shows from,
            well, the not so well listened.

            It's like this, if you spend 2 hours doing a show, editing,
            production, thinking about what to say...what's another 10 or 15
            minutes tops, to make sure that someone can find you in the heap? It
            really will make all the difference in the long run!

            -Hank

            --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Ozawa" <ryan@h...> wrote:
            >
            > --- "Harold J. Johnson" <harold.johnson@g...> wrote:
            > > Yeah, I have no idea how we would make it work, but there's gotta
            > > be a way. It wouldn't be a wiki--not necessarily--but a system in
            > > which a larger number of contributors could submit changes to a
            > > smaller group of administrators/moderators.
            >
            > Is the engine behind ODP (http://www.dmoz.org/) open source or
            > available for adapting to our specific needs? A simple directory
            > setup, with volunteer contributors and volunteer editors... the trick
            > would be including feed links with each entry, and even having each
            > _category_ page have a combined feed pulling the latest entries from
            > all podcasters on it.
            >
            > Sure would be neat to just subscribe to directory/reviews/movies and
            > get a whole hodgepodge of stuff.
            >
            > Interesting that archiving and searching show notes is a challenge. I
            > just keep thinking that asking podcasters to manually tag/categorize
            > each show will lead to a lot of "blank" entries. Show notes might be
            > too much information, but it'd be more likely to help you find someone
            > who talked about 'possums' in his show (rather than hoping there's a
            > 'possum' category).
            >
            > If we ever get to the point of show summaries, or even transcripts
            > (likely automatically generated ones), the volume of information would
            > be overwhelming. But talk about being able to find needles in
            haystacks.
            >
            > --
            > Ryan
            > HawaiiUP - Podcasting in paradise.
            > http://www.hawaiiup.com
          • hanklynch
            Dude, I m all over that, what do I have to do to get involved? -Hank ... wiki to ... of the
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dude,
              I'm all over that, what do I have to do to get involved?

              -Hank

              --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, Michael Ridley <michaelridley@g...>
              wrote:
              > Hank-
              >
              > Agreed with you on the metadata thing. I have started a page at the
              > Technorati developer's wiki over at
              > http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/PodcastMetadata to try to hack
              > out a format for podcast metadata. It's just in the initial
              > brainstorming phase right now. The format I've hacked out is based on
              > XDMP (XHTML Meta Data Profiles) but I'm not sure if that's ultimately
              > the right way to go or not. As I said, brainstorming. I'd love to
              > get the community's input.
              >
              > Once we have a metadata format worked out, my goal is to make a simple
              > web portal that will allow you to enter information about your podcast
              > (kind of an online production tool) and then have it automagically
              > generate the show notes page with both META and an HTML body outline
              > information.
              >
              > THEN- we can create a search engine/directory that parses all this
              > data so you can run queries like, "Show me all podcasts with Hank
              > Lynch as a guest" etc.
              >
              > Thoughts...?
              >
              > -m
              > http://www.secretelite.com/michael
              >
              >
              > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:28:37 -0000, hanklynch <hanklynch@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > And on the search thing....I have just under 20,000 live podcasts
              > > indexed at PodRazor.com...(and it's podcastmania.com that might open
              > > up) but indexing the podcasts based on the data supplied in rss and
              > > ID3 tags is no picnic either. Categorizing should be done on a show
              > > by show basis, since most change topic fairly regularly....but how do
              > > you pull indexable terms from the sparse offerings of title and
              > > description tags that are rarely filled out with any true relation to
              > > the content of the podcast that acompanies the blog post.
              > >
              > > I need to go to the gym right now, so you'll all be spared the
              > > standards rant (for the moment)...but it's on it's way at some point.
              > >
              > > -Hank
              > >
              > > --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Ozawa" <ryan@h...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > --- "Harold J. Johnson" <harold.johnson@g...> wrote:
              > > > > That was a fantastic idea, Ryan. I've added a link to your
              wiki to
              > > > > audioblogs.info.
              > > >
              > > > Thanks, Harold. Of course, you're linked back. Had to make a place
              > > > for you, but the beauty of a wiki is, you could've done it yourself,
              > > too.
              > > >
              > > > I'm discovering early on that sorting out collections of links is no
              > > > picnic. Since directory sites have forums and news sites sell
              > > > software, drawing lines between a "community" versus a "project"
              > > > versus a "group" (or "network") is pretty difficult.
              > > >
              > > > http://www.voxmedia.org/wiki/Podcasting
              > > >
              > > > You mentioned "PodcastRazor.com" going the open directory route, but
              > > > given the above, I'm not sure if a wiki would work. Categories (and
              > > > separate pages) in general can be a messy business (most shows cover
              > > > six topics), let alone integrating RSS feeds and even dynamically
              > > > pulling show notes (which I guess a wiki could do, but not out
              of the
              > > > box).
              > > >
              > > > Just as Google "Search" trumped Yahoo's sorted "Directory," I think
              > > > the key to any successful directory will be how much it indexes and
              > > > how fast it answers search queries, and genres will be "nice but not
              > > > neccessary."
              > > >
              > > > Ryan
              > > >
              > > > --
              > > > Ryan
              > > > HawaiiUP - Podcasting in paradise.
              > > > http://www.hawaiiup.com
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
            • Michael Ridley
              Well, originally when I started trying to figure out a format I was trying to build on the work of others so I was thinking the XDMP format was the way to go.
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, originally when I started trying to figure out a format I was
                trying to build on the work of others so I was thinking the XDMP
                format was the way to go. But actually I'm not convinced that's true,
                since it would require putting all the stuff into head META tags which
                might be hard for a lot of people to implement in their blogs. So now
                I'm thinking maybe just stick an HTML dd tags into the body. Or maybe
                the right solution is to put the metadata into the RSS feed. If you
                have thoughts on that, let's talk about it.

