So many video posts May 21, 2006 8:29 PM   Subscribe

So many posts to
video content makes po's
twenty-eight-eight cry.
posted by po to MetaFilter-Related at 8:29 PM (60 comments total)

Okay, so this isn't really anything of huge importance. Just a lament that so much of our FPP content lately seems to be made up of video. The links above are simply those from today. I realize it's a valid media, just as any other internet content. It simply makes me wonder - am I the only MeFite left without broadband, and thus left in the dark on (seemingly) half the MetaFilter FPPs unless I want to spend 6+ hours downloading?

Perhaps we've simply gone through so much of the web's HTML content already that audiovisual content is the only frontier in which there is new, non-double-post material left?
posted by po at 8:30 PM on May 21, 2006


You're the only one left.

(seriously - video usually manages to capture more information in a given time than plain text, pictures being worth a thousand words and all that. It's unreasonable to expect "the best of the web"* to not keep up with advances in technology.)

*whether the videos posted are, indeed, "best of the web" is a different discussion entirely :)
posted by aberrant at 8:32 PM on May 21, 2006


...and you're in Sacramento, which ain't exactly the sticks. Why not check out the broadband providers in the area? If dslextreme services your area, I highly recommend them.
posted by aberrant at 8:34 PM on May 21, 2006


Am I the only MeFite left without broadband, and thus left in the dark on (seemingly) half the MetaFilter FPPs unless I want to spend 6+ hours downloading?

Well, I just got broadband last week, so I should be loving all this new fangled video. But no, I agree, I'm bored of it too. Sites like YouTube exist for the express reason of linking to and commenting on "cool video" - as far as I'm concerned, linking to YouTube or Google Video on Metafilter is about as lame as linking to a single mp3 of a song to tell people how cool it is. How well would that be tolerated, except in rare, special circumstances? There are places for that sort of thing, and this has never been one of them.

But yo, everyone's going to disagree with me.
posted by Jimbob at 8:35 PM on May 21, 2006


What Jimbob said.
posted by marxchivist at 8:38 PM on May 21, 2006


I disagree with you that everyone is going to disagree with you. Because I don't disagree with you. Unless I do disagree with you in a digestive sense, for which I am sorry, but since your the one doing the digesting and I'm the one doing the disagreeing, we may have to agree to disagree.

Agreed?
posted by disclaimer at 8:39 PM on May 21, 2006


I think you're screwed. For most people, it's been years since they've had dialup and it isn't even a consideration.

Ponder this: my dad just got DSL, and he has never even had cable. (Like, ever, since cable was invented.)
posted by smackfu at 8:40 PM on May 21, 2006


(Actually, aberrant, I'm in Lincoln. I say Sacramento because it's more easily recognizable to most folk, but I'm about 35 minutes' drive away from the freeway, and 45 from the city. Broadband of any sort is unavailable to me, sadly, as I live in... a barn.

No, really.)
posted by po at 8:41 PM on May 21, 2006


Agreed.
posted by Jimbob at 8:44 PM on May 21, 2006


I hope you aren't still using a 28.8 modem..
posted by Chuckles at 8:46 PM on May 21, 2006


...linking to YouTube or Google Video on Metafilter is about as lame as linking to a single mp3 of a song to tell people how cool it is. How well would that be tolerated, except in rare, special circumstances?

Agreed. And although I have broadband, po, loading a video is still more time-consuming than a standard webpage (to say nothing of viewing time); so when I see video posts, I'm almost never inclined to click.
posted by cribcage at 8:47 PM on May 21, 2006


po, i'm in your boat. There is no such thing as broadband where I live - and I live in the middle of nowhere. The phonelines are rather bad; I theoritically have a 56k modem but I'm lucky if I hit 40k. 28.8 seems like the average speed.

Broadband exists in this country, just not in my area. So I really feel for you!
posted by divabat at 8:48 PM on May 21, 2006


Hah! Then I feel for you. My inlaws are in the same situation on the east coast, and I can't stay there more than a few days without getting the sense that I'm missing out by not having broadband access.

