I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and
an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a
MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or
blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that "show" option).
It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store
video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using
YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is
If the definition is "video on a blog" - I think "blog" is generally
recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube isn't
Does that make sense?
davidleeking.com - blog
On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield <steve@...> wrote:
> To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a
> blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with
> a way to link to them.
> On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:
> > Going with the definition that a
> > videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
> > of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
> > eliminates everything published only on YouTube
> Steve Garfield
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]