Thread: Youtube Embedding

Originally Posted by Outrage

How is that actually any different from people just posting the link to illegal videos, which is already against forum rules?

Posting a link means that if you don't want to see what the video is, you don't have to.

Embedding the video means that you see the title no matter what.

Anyone can post their video of the latest episode. The more people see it, the more they can think about going to their channel. It's about getting noticed for more viewers, and a link isn't as eye catching as the actual video itself.

And its embedding youtube videos, how far do you think spambots are going to go posting their own advertisements on youtube just to embed it on a forum?

As I said above, videos get more noticed than links. Manafactures of bots know that the bots are gonna get banned, so they look for ways to get their products noticed quickly. Videos are a good way for that. I don't think you recognise what a spambot can potentially do.

As for meme-videos, how is enforcing that any different from enforcing regular spam rules?

I never said it was different to enforce.

Using the privilege of being able to post videos for memes in my opinion is more spammish than a cap.

I can see a use for them in the blog section, which is what I am voting this for: UP (for blogs) There's been a few times I wanted to post a video in my blog.

I was looking for more of a "My LPs or AMVs in the shipping forum" not "I want to post a video" which doesn't explain anything more than your vote for UP does.

Originally Posted by Cairo

Posting a link means that if you don't want to see what the video is, you don't have to.

Videos don't automatically play, its the same as seeing a still picture.

Embedding the video means that you see the title no matter what.

And people posting illegal content would have given away the video's content already, and yes, you can see the title, so this brings up one of your other points where mods would have to waste their time to see if videos are inappropriate. More often than not, titles on videos are actually descriptive of their content unless the BMGf user posted it themselves with the intent to be sneaky.

Anyone can post their video of the latest episode. The more people see it, the more they can think about going to their channel. It's about getting noticed for more viewers, and a link isn't as eye catching as the actual video itself.

And you know what happens to channels that gets too much attention for posting illegal content? They go down, fast. But that's besides the point, they are more eyecatching, which goes back to my original point of why I want them enabled in blogs.

As I said above, videos get more noticed than links. Manafactures of bots know that the bots are gonna get banned, so they look for ways to get their products noticed quickly. Videos are a good way for that. I don't think you recognise what a spambot can potentially do.

Spambot threads rarely have their posts wiped clean around here, their advertising is still online. If people don't take the time to read their post when they realize they're spambots, why would they take the time to watch a spambot's videos? There's a reason why advertisers try not to make their advertising so blatantly obvious, because people don't like it. And again, the videos aren't going to automatically play. How many people are going to see an embedded video of an iPad in an obviously spambot thread, and go "hey, I wouldn't spend five minutes reading this post, but I'll spend five minutes watching this video!"

Also, I think the problem with Spambots isn't so much the advertising as it is actually spamming the forums. People have outlined how slow the forum would be with videos. Now don't you think a video-heavy spambot would just lead people to say "fuck it"? Yeah. Kind of a two-edged sword.

I never said it was different to enforce.

So what's the problem then?

I was looking for more of a "My LPs or AMVs in the shipping forum" not "I want to post a video" which doesn't explain anything more than your vote for UP does.

Yeah, embedding videos in blogs would enhance blogging experience. I'd think that would be easy enough to extrapolate from my statement. You already clicked a link to enter the blog, why click another link and then switch tabs between watching the video and reading the rest of the blog? And exactly, AMV's and LP's or generally interesting battle videos that people want to blog about, would benefit from just being embedded while not actually slowing down an entire discussion thread, whereas your AMVs in shipping forums would actually slow down the loading of a whole thread.

I don't see why you're so against my idea of allowing it for blogs when that basically gets rid of any of the problems outlined about people slowing down the forum. It's not as if individual blogs get as many reads as threads themselves, so "slow loading" for those with slower internet connections ins almost confined to a small space that they may not even check.

And you clearly thought of uses for them so what's with the initial comment of not seeing any views for them? And am I supposed to have planned out all my future blogs where I believe a video would be appropriate? People's blogs are, often random, and in the event that they wish to show a video in it, why not give the option to embed them? I've seen no argument as to why it would be so bad to enable this in blogs.

tl;dr Can you give me any reasons why this shouldn't be enabled in blogs?

Originally Posted by Outrage

Videos don't automatically play, its the same as seeing a still picture.

Can see what it is from the title, can see it from the box that appears for the video to play in etc.

unless the BMGf user posted it themselves with the intent to be sneaky.

Which more often than not, the best of those who upload episodes are.

And you know what happens to channels that gets too much attention for posting illegal content? They go down, fast. But that's besides the point, they are more eyecatching, which goes back to my original point of why I want them enabled in blogs.

The majority of those who maintain their channels delete the video after a day or so of uploading, so they don't get caught by the rounds of checking by Shopro and the like.
Getting as many views as they can within that timespan is key to them.