Despite my earlier replies, video links in general aren't very interesting on MeFi. However, I find some of the large images (think the NASA posts and some other hi-res stuff folks have posted) fascinating. They're equally hard on dialup. I know, because I've tried to get them at my inlaws' place, and had to give up in frustration.
posted by aberrant at 8:49 PM on May 21, 2006


By the way po, until a month ago, I lived in a house in a rural area, 100kms from the nearest city. No broadband. Phone lines so bad my modem would rarely connect faster than 28.8k. I feel your pain, brother.
posted by Jimbob at 8:49 PM on May 21, 2006


Judging from the YouTube-related threads, the incessant spam-banning, and viral marketing stunts, I'd say MetaFilter's due to be co-opted by MTV-backed sockpuppet accounts in...3...2...1...
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:50 PM on May 21, 2006


Welcome to Web 3.0. It looks a lot like that funny box that we used to eat dinner in front of since we burnt all the trees and te AQMD doesn't allow fireplaces anymore.

28.8? WTF? Besides all that year 2000 information superhighway broadband gimrackery, they do make faster modems now, y'know. Maybe I can scrounge one up for you, but it'll probably be a wintel software modem in an internal PCI format. Email me.

In the meantime, your mission is to go scrounge up an oldschool laptop with PCMCIA or USB support, a WiFi device and a Pringles can. Google "Pringles + WiFi" and follow the instructions for long-range wifi goodness. If not, use it as is.

Shit, I haven't been without broadband in 6-8 years, and I've been homeless twice in that timeframe.
posted by loquacious at 8:50 PM on May 21, 2006


But yo, everyone's going to disagree with me.
posted by Jimbob at 8:35 PM PST on May 21


No not I
posted by 404 Not Found at 9:21 PM on May 21, 2006


Gather together, brothers, so that together we might defeat video within our own lifetimes!
posted by Jimbob at 9:22 PM on May 21, 2006


Google Video finally opened up in Korea recently, and I've been rewatching all of the Red Vs. Blue series, so that's nice. No more error-message cut-and-paste from me.

Anyway, like I said last time we had this discussion, the post-the-latest Youtube/GVideo/Metacafe/etc/etc thing will hopefully tail off as the novelty wears off.

If not, well, posting 'videofilter' snarks will get just as annoying and repetitive as 'newsfilter' snarks are now, and most (but never all) will get the picture. The picture being that 'best of the web' may be old and broken, but teh new hotness is also 'best of the web', and just like only some text&image stuff is bestish, only some video is, too.

In the meantime, again: Videosift.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:31 PM on May 21, 2006


linking to YouTube or Google Video on Metafilter is about as lame as linking to a single mp3 of a song to tell people how cool it is

Agreed.
posted by caddis at 9:34 PM on May 21, 2006


Okay, let's be fair here. The video clip of the naked female soccer streaker was 1253 KB. If we assume a modest 2.5 KB/s download rate, that's less than eight and a half minutes. While I'm sure that's unpleasant, it's a far cry from six and a half hours.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:48 PM on May 21, 2006


28.8? WTF? Besides all that year 2000 information superhighway broadband gimrackery, they do make faster modems now, y'know.

In a lot of places with crap phone service that can't get DSL, the modems only connect at the slower speeds, regardless of how fast they are supposed to be. Our household used to regularly get 26.4k out of a 56k modem. Maybe if you connected four or five times it would get up to 33.3k. Still damn slow. Thankfully they've upgraded the lines and it's much better now.
posted by smackfu at 9:54 PM on May 21, 2006


If I lost 8 minutes of my like waiting to watch a short stupid lossy fake video of a streaker, I would be pissed.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:55 PM on May 21, 2006


What's up with all the links requiring Javascript?

And what's with all the frames?! Those aren't accessible!
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:57 PM on May 21, 2006


28.8? WTF? ... they do make faster modems now, y'know. Maybe I can scrounge one up for you

loquacious, all dialup modems rely on the quality of the phone line and connection to get the maximum data through them. When you hear the old screech-squawk-skronk tones from the modem at the beginning of the call, that's the two modems (at each end of the phone connection) negotiating with each other and learning A) what each is capable of and B) how bad the line is. All phone lines sounds about the same to us humans, but sound very different to modems.

28.8 is about the fastest you can get on certain phone connections, even if you have the most bitchin' modem ever.