                Regardless of the actual implementation of the metadata, we should try
                to figure out a format that is flexible enough to work for everyone.
                If you take a look at the initial format I've put up on the wiki page
                (just ignoring whether it ultimately is in the form of dd tags or
                not), I'd love to get input on what is good/bad/missing/etc. from
                that. I mean, I don't even have a podcast (yet?) so I'm just kind of
                making this up. :-)

                I have it broken up now with the show information (title, rss uri,
                about, and date) which is probably pretty static (except for the date)
                across different episodes. Then there's a host section with name, URI
                (to a weblog, home page, whatever), and text bio. I would think this
                would probably be static across most episodes as well. Then there's a
                guest field with the same sub-fields. I am figuring you'd want the
                standard (and parsers) to support multiple guests...this may be
                something that changes (like with the Gilmor Gang) from show to show.
                Then I have a segment field with name (of the segment), summary, start
                time, stop time, and a uri field (for urls mentioned in that
                segment...again presumably there might be 0 to infinity of these per
                segment). The point of the URI field (in addition to being handy in
                the outline view for people) is that you could search for all podcasts
                that talk about your site, product, etc. Then I made an interview
                section with subject and summary.

                I'm sure there are other things that are wanted/needed/whatever and
                possibly missing. Would love to get some input from the community on
                that.

                Once we get at least a beta version of the standard finalized, if you
                want to help on the development of the web based tools (as I don't
                forsee individual podcasters wanting to type all this metadata in
                every time...esp for things that don't change like the title of their
                podcast or their bio), that would be appreciated.

                -m
                http://www.secretelite.com/michael

                On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:00:32 -0000, hanklynch <hanklynch@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Dude,
                > I'm all over that, what do I have to do to get involved?
                >
                > -Hank
              • hanklynch
                One thing I would say is that ulimately, we have to stay within the confines of the rss and id3 tags. RSS is extendable, but it s not something I would want to
                Message 7 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  One thing I would say is that ulimately, we have to stay within the
                  confines of the rss and id3 tags. RSS is extendable, but it's not
                  something I would want to go into willy nilly, you would need the
                  support of the tools themselves to do that, or it will never take off.

                  As for id3 tags, I personally like those the best. MetaData is by
                  it's nature, descriptive data, and id3 enables an mp3 file to be self
                  describing. If all of the description is solely in the rss feed, and
                  you find the file out on torrent somewhere, the rss feed does you no
                  good, but if you have the data in the mp3 file...now you're cookin.
                  Or if you run a service like OpenPodcast, where people can email you
                  their shows....if the mp3 is self describing, you can index the hell
                  out of a folder on a hard drive and have your directory searchable and
                  browsable in no time. There was a discussion on shownotes back in
                  November or December, and I brought this up then too, and some people
                  have started adding the shownotes to their id3 tags....it's wonderful.