Honestly, the eye-catching point is the only reason I get for embedding over a link, but if a user cared enough, wouldn't they click on the link anyway given your text based description of the video?

Spambot threads rarely have their posts wiped clean around here, their advertising is still online.

Which is something the staff decides for some reason or other.

If people don't take the time to read their post when they realize they're spambots, why would they take the time to watch a spambot's videos? There's a reason why advertisers try not to make their advertising so blatantly obvious, because people don't like it.

You assume that everybody hates spambots and that nobody ever buys what they advertise. People do, otherwise this method of advertising would have been dropped years ago.

And again, the videos aren't going to automatically play. How many people are going to see an embedded video of an iPad in an obviously spambot thread, and go "hey, I wouldn't spend five minutes reading this post, but I'll spend five minutes watching this video!"

Those who cba to read but would watch a video? *shrug*

Essentially you're giving a spambot another tool to utilise for something that nobody else has really expressed how they are going to use it.

Now don't you think a video-heavy spambot would just lead people to say "fuck it"? Yeah. Kind of a two-edged sword.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Would you mind re-phrasing?

So what's the problem then?

The fact it would have to be enforced anyway?

Can't speak too much from this point of view, but I doubt mods want to moderate videos that nobody has expressed an actual use for, as in, something that is needed or a defined purpose. Blogs are not a defined purpose, as their subject matter is incredibly varied.

Yeah, embedding videos in blogs would enhance blogging experience.

"Eye-catching" isn't a reason that would make me change my vote.

You already clicked a link to enter the blog, why click another link and then switch tabs between watching the video and reading the rest of the blog?

If someone cares to click on a blog, I doubt they'd mind clicking on another link. You already have them interested when they clicked to view the blog.

And exactly, AMV's and LP's or generally interesting battle videos that people want to blog about, would benefit from just being embedded while not actually slowing down an entire discussion thread

Why would you blog about these when you have forums dedicated to Shipping, the Video Games and Comepetitive Battling?
You've said that blogs do not get the same traffic as forums do. Blogging would create less views than posting a link in a thread in those forums would do.
And if you want people from these forums to view the blog, what would you do? Link them to your blog.

whereas your AMVs in shipping forums would actually slow down the loading of a whole thread.

Which is why you would link them, as the current process is, which there isn't any actual fault in.

I don't see why you're so against my idea of allowing it for blogs when that basically gets rid of any of the problems outlined about people slowing down the forum. It's not as if individual blogs get as many reads as threads themselves, so "slow loading" for those with slower internet connections ins almost confined to a small space that they may not even check.

You're still slowing that minority down though, while gaining nothing. Linking to videos doesn't negatively impact anyone. Embedding can. I know which one I would prefer.

And you clearly thought of uses for them

Uses that:

- I Will never use.
- That nobody else brought up.

Here's the thing. Barely anyone who has voted UP has said "I will embed videos for X reason". They don't know what they will do with this option. In my opinion, that makes their vote unjustified. They are voting UP because they like the appeal in being able to embed videos if they wish. Will they actually embed videos though? My conclusion is no, otherwise they would have said so in their votes.

There is no representation here for specific uses for embedding videos. The idea doesn't contribute anything.

And am I supposed to have planned out all my future blogs where I believe a video would be appropriate?

You said you wanted to once. What would the video have been?

People's blogs are, often random, and in the event that they wish to show a video in it, why not give the option to embed them? I've seen no argument as to why it would be so bad to enable this in blogs.

Random. No measure of judging what the videos content will be if enabled in blogs, aka, no reason to test it to begin with.

Add the fact that there is only one person who will probably say what they wanted to embed in a blog (yourself), the numbers don't give justification to test embedding in blogs.

I'll also say that this thread title has been viewable on the main index for a few days now and nobody really seemed that bothered to express what they would embed.

tl;dr Can you give me any reasons why this shouldn't be enabled in blogs?

A user who cares about a blog's video would click on a link provided in the blog, given that they have seen a preview of the blog from the blog index, and so you have their attention already. There's no need for eye-catching, you have their attention already. Also slowing down for the minority. No slowing down at all in my opinion is preferable.

---

On that note, I think I have defended my vote and opinion on embedding enough. I'll reconsider my vote as people say what specific use they would embed for. Until then, I'll try to put my time to more productive things, such as other ideas for this forum.

UP.

Easier to watch videos.

Here's the thing. Barely anyone who has voted UP has said "I will embed videos for X reason". They don't know what they will do with this option. In my opinion, that makes their vote unjustified. They are voting UP because they like the appeal in being able to embed videos if they wish. Will they actually embed videos though? My conclusion is no, otherwise they would have said so in their votes.

There is no representation here for specific uses for embedding videos. The idea doesn't contribute anything.

And I've already expressed my opinion on that attitude that "X has to serve a specific purpose" reasoning as justification not to do something. I don't see the difference with the points you brought up, so you'll never use it, and no one else brought it up? It doesn't invalidate those things as options. You just chose to ignore them when making your statement.