Symbols, baud rate, Shannon limits, echo cancellation, equalization ... it's all rather fascinating really. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem for more.
posted by intermod at 10:02 PM on May 21, 2006


Po and divabat, I too lament the lack of any kind of broadband in my rural coastal area. And I could watch Google video at work, (except that, you know, I should be working) but youtube, break.com, putfile.com and most other videos are blocked. Oh wells.
posted by Lynsey at 10:13 PM on May 21, 2006


Does 28.8 do anything but cry?
posted by scarabic at 10:28 PM on May 21, 2006


linking to YouTube or Google Video on Metafilter is about as lame as linking to a single mp3 of a song to tell people how cool it is

I don't agree. Posts should be interesting/enlightening/cool/weird/informative - whatever, regardless of what media they're in. Since when is MetaFilter only about html documents? If it's on the web, and it's great in some way, I don't care if it's video.

If you don't think some particular link is great, fine. But don't attack the video medium as a whole. Sucky posts are your problem, not video.

Besides, after posting the guy-falling-off-a-truck video, there's no what mathowie could ever step forward to ban video links as a whole ;D
posted by scarabic at 10:33 PM on May 21, 2006


Sucky posts are your problem, not video.

Except that so many of the video posts are also sucky posts, including No. 1's posting of the truck guy video (sorry Matt, but that was not your finest post).
posted by caddis at 10:42 PM on May 21, 2006


Lets start a 'videos.metafilter.com' page!
posted by delmoi at 10:47 PM on May 21, 2006


Animal Mother: "All fucking dialers must fucking hangup."
posted by Ryvar at 10:53 PM on May 21, 2006


I don't agree. Posts should be interesting/enlightening/cool/weird/informative - whatever, regardless of what media they're in. Since when is MetaFilter only about html documents? If it's on the web, and it's great in some way, I don't care if it's video.

Oh I agree. But I stressed the videos were probably inappropriate in most cases, the same as most HTML pages on the net, or most images on the web are too crappy to make it onto Metafilter.

If people went around making posts, linking to a single, 3-minute long MP3 on, I don't know, archive.org - it wouldn't last. It's just a song. No big deal. Probably not post-worthy.

If people were to link to the latest crazy picture to turn up on b3ta or 4chan or TMBO, they'd get shot down in flames.

When people make links to single entries on someone's weblog, it's usually called out for it's suckiness.

But somehow, we are captivated by shiny moving objects, and anything seems to be acceptable with video links - stuff that, were it in another format, would be tolerated much less.
posted by Jimbob at 10:58 PM on May 21, 2006


Despite his prior transgression, Matt should start pruning the video posts with a big machete. Delete them all ruthlessly, except for a select few of the very best, and note the reason as "crappy video" or something. After a few months people will start self limiting the video posts to the best ones which are suited to the front page.
posted by caddis at 11:23 PM on May 21, 2006


I agree with Jimbob. The standard for video should be higher. I can think of very few video links that I didn't think later was just a waste of time - the equivalent of reading a long, bad joke in text. An exception might be that clik-clak(?) robot animation. But few others.

seriously - video usually manages to capture more information in a given time than plain text, pictures being worth a thousand words and all that

its not the quantity of the information -its the quality. TV and Films still haven't replaced books.
posted by vacapinta at 11:26 PM on May 21, 2006


I enjoy some video posts every now and then. But I agree, the amount of YouTube and Google video posts on the front page does seem to have increased lately.

Still, there's tonnes of newsfilter and politics posted to the front page every day, and ultimately I think that these posts are of the same breed that video posts are. Namely, they are posts which many people think Metafilter shouldn't be about, but are tolerated because they are enjoyed by many others. Metafilter is what we as a community make it, and it seems that Video posts has become as much a part of what Metafilter is as newfilter and politicsfilter. Lamentable? Maybe. But frankly, if enough MeFites like it, then so be it.
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:03 AM on May 22, 2006


I'm sick of links that go to pages with words on them. Surely we can do better!
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:12 AM on May 22, 2006


Thew news and politics posts, the good ones at least, generate robust discussions. It's the discussion which stimulates the mind, not the post itself. The video posts offer little more than a brief amusement and the discussion is usually not of much consequence. After product endorsements, video posts really are often the worst of MeFi.
posted by caddis at 12:20 AM on May 22, 2006


I'm pretty clueless about all this video stuff , are there actually good tv programs avaiable on it ?
I dunno maybe somebody could link to battleship potemkin on google video to balance it all out.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:46 AM on May 22, 2006


caddis, you forgot to preface your remarks with: "In my opinion.."