                  OPML is the predominent shownote format at the moment, and it works
                  fine, but I think that it can be extended. (maybe, not an OPML theory
                  expert at the moment, so I can't speak with any authority)
                  Maybe we do come up with a more descriptive type of shownote that
                  would be intended to live in the ID3 tags....it would have to take
                  into account the lifecycle of a podcast. It would need CC
                  attributon(very important for this medium), Keywords(for indexers),
                  Summary, links, comments uri, rss uri, home site uri(often unrelated
                  to the rss), and probably some stuff I'm not even thinking of.

                  Some of this is redundant, there are ID3 tags for instance for
                  copyright info etc, and I wouldn't want to see those neglected because
                  of this data structure. The key is, that while we all have our
                  projects in "dev" mode, and we are pretty much each others customers,
                  we can get this ironed out. We need a data structure that can work for
                  desktop pcs, portable music players, car stereo mp3 players,
                  agregators, refrigerators, washers, dryers...and whatever else will be
                  picking up these files 5 years from now and pumping the sounds into
                  our head. Can OPML do that? I dunno.

                  And hey for the rest of you non developer types, think about this
                  stuff too, because ultimately, it's you who are feeding the machine.
                  If all of this sounds like too much, pipe up now.

                  AND....if the dev talk is bad for this group, maybe we can start a
                  PodcastDevelopers group, but I think it would be better to keep
                  everyone involved in the discussion.

                  -Hank Lynch
                  www.PodRazor.com
                  www.PodcastMania.com

                  --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, Michael Ridley <michaelridley@g...>
                  wrote:
                  > Well, originally when I started trying to figure out a format I was
                  > trying to build on the work of others so I was thinking the XDMP
                  > format was the way to go. But actually I'm not convinced that's
                  true,
                  > since it would require putting all the stuff into head META tags
                  which
                  > might be hard for a lot of people to implement in their blogs. So
                  now
                  > I'm thinking maybe just stick an HTML dd tags into the body. Or
                  maybe
                  > the right solution is to put the metadata into the RSS feed. If you
                  > have thoughts on that, let's talk about it.
                  >
                  > Regardless of the actual implementation of the metadata, we should
                  try
                  > to figure out a format that is flexible enough to work for
                  everyone.
                  > If you take a look at the initial format I've put up on the wiki
                  page
                  > (just ignoring whether it ultimately is in the form of dd tags or
                  > not), I'd love to get input on what is good/bad/missing/etc. from
                  > that. I mean, I don't even have a podcast (yet?) so I'm just kind
                  of
                  > making this up. :-)
                  >
                  > I have it broken up now with the show information (title, rss uri,
                  > about, and date) which is probably pretty static (except for the
                  date)
                  > across different episodes. Then there's a host section with name,
                  URI
                  > (to a weblog, home page, whatever), and text bio. I would think
                  this
                  > would probably be static across most episodes as well. Then
                  there's a
                  > guest field with the same sub-fields. I am figuring you'd want the
                  > standard (and parsers) to support multiple guests...this may be
                  > something that changes (like with the Gilmor Gang) from show to
                  show.
                  > Then I have a segment field with name (of the segment), summary,
                  start
                  > time, stop time, and a uri field (for urls mentioned in that
                  > segment...again presumably there might be 0 to infinity of these per
                  > segment). The point of the URI field (in addition to being handy in
                  > the outline view for people) is that you could search for all
                  podcasts
                  > that talk about your site, product, etc. Then I made an interview
                  > section with subject and summary.
                  >
                  > I'm sure there are other things that are wanted/needed/whatever and
                  > possibly missing. Would love to get some input from the community
                  on
                  > that.
                  >
                  > Once we get at least a beta version of the standard finalized, if
                  you
                  > want to help on the development of the web based tools (as I don't
                  > forsee individual podcasters wanting to type all this metadata in
                  > every time...esp for things that don't change like the title of
                  their
                  > podcast or their bio), that would be appreciated.
                  >
                  > -m
                  > http://www.secretelite.com/michael
                  >
                  > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:00:32 -0000, hanklynch <hanklynch@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Dude,
                  > > I'm all over that, what do I have to do to get involved?
                  > >
                  > > -Hank
                • Bill Kearney
                  Yeah, yeah, hype aside, any new means of distributing information is always seen as a movement and yet they all end up the same. Fortunately more good
                  Message 8 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yeah, yeah, hype aside, any new means of distributing information is
                    always seen as a 'movement' and yet they all end up the same.
                    Fortunately more good content comes online and more people have the
                    chance to be informed (or remain otherwise).

