Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Definition of Vlog
- The following is an exercise to write about what we are doing with video+internet and some of the ongoing linguistic debates.
The idea is to add as much terminology that various people use or propose using inside of written descriptions and thoughts.
It may sound like parts of a conversation or just encyclopedic tones. I am not only writing from opinion, but from other expressions.
Maybe see where that takes the discussion.
I do this because I dont beleive in hyper-editing wikipedia entries. Thorough discussion should take place prior to edits, at least in regards to this groups participants in the discussion.
* I have a videoblog and I syndicate my video content using RSS2 (with enclosures) which allows me to broadcast media on the Internet, though in actuality I am microcasting since I have a small audience/subscriber base.
* Others have audioblogs but when they use the same technology to syndicate and distribute audio content, they call it podcasting. This is a result of seperate groups of people focused on different media formats adding terminology to digital content distribution using RSS. Occasionally, people propose that videobloggers use the term podcasting, since it should not be exclsuively an 'audio' term, though wikipedia makes no mention of video in its current entry.
Also, many videobloggers do not like the term podcasting since it is so connected with audio and iPods.
Understanding that concern, other terms have been suggested, as well as not using any other terms beyond 'videoblogging' aka 'vlogging'. Other suggested terms have been vodcasting (as in VideoOnDemand and conveniently sounds like podcasting), vidcasting or videocasting, and even vlogcasting has been suggested.
* One benefit of having and using a seperate term to describe the aforementioned process of delivering video content is to distinguish between those who have a videoblog (aka vlog) but who do not offer RSS 2.0 w/ enclosures (or mediaRSS) subscriptions to viewers. The video is published and remains stationed on the videoblog website until a user visits and downloads a video. They are not 'casting' anything. They are not using a broadcast medium. But they maintain a videoblog, regardless.
Some do not want to consider these as videoblogs unless they use RSS to distribute the video media to end-users who are using video aggregators or TV boxes such as Akimbo among many others. The term videoblog may be suffering from an over-extended usage.... but not by these videoblog authors that lack RSS+enclosures but instead by those who feel the term videoblog encompasses the medium.
If 'videoblog' is the medium, which medium is it? The broadcast medium or the publishing medium? If the latter, then we need not exclude videoblogs that do not use RSS+enclosure as being videoblogs. Because do we really ever want to say that 'this videoblogger is not videoblogging because they dont really have a videoblog"?
* Not long ago, it was a great concern to not incur heavy web hosting charges due to exceeded bandwidth because a video you put out was downloaded by hundreds of people. It is hard to not classify a blog where video is the primary content as not being a videoblog just because they author could not afford it.
However, every month it gets easier and cheaper (or free) to distribute video to the masses. Services like ourmedia/Internet Archive are providing free media hosting. The result of this emerging open media revolution will be more and more people feeling comfortable with using RSS to deliver their media to subscribers without concerns of costly web hosting penalties. So, it is likely that most to all videobloggers will use RSS technology (or other methods that achieve the same thing).
True this may be.... but it does not seem to excuse the need to describe those who are using Internet broadcast technology opposed to those who do not (for whatever reasons they have for not doing so).
* My subscribers can use software/hardware or web services called video aggregators which enables them to have Video On Demand (VOD) functionality, similar to TV services like TiVo or MoviesOnDemand offered by some cable companies.
Though there are various methods and technologies that make it possible to distribute video content to an actual TV, typically my audience uses a computer to watch my videos. Eventually, it will be standard to have syndicated TV broadcasts and Internet Media converged using a set-top box and Television set.
* Some of us have discussed the topic of "Mix Your Media". In other words, make video, make audio, make photos and make text. Offer it all via your blog and use RSS to syndicate it as mentioned above...
Filter the RSS feeds based on the media format. In such a case, and I imagine this becoming popular since sometimes it is more suitable to make audio content or more desireable to distribute photo sets instead of video, we cannot simply say 'I am videoblogging' when you are clearly distributing an audio feed as well. I am not aware of suggested terminology for mixed media content distribution.... but i guess to full circle the discussion, this would be called blogging :-)
I could dare and propse the use of 'Multimedia Blogging", but something tells me that would not gain popularity, despite it being accurate. Cool Factor!
* Back in the day, common terms to explain Internet based media broadcasting were VOD and IPTV. Video On Demand and Internet Protocol Television. This did not consist of RSS usage, but the underlying medium serves the same purpose. Using RSS is more reminiscent of a grass roots style of digital media distribution. It's as innovative as it is common sense. It works. Add BitTorrent technology and it becomes possible to distribute DVD quality video to thousands at virtually no cost.
* Note to some: You may have noticed that the topic of 'content' is not touched on here. That is because it is a completely seperate discussion and the type of content has no bearing on the purpose of this 'defining videoblog' thread.
ok, so i just dredged up that rant from overactive areas of my brain.....
it's not me preaching.... consider it in 3rd person despite the fact I didnt write it that way ;-)
In other words, these are not all my opinions, but a mix of info, reiterated.
On 6/10/05, Michael Verdi <michael@...> wrote:
***NOTE: Chris Koehn - delete this thread. Other people - please
don't change the subject line when you reply. Thanks. :) ***
Open three tabs in you're web browser.
Put this in the first one:
Put this in the second one:
Put this in the third one:
Read/watch them in that order. I think Richard has a point here. At
the very least, maybe someone could have checked in with him before
we all went crazy changing things around. I think there were some
good suggestions brought up in the long discussion we had here but
the end result, in my opinion, is not that great. Especially when
you look at it side by side with the older one.
What do you think?
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://vlogdir.com -is- The Videoblog Directory
http://interdigitate.com -is- my personal site