Discussion isn't irrelevant but it isn't and oughtn't be the primary criterion for judging whether something is either postworthy when trawling the web beforehand ["Oooooh!!! Oooh!! I just gotta see what MeFites have to say about this shiny/politico/flash/vid/story!"] or; with hindsight, deciding whether or not something was a good post.

Discussion and added linking and member stories and commentary are wonderful - the great stuff of Mefi. But you shouldn't plan for it and you shouldn't decide that the post is good because of what other people bring to the thread. There are good posts and good threads but they are not mutually inclusive.

So I don't care what medium the message comes in. I just like cool, weird, new, unusual, amazing, breathtaking, thoughtprovoking, poignant, frivolous, uplifting, heartrending, calamitous and unending input of a digital nature. But when it doesn't meet those my criteria, I will click upon thee flag and express my disapproval. And scream...sometimes.

Thus you shouldn't complain about there being too much video per se, you should be encouraging people to hit the flags when the material is poor quality.

That said, I do think it's good manners (and many people do it anyway, thankfully) to advise how big the video download is or how long it lasts.
posted by peacay at 2:58 AM on May 22, 2006


Yay peacay! That's what I want... a clue as to how big the download is.

I mostly don't bother with the vid links, but knowing how big they are would tell me if it's worth going through the hassle to invoke the Firefox extension video downloader. Any download that won't resume also gets ignored.

No cable here, no broadband, no satellite, no Wifi (and no mobile phones). The other side of the island has all those amenities, but not me. 28.8 is a GOOD day, and I have a modem that will ratchet down to baud rate for the really bad days.

As it is, I can't take the time to read half the non-vid links here; slow is slow for text too.
posted by reflecked at 3:24 AM on May 22, 2006


What peacay said.
posted by public at 3:33 AM on May 22, 2006


It's good to be clued in on a new and interesting video here from time to time, but the vast majority of video links here are already listed on the most popular page of YouTube or Google Video. It's rare that I'll click through on a video from here, unless the thread is filled with comments like 'Awesome, I'd have never seen that unless you put it here!'. Otherwise, if I feel like watching video I'll check out VideoSift, or the top 100 pages at the source.
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:52 AM on May 22, 2006


another vote for the "it's the crappy posts that are the problem, not the video." maybe a link to just one slightly amusing mp3 would be deleted, but I can think of plenty of mp3 posts from mefi history that presented a delicious sampling of something most mefites hadn't heard of or hadn't seen in a long time, and which were lauded for that. the same is also true for the video links. if someone posted a clip from their favorite "america's funniest home videos" episode, that would be one thing. but a remix contest for a movie trailer? not the same thing. videos of northern european folk music performances? not the same thing. the veteran mini-documentary-espose? not the same thing. you get the idea.

as for the broadband issue... well, i know people who grew up as the only kid on the block without color tv. they certainly didn't say "can we all stop talking about color tv forever, or at least until I get one? i feel like I'm missing out on all the discussion about reds, greens and blues."
posted by shmegegge at 6:33 AM on May 22, 2006


*shoots*
posted by mds35 at 6:34 AM on May 22, 2006


"Matt should start pruning the video posts with a big machete. Delete them all ruthlessly, except for a select few of the very best, and note the reason as "crappy video" or something."

Yes. Please.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:48 AM on May 22, 2006


caddis, you forgot to preface your remarks with: "In my opinion.."

Why would he need to do that? Who else's opinion would he be giving?

