Besides pronouncing grognard wrong (it's like groan-yar) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grognard), I don't see what this vlog does that a text article couldn't. 1: We read faster than this guy talks2: The authors and titles he mentions could be easily copy-pasted into Google if it were text; with voice we can't3: Smaller filesize for text means people with slow or metered connections find it easier to download4: There is no information that he conveys through video that we couldn't get through text. For example, if he were reviewing a board game, we could see the pieces laid out and his hand gestures would better organize the pieces and ideas. If it were a game session we would see people's expressions, what they do when it's not their turn, when they have to look things up, who has to use a calculator to add up their damage. I'm just not seeing why someone would vlog this instead of typing it and why anyone would prefer to listen and watch instead of read it. Mabe I'm missing something here?
Well, I put it on in the background while I did other things. I can't do that with text.
Just pretend it's a podcast dude...
Ok... 1) I am not French so I will pronounce it like an Englishman2) Bandwidth issues are infrastructure issues that can't be helped3) If you can't type a name or title into a search engine and have to copy and paste then you're severely disadvantaged - it takes seconds4) There is no information in text that I can't put into video - the argument goes both ways. 5) I can do video interviews with people and you can see their facial expressions, hear their tone of voice and actually get the full import of what they're saying. You aren't going to get that in any written blog. You can read faster than I can talk? No problem. Stick to the format you like mate, but you're going to miss out on a hell of a lot in the next couple of weeks that can never be put into the written word. Now, this probably sounds like an angry response but as you can see from the video I'm an easy going guy and you need to put that tone of voice behind these words and that laugh that often comes out which video and podcasts are great for. And I bet you can read faster than podcasts too :) We're talking about two different mediums with different advantages that offer different forms of passing the time. Each to their own, but I don't see a valid criticism in what you've said other than a personal opinion of preference towards a format you enjoy and that's cool - we can't please everyone all of the time :)
I can't seem to post the comment I want to--I think my comment got way too long winded or something, and it gave me a big red error message. So, I put it somewhere else so I don't have to chop it all to pieces to get it posted. http://darkheritage.blogspot.com/2013/01/ahem.html
I like videos and podcasts and stuff - I was just saying that the content of this particular video didn't really require video. Maybe I needed to be clearer about my comment though. When I say that you didn't do anything in the video that you couldn't have done better, cleaner, faster, in text, what I meant was that this particular video was just talking and flashing a couple book covers. IF you had done something that you had to use video for, I wouldn't have brought this up. Sure you could interview someone - but you didn't. If all the important information the viewer got could be had just by reading the script, why not just write the script and then edit it to become an article?I guess I'm commenting in light of my perception that people frequently like to do podcasts and vlogs when it's not necessary. Why do they use a rich medium (that is, a medium with lots of opportunities for conveying different kinds of information) for a scrawny message? I think the reasons are different depending on the person. If this is an initial video in a series that will eventually bear a rich enough message to validate using the rich medium, why not write this one as a text preamble to them? Or just link to someone who already did it for background information for the viewer? If this video is standalone, there's simply no justification for a video instead of text. If this video is the start of a series of similarly scrawny messages, why do videos at all?---I'm not trying to tell you not to do videos. I'm hoping you do awesome videos that give kinetic information like facial expressions, objects in relation to each other, motion, whatever. Because I want you to succeed and make awesome things. I'm that guy who asks why you bought a 10-ton truck to haul a 10' boat, not because I'm belittling your boat, but because the truck is such a waste in that application.
All I'm reading here is an opinion that you prefer reading - nothing else. The arguments can be reversed with "all bloggers do is write about it and put in a couple of pictures" but then that would be rather insulting to the blogosphere. As it is to the podcast guys and the video guys. I'm doing an interview this evening with Rob Kuntz and then there will be another one with the new incarnation of TSR. Many more to come after that, though I'm not able to name them at this point. You prefer your format, and that's fine, but bearing in mind your arguments are easily reversible, why blog at all? And if the format is so poor, why would Mr Kuntz and others be happy to appear? I'm afraid I don't share your view, and nor would it seem the several thousand viewers in 48 countries around the world - YouTube gives very good worldwide demographic reports. I appreciate the sentiment, but it appears to be only that. We can't please everyone all of the time and not every format appeals to everyone. Drop in for the episode you like and ditch the rest, the same as you would a written blog or Forum. No one reads every thread, you pick and choose and this is no different.Appendix N will be a series, which is why a very large '1' appears in the intro, but not covered in the way it's been covered elsewhere in the blogosphere.