                    Focus on making and promoting what you consider "good content".

                    This as opposed to extended navel-gazing and pontificating on what's
                    better; big or little, underdog or corporate monolith, professional or
                    amateur. It's *all* good, just each of us has a different measure of
                    goodness.

                    -Bill Kearney
                    Syndic8.com

                    --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Usdin" <rob@u...> wrote:
                    > And let me just add - as an addendum - I see podcasting as a
                    MOVEMENT - NOT
                    > a medium. THAT is my point ultimately.
                    >
                    >
                    > _____
                    >
                    > From: Rob Usdin [mailto:rob@u...]
                    > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:07 AM
                    > To: podcasters@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: RE: [podcasters] Re: Directory of Directories
                    >
                    >
                    > >>> Really guys, This talk of big vs small in podcasting? Podcasting
                    is a
                    > different medium than radio. It needs its own approach to programming.
                    > If you think traditional style radio will port over seamlessly, think
                    > again. Mass appeal will occur with programming that people want in a
                    > format that works for podcasting. Marketing that program is a money
                    > game. But it will always be the content and form it takes that'll make
                    > the hit that drives podcasting into the mainstream and keeps it
                    there. <<<
                    >
                    > Here's the thing - if podcasting is a different medium then radio,
                    then why
                    > are companies like Clear Channel, Virgin, NPR and others who are making
                    > their content available in podcasts referring to it AS podcasts? Why
                    > bother? Why not just say "Hey we're making the highlights of our
                    morning
                    > show available as an MP3 every day on our website"?
                    >
                    > Let's look at it this way - would you say blogs are a different
                    medium? Or
                    > is it just that they are a new way of delivering an existing medium (the
                    > written word)? Wouldn't you say that's the same as podcasts? Just
                    because
                    > the entry is easy, doesn't make any podcasts any less "audio
                    content" then
                    > traditional radio - it's just leveling the playing field, right? I can
                    > listen to Dawn and Drew, then I can catch a 10 minute "highlight
                    reel" of
                    > what Elvis Duran did on Z-100 yesterday morning, and then I can
                    listen to
                    > Reel Reviews, maybe check out the Dragon Page, and finally catch the
                    > technology podcast from The BBC's World program. It's my own
                    station - with
                    > my own interests and schedule. Same thing with blogs - my RSS feed
                    reader
                    > lets me see CNN, Engadget, MicroPersuasion and my friend Andrew's
                    blog all
                    > at the same time - showing me all the headlines and I pick and
                    choose what I
                    > want to read. The playing field is LEVEL. That doesn't make CNN less
                    > important to me. Nor does it mean that my friend's blog is a different
                    > medium then CNN - it's still all written word.
                    >
                    > Traditional radio WILL port over seamlessly - because people know it and
                    > know the players. I think they won't be listening as MUCH - but
                    they will
                    > be listening to the GOOD stuff from traditional radio - because it'll be
                    > condensed into smaller shots of concentrated content. I'd love to
                    hear the
                    > "best of" what Howard Stern says each day. I can't stand to sit
                    through 4+
                    > hours of his show - but when he's funny, man - he hits the nail on
                    the head.
                    > So what if I could get 30 minutes of his best stuff that day in a
                    podcast?
                    > I don't know if I'd pay for it, but for free, sure - I'd listen.
                    >
                    > So are they a different medium, or just a new way of delivery? Well, I
                    > think that if podcasters want to be known as a new medium entirely -
                    they
                    > need to make a concerted effort to make sure that THEIR content is
                    labeled
                    > as podcasts - and that traditional radio content is NOT. Educate
                    the public
                    > that PODCAST = average joe user produced content. How will THAT
                    happen? It
                    > won't. Why? Because even blogs are NOT being used that way. Sure -
                    > average joe produces his own content with a blog. So does, say - Stony
                    > Field Farms, and even Microsoft. Wow. Does that make average joe's
                    content
                    > "not written word"? Not in the least. and you can bet your bippy since
                    > blogs came along that corporate America is catching on to podcasting
                    a LOT
                    > quicker than blogs. Do bloggers consider themselves a new medium?
                    Or just
                    > a new way of producing and distributing an exisiting medium - the
                    written
                    > word?
                    >
                    > Podcasting is a repackaging and relabeling of audio content with a new
                    > distribution mechanism that allows entry for all. I'm not saying
                    this is a
                    > bad thing, I'm just trying to tell it like it IS.
                    >
                    >
                  • djkj2005
                    Although I am working more on the infrastructure side I like hearing the dev stuff. Since the standards out there are still in flux it is important to
                    Message 9 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Although I am working more on the infrastructure side I like hearing
                      the dev stuff. Since the standards out there are still in flux it is
                      important to understand the forces that are guiding them and to see
                      where they are headed. I am expecting great things from directories
                      and want to make sure the information can be easily shared and used.

                      Doug Kersten


                      --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "hanklynch" <hanklynch@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > One thing I would say is that ulimately, we have to stay within the
                      > confines of the rss and id3 tags. RSS is extendable, but it's not
                      > something I would want to go into willy nilly, you would need the
                      > support of the tools themselves to do that, or it will never take off.
                      >
                      > As for id3 tags, I personally like those the best. MetaData is by
                      > it's nature, descriptive data, and id3 enables an mp3 file to be self
                      > describing. If all of the description is solely in the rss feed, and
                      > you find the file out on torrent somewhere, the rss feed does you no
                      > good, but if you have the data in the mp3 file...now you're cookin.
                      > Or if you run a service like OpenPodcast, where people can email you
                      > their shows....if the mp3 is self describing, you can index the hell
                      > out of a folder on a hard drive and have your directory searchable and
                      > browsable in no time. There was a discussion on shownotes back in
                      > November or December, and I brought this up then too, and some people
                      > have started adding the shownotes to their id3 tags....it's wonderful.
                      >
                      > OPML is the predominent shownote format at the moment, and it works
                      > fine, but I think that it can be extended. (maybe, not an OPML theory
                      > expert at the moment, so I can't speak with any authority)
                      > Maybe we do come up with a more descriptive type of shownote that
                      > would be intended to live in the ID3 tags....it would have to take
                      > into account the lifecycle of a podcast. It would need CC
                      > attributon(very important for this medium), Keywords(for indexers),
                      > Summary, links, comments uri, rss uri, home site uri(often unrelated
                      > to the rss), and probably some stuff I'm not even thinking of.
                      >
                      > Some of this is redundant, there are ID3 tags for instance for
                      > copyright info etc, and I wouldn't want to see those neglected because
                      > of this data structure. The key is, that while we all have our
                      > projects in "dev" mode, and we are pretty much each others customers,
                      > we can get this ironed out. We need a data structure that can work for
                      > desktop pcs, portable music players, car stereo mp3 players,
                      > agregators, refrigerators, washers, dryers...and whatever else will be
                      > picking up these files 5 years from now and pumping the sounds into
                      > our head. Can OPML do that? I dunno.
                      >
                      > And hey for the rest of you non developer types, think about this
                      > stuff too, because ultimately, it's you who are feeding the machine.
                      > If all of this sounds like too much, pipe up now.
                      >
                      > AND....if the dev talk is bad for this group, maybe we can start a
                      > PodcastDevelopers group, but I think it would be better to keep
                      > everyone involved in the discussion.
                      >
                      > -Hank Lynch
                      > www.PodRazor.com
                      > www.PodcastMania.com
                      >
                      > --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, Michael Ridley <michaelridley@g...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > Well, originally when I started trying to figure out a format I was
                      > > trying to build on the work of others so I was thinking the XDMP
                      > > format was the way to go. But actually I'm not convinced that's
                      > true,
                      > > since it would require putting all the stuff into head META tags
                      > which
                      > > might be hard for a lot of people to implement in their blogs. So
                      > now
                      > > I'm thinking maybe just stick an HTML dd tags into the body. Or
                      > maybe
                      > > the right solution is to put the metadata into the RSS feed. If you
                      > > have thoughts on that, let's talk about it.
                      > >
                      > > Regardless of the actual implementation of the metadata, we should
                      > try
                      > > to figure out a format that is flexible enough to work for
                      > everyone.
                      > > If you take a look at the initial format I've put up on the wiki
                      > page
                      > > (just ignoring whether it ultimately is in the form of dd tags or
                      > > not), I'd love to get input on what is good/bad/missing/etc. from