[/ snarky E.B. White]
posted by TedW at 7:32 AM on May 22, 2006


So if you can't watch video links, don't click on them. Is there a problem here? Or did you just want to find out if you were the only MeFite left without broadband? Answer: no, there seem to be some others. I guess all of you will have to forgo the video links.
posted by languagehat at 7:55 AM on May 22, 2006


I mostly don't bother with the vid links, but knowing how big they are would tell me if it's worth going through the hassle to invoke the Firefox extension video downloader

Well, that's not going to happen. YouTube doesn't even tell you how big a video is.
posted by smackfu at 8:06 AM on May 22, 2006


I won't disagree that a lot of the video posts are poor quality posts. I like funny internet videos (even a lot of ostensibly pretty stupid shit) and I don't come here to find the gems. That's either because the good ones don't make it here, or the video links are so few and hard to find here (by comparison to a site like Milk & Cookies, of course).

Whatever the case, don't blame the medium. There is a culture of low-brow internet "haha" out there. If you don't want it infecting MetaFilter, you should be clear about that, not advocating a ban on the youtube.com domain.

Good luck erecting a cultural filter around MeFi, too.
posted by scarabic at 8:17 AM on May 22, 2006


pictures being worth a thousand words and all that.
I have seldom found that to be accurate. Maybe in Melville's day . . .

Is all this talk about "modems" and "broadband" something I'd have to have an Internet connection to understand?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:39 AM on May 22, 2006


The quality of videos posted to Metafilter will be inversely proportionate to the amount of effort requied to post them.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:47 AM on May 22, 2006


FWIW, also dialup here. Though I get better than 28.8.
posted by desuetude at 9:13 AM on May 22, 2006


I think I like about the same percentage of video posts as I do the rest of the posts. I'd rather people post the ones they like than not post them. And usually the ones that make metafilter are much better than the ones that are on the popular list at youtube.com, which are usually complete shit.

Of course, context is everything.
posted by empath at 10:16 AM on May 22, 2006


I won't hesitate
to link to a great archive
just for your sake, dude.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:52 PM on May 22, 2006


Video Killed the Dial-Up Star?
posted by Sprout the Vulgarian at 12:59 PM on May 22, 2006


I griped about the video thing early on, but quickly gave up. It is the way of the future. There's no going back. Just about every blog and "cool stuff" site is like that now. It's part of the whole mobile phone thing too. It's like when everyone went to Netscape from Lynx and Gopher/Archie/whatever.

I still use Lynx some, actually. I'm often in a sub-28k zone such as what some of you folks are describing. Streaming is right out, but I can use this site to download vids from the Gootubes and whatnot. It still takes a while to get the file (Youtube recently limiting video length helps), of course, but at least then you can actually see the video (I use VLC Media Player for watching the .flv files). Hope that helps someone.
posted by First Post at 4:55 PM on May 22, 2006


as far as I'm concerned, linking to YouTube or Google Video on Metafilter is about as lame as linking to a single mp3 of a song to tell people how cool it is

I agree. It also doesn't help that most YouTube links have an audio/video sync problem of multiple seconds.

Also, for all of you saying to get a faster modem—it very seriously might not help. My grandmother has a brand-new computer, and has had a 56k modem for a good seven years, and can't ever connect faster than 26.4. Ever. And there's no broadband option, but the cable company (which just got there ten years ago—before that, there was no cable TV) is asking its customers whether they'd subscribe to high-speed Internet service, which is a good sign.
posted by oaf at 8:33 PM on May 22, 2006


I won't hesitate
to link to a great archive
just for your sake, dude.
posted by Wolfdog 7 hours ago


No one is complaining about links to the great ones, its all the crappy ones that are the problem - dude.
posted by caddis at 8:38 PM on May 22, 2006


I think you're screwed. For most people, it's been years since they've had dialup and it isn't even a consideration.
Except that most of the world still doesn't have broadband, even in otherwise advanced areas.

When I travel, I am reminded of how bad it used to be to be connected at 28.8 (the usual speed we could obtain even with a 56k modem) and, while it truly and deeply sucks the big hairy one, it's not all that uncommmon. In fact, here in Australia, the service standard reqquired to be guaranteed over phone lines is 96kbs. Yes, ninety-six.

posted by dg at 8:48 PM on May 22, 2006


Good video is good. Bad video is bad.

The problem with crappy X posts is not that they're X, it's that they're crappy.
posted by Bugbread at 11:57 PM on May 22, 2006


« Older Update to this post   |   Mefi notices the Taliban back before they were fab Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments