Comments on: Videos (and podcasts) suck sometimes

By: scott

scott — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:01:14 +0000

of course, relative to hypertext, video stands apart with it’s multimedia appeal. And TV has programmed us to adeptly keep one eye and ear tuned in whilst folding the linen, or slurping soup. Video is still in it’s infancy on the web, an experimental phase. Once intra-video indexing is widely available and easy to use we’ll see a deeper merging of blogging/linking/hypertext with video and audio. Any VC’s reading this?

By: PanMan

PanMan — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:22:03 +0000

I totally agree, and for that matter don’t completely understand the popularity of Youtube (and the likes). I have 77 feeds in my Bloglines, and it takes quite some time to keep up with that. If one links to a video, it takes a couple of minutes to watch that, in what I can’t read/scan other things. And often reading is much faster than being read to. I guess the Youtube generation just has more time on their hands . (I’m not saying video has no point, but these days lots of things are put in video, that I’d rather read).

By: cmason

cmason — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:26:53 +0000

Agree Don. I’ll add that video is more intrusive: Play it in the office, and everyone knows you are goofing off, at home, no one else can hear the TV, etc. I can glance at a text blog post and gauge quickly how long it will take and grasp whether it is interesting. Video I have to trust the title.

However, video blogs work great on the iPod, where I have time when traveling or when exercising to absorb a few mins of video. Much more engaging than reading or listening…maybe its just the new video iPod I got for Christmas…?

By: Scoble’s Achilles heel is video » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:24:41 +0000

By: Greg Wellman

Greg Wellman — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:39:15 +0000

You’ve just described why photos are (for me) far superior when it comes to recording my family’s history. After I take my snaps and caption the better ones I’ve uploaded, I have ample means of consumption. I can go through the gallery on SmugMug. I can print and frame. I can catch them as a screensaver. The list goes on. All of this as fast or as leisurely as I desire – and the same holds true for the people I share them with. With video, I’m locked in, and if it sucks, my time is wasted. Same for the people I share IT with. Any media which removes control of time from the consumer MUST be excellent 100% of the time – that’s my view. Good topic!

By: onethumb

onethumb — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:27:30 +0000

@Jeff Barr:

I find myself wishing people would “chunk up” their videos into 1-5 minute segments, with decent summaries, so I can just watch the stuff that *really* interests me.

I think that’s one of the reasons YouTube is so powerful and fun – it takes very little time to get in, watch, get out, and get on with your life.

By: Jeff Barr

Jeff Barr — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:58:19 +0000

Hi Don, I agree 100% – it is a lot easier to read a blog than to watch a video.

I end up bookmarking all sorts of links to videos “for later,” but later never seems to come. I just don’t seem to have a single focus when I am sitting at the computer.

Perhaps I could aggregate them all and take them with me on my next plane trip. That might be fun.