                      > > that. I mean, I don't even have a podcast (yet?) so I'm just kind
                      > of
                      > > making this up. :-)
                      > >
                      > > I have it broken up now with the show information (title, rss uri,
                      > > about, and date) which is probably pretty static (except for the
                      > date)
                      > > across different episodes. Then there's a host section with name,
                      > URI
                      > > (to a weblog, home page, whatever), and text bio. I would think
                      > this
                      > > would probably be static across most episodes as well. Then
                      > there's a
                      > > guest field with the same sub-fields. I am figuring you'd want the
                      > > standard (and parsers) to support multiple guests...this may be
                      > > something that changes (like with the Gilmor Gang) from show to
                      > show.
                      > > Then I have a segment field with name (of the segment), summary,
                      > start
                      > > time, stop time, and a uri field (for urls mentioned in that
                      > > segment...again presumably there might be 0 to infinity of these per
                      > > segment). The point of the URI field (in addition to being handy in
                      > > the outline view for people) is that you could search for all
                      > podcasts
                      > > that talk about your site, product, etc. Then I made an interview
                      > > section with subject and summary.
                      > >
                      > > I'm sure there are other things that are wanted/needed/whatever and
                      > > possibly missing. Would love to get some input from the community
                      > on
                      > > that.
                      > >
                      > > Once we get at least a beta version of the standard finalized, if
                      > you
                      > > want to help on the development of the web based tools (as I don't
                      > > forsee individual podcasters wanting to type all this metadata in
                      > > every time...esp for things that don't change like the title of
                      > their
                      > > podcast or their bio), that would be appreciated.
                      > >
                      > > -m
                      > > http://www.secretelite.com/michael
                      > >
                      > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:00:32 -0000, hanklynch <hanklynch@y...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Dude,
                      > > > I'm all over that, what do I have to do to get involved?
                      > > >
                      > > > -Hank
                    • mcdtracy
                      ... I m wondering what percentage of those RSS feeds stil lead to the original content. Most PODcasters only offer a few shows at any given time for storage
                      Message 10 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "hanklynch" wrote:

                        > And on the search thing....I have just under 20,000 live podcasts
                        > indexed at PodRazor.com.

                        I'm wondering what percentage of those RSS feeds stil lead to
                        the original content. Most PODcasters only offer a few shows
                        at any given time for storage and download costs (i.e. a new listener
                        might download the entire catalog...

                        http://www.morningcoffeenotes.com/rss.cml currently contains over 100
                        enclosures but who else can afford the potential download peril?

                        So, if I'm correct. Search data needs to be re-evaluated to make sure
                        it points to the content expected to keep a user happy.

                        Automating all this is a great set of nested puzzles...

                        Let's rate the PODcast search engines! Feedback works.

                        McD
                      • Nonya
                        Funny you should mention that, check your server logs for PodRazor MP3 Checker , that s exactly what I do every night. Got bit on that one fairly early on.
                        Message 11 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Funny you should mention that, check your server logs for "PodRazor
                          MP3 Checker", that's exactly what I do every night. Got bit on that
                          one fairly early on. You would be amazed at how many people delete
                          them, or move them to other servers/hosts etc. The count of podcasts
                          indexed at the footer of the PodRazor pages is the count of live
                          podcasts. You may find one or two every now and again that are
                          404's, but I think I do a pretty good job on the integrity checks.

                          FYI....there are about 3800 missing or orphaned mp3 files out there
                          in the podisphere as of last night.

                          -Hank Lynch
                          www.PodRazor.com
                          www.PodcastMania.com

                          --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "mcdtracy" <mcdorman@g...> wrote:
                          >
                          > "hanklynch" wrote:
                          >
                          > > And on the search thing....I have just under 20,000 live podcasts
                          > > indexed at PodRazor.com.
                          >
                          > I'm wondering what percentage of those RSS feeds stil lead to
                          > the original content. Most PODcasters only offer a few shows
                          > at any given time for storage and download costs (i.e. a new
                          listener
                          > might download the entire catalog...
                          >
                          > http://www.morningcoffeenotes.com/rss.cml currently contains over
                          100
                          > enclosures but who else can afford the potential download peril?
                          >
                          > So, if I'm correct. Search data needs to be re-evaluated to make
                          sure
                          > it points to the content expected to keep a user happy.
                          >
                          > Automating all this is a great set of nested puzzles...
                          >
                          > Let's rate the PODcast search engines! Feedback works.
                          >
                          > McD
                        • Matthew Terenzio
                          ... I m totally on the same page as you Hank, but I think this problem should solve itself. back in the 1990 s(today?) people used graphics on sites for links
                          Message 12 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Mar 31, 2005, at 8:55 AM, hanklynch wrote:

                            >
                            > It's like this, if you spend 2 hours doing a show, editing,
                            > production, thinking about what to say...what's another 10 or 15
                            >


                            I'm totally on the same page as you Hank, but I think this problem
                            should solve itself.
                            back in the 1990's(today?) people used graphics on sites for links and
                            other non search engine friendly user interface mechanisms.(flash
                            intros etc.)

                            Eventually everyone realized. "Hey, if want traffic , I've got to
                            engineer things a little more effectively."
                            Those who don't use titles and descriptions right will fall in rankings
                            and that should be incentive to label their work properly or achieve
                            oblivion.

                            Matt Terenzio


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Harold J. Johnson
                            You fellows might want to to get Marc Canter or Doug Kaye into this conversation. I believe they have some interest in metadata. (Apparently it s one of
                            Message 13 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              You fellows might want to to get Marc Canter or Doug Kaye into this
                              conversation. I believe they have some interest in metadata.
                              (Apparently it's one of Canter's passions; he's currently working on
                              Ourmedia.org)

                              Harold J. Johnson
                              http:/audioblogs.info

                              --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "hanklynch" <hanklynch@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              > One thing I would say is that ulimately, we have to stay within the
                              > confines of the rss and id3 tags. RSS is extendable, but it's not
                              > something I would want to go into willy nilly, you would need the
                              > support of the tools themselves to do that, or it will never take off.
                              >
                              > As for id3 tags, I personally like those the best. MetaData is by
                              > it's nature, descriptive data, and id3 enables an mp3 file to be self
                              > describing. If all of the description is solely in the rss feed, and
                              > you find the file out on torrent somewhere, the rss feed does you no
                              > good, but if you have the data in the mp3 file...now you're cookin.
                              > Or if you run a service like OpenPodcast, where people can email you
                              > their shows....if the mp3 is self describing, you can index the hell
                              > out of a folder on a hard drive and have your directory searchable and
                              > browsable in no time. There was a discussion on shownotes back in
                              > November or December, and I brought this up then too, and some people
                              > have started adding the shownotes to their id3 tags....it's wonderful.
                              >
                              > OPML is the predominent shownote format at the moment, and it works
                              > fine, but I think that it can be extended. (maybe, not an OPML theory
                              > expert at the moment, so I can't speak with any authority)
                              > Maybe we do come up with a more descriptive type of shownote that
                              > would be intended to live in the ID3 tags....it would have to take
                              > into account the lifecycle of a podcast. It would need CC
                              > attributon(very important for this medium), Keywords(for indexers),
                              > Summary, links, comments uri, rss uri, home site uri(often unrelated
                              > to the rss), and probably some stuff I'm not even thinking of.
                              >
                              > Some of this is redundant, there are ID3 tags for instance for
                              > copyright info etc, and I wouldn't want to see those neglected because
                              > of this data structure. The key is, that while we all have our
                              > projects in "dev" mode, and we are pretty much each others customers,
                              > we can get this ironed out. We need a data structure that can work for
                              > desktop pcs, portable music players, car stereo mp3 players,
                              > agregators, refrigerators, washers, dryers...and whatever else will be
                              > picking up these files 5 years from now and pumping the sounds into
                              > our head. Can OPML do that? I dunno.
                              >
                              > And hey for the rest of you non developer types, think about this
                              > stuff too, because ultimately, it's you who are feeding the machine.
                              > If all of this sounds like too much, pipe up now.
                              >
                              > AND....if the dev talk is bad for this group, maybe we can start a
                              > PodcastDevelopers group, but I think it would be better to keep
                              > everyone involved in the discussion.
                              >
                              > -Hank Lynch
                              > www.PodRazor.com
                              > www.PodcastMania.com
                              >
                              > --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, Michael Ridley <michaelridley@g...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > Well, originally when I started trying to figure out a format I was
                              > > trying to build on the work of others so I was thinking the XDMP
                              > > format was the way to go. But actually I'm not convinced that's
                              > true,
                              > > since it would require putting all the stuff into head META tags
                              > which
                              > > might be hard for a lot of people to implement in their blogs. So
                              > now
                              > > I'm thinking maybe just stick an HTML dd tags into the body. Or
                              > maybe
                              > > the right solution is to put the metadata into the RSS feed. If you
                              > > have thoughts on that, let's talk about it.
                              > >
                              > > Regardless of the actual implementation of the metadata, we should
                              > try
                              > > to figure out a format that is flexible enough to work for
                              > everyone.
                              > > If you take a look at the initial format I've put up on the wiki
                              > page
                              > > (just ignoring whether it ultimately is in the form of dd tags or
                              > > not), I'd love to get input on what is good/bad/missing/etc. from
                              > > that. I mean, I don't even have a podcast (yet?) so I'm just kind
                              > of
                              > > making this up. :-)
                              > >
                              > > I have it broken up now with the show information (title, rss uri,
                              > > about, and date) which is probably pretty static (except for the
                              > date)
                              > > across different episodes. Then there's a host section with name,
                              > URI
                              > > (to a weblog, home page, whatever), and text bio. I would think
                              > this
                              > > would probably be static across most episodes as well. Then
                              > there's a
                              > > guest field with the same sub-fields. I am figuring you'd want the
                              > > standard (and parsers) to support multiple guests...this may be
                              > > something that changes (like with the Gilmor Gang) from show to
                              > show.
                              > > Then I have a segment field with name (of the segment), summary,
                              > start
                              > > time, stop time, and a uri field (for urls mentioned in that
                              > > segment...again presumably there might be 0 to infinity of these per
                              > > segment). The point of the URI field (in addition to being handy in
                              > > the outline view for people) is that you could search for all
                              > podcasts
                              > > that talk about your site, product, etc. Then I made an interview
                              > > section with subject and summary.
                              > >
                              > > I'm sure there are other things that are wanted/needed/whatever and
                              > > possibly missing. Would love to get some input from the community
                              > on
                              > > that.
                              > >
                              > > Once we get at least a beta version of the standard finalized, if
                              > you
                              > > want to help on the development of the web based tools (as I don't
                              > > forsee individual podcasters wanting to type all this metadata in
                              > > every time...esp for things that don't change like the title of
                              > their
                              > > podcast or their bio), that would be appreciated.
                              > >
                              > > -m
                              > > http://www.secretelite.com/michael
                              > >
                              > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:00:32 -0000, hanklynch <hanklynch@y...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Dude,
                              > > > I'm all over that, what do I have to do to get involved?
                              > > >
                              > > > -Hank
                            • Matthew Terenzio
                              ... I think this is the right solution. That is why RSS was made extensible. I d like to think it s early enough in the game to get it adopted. If not, i guess
                              Message 14 of 24 , Mar 31, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Michael Ridley wrote:

                                > Or maybe
                                > the right solution is to put the metadata into the RSS feed

                                I think this is the right solution. That is why RSS was made extensible.
                                I'd like to think it's early enough in the game to get it adopted.

                                If not, i guess tags is the way to go. I hope not.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.