They are voting UP because they like the appeal in being able to embed videos if they wish

I can bring up many examples where people just voted ideas up, and got passed because they merely liked the appeal of being able to do something if they wished. Not to sound like a broken record, but the badge options in the user profiles, and the larger avatars are basically just that, now we can use images 120X120 pixels if we wish, we can tell people our favourite badge, if we wish. That doesn't invalidate the point either, and who are you to say that people who voted up because they liked the prospect of being given the option to do something is an unjustified vote?

You said you wanted to once. What would the video have been?

I don't understand why a specific instance need be recorded when I've made my stance clear that it could enhance the blogging experience.

A user who cares about a blog's video would click on a link provided in the blog, given that they have seen a preview of the blog from the blog index, and so you have their attention already. There's no need for eye-catching, you have their attention already. Also slowing down for the minority. No slowing down at all in my opinion is preferable

Slowing it down for the minority that may not even visit your blog. Likewise, if we're going by the logic that "they've clicked your blog so they'll click the video", we can turn that around by saying that they're interested enough to click the blog, they're interested enough to wait for it to load, so that's a null point. I've already expressed my opinion as to why it would be usable in blogs:

1. They won't slow down the main-space
2. It reduces the amount of clicking and switching between tabs to watch the video and read your comments.

Can see what it is from the title, can see it from the box that appears for the video to play in etc.

Just because you put etc, doesn't change the fact that those are the only two things one would usually see in an embeded video, essentially being a caption + picture.

You assume that everybody hates spambots and that nobody ever buys what they advertise. People do, otherwise this method of advertising would have been dropped years ago.

So you give them another way to annoy and advertise, it doesn't automatically mean that spambot activity would increase on the forum because we embed videos. That's why I've never understood the point of this, if people listened to spambots already, I doubt a video would change very much other than slowing down people with slow internet connections, in which case its counterproductive for them and actually helps with the whole spambot issue.

Those who cba to read but would watch a video? *shrug*

Essentially you're giving a spambot another tool to utilise for something that nobody else has really expressed how they are going to use it.

Same point as above, they have another tool for spamming, but it doesn't mean that their activity will increase, which is why I see this spambot thing as a moot point.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Would you mind re-phrasing?

I've rephrased it up there already but here it is again: Video = slow load time, Concern of people is spambot advertising, people get frustrated at slow load time only to see advertising, you don't waste another five minutes giving the spambot your attention.

Can't speak too much from this point of view, but I doubt mods want to moderate videos that nobody has expressed an actual use for, as in, something that is needed or a defined purpose. Blogs are not a defined purpose, as their subject matter is incredibly varied.

If its rarely used then they don't have to moderate it as much do they? Again, people act as if allowing this would suddenly have an embeded video on every thread.

Why would you blog about these when you have forums dedicated to Shipping, the Video Games and Comepetitive Battling?
You've said that blogs do not get the same traffic as forums do. Blogging would create less views than posting a link in a thread in those forums would do.
And if you want people from these forums to view the blog, what would you do? Link them to your blog.

I don't know, why don't you ask the people who blog about shipping, battling and the video game in general, because those blogs do exist.

And I'm sure you've seen the many threads that get closed that are in the realms of "video games" or "shipping" or "competitive battling" or any aspect of this franchise really for reasons that "it seems like blog material". Just because you have a dedicated forum for it, does not mean one cannot blog about that topic, so again I don't really see the point you're trying to make here.

And yet, for a place that doesn't get as much traffic as the rest of the forums, people sure do love blogs, so why not allow them this luxury that won't slow down the rest of the main-space? I haven't seen a good reason for this other than "the minority with a bad internet connection who may not even read your blog would get slowed down". I'd say the base rate for people getting frustrated from forum lag due to embedding being allowed in blogs is almost negligible, and again to the point you made, if they cared enough about the blog, then they'd wait.

Random. No measure of judging what the videos content will be if enabled in blogs, aka, no reason to test it to begin with.

Add the fact that there is only one person who will probably say what they wanted to embed in a blog (yourself), the numbers don't give justification to test embedding in blogs.

I'll also say that this thread title has been viewable on the main index for a few days now and nobody really seemed that bothered to express what they would embed.

So why not allow it and see what they would actually use it for then? Perhaps part of the reason people don't know what they'd use it for is because they were never given the option to find out. If no body uses it then its not a problem to just keep it around in the coding is there? If no one uses it, then there's no lag, but its around for the off-chance that someone does want to use it.

As for my blog idea, people often only read the title of these threads and the first few and last few post when voting, and often take the tl;dr approach to long posts in general. I'd like to see what the general population think if we were to bring this up as a separate issue for voting, but I don't think its appropriate to do so right now as this vote is currently still going on.

Just one thing, not sure if this has been said already.

If a user posts a link to a video with illegal content, how is it worse than a youtube video embedded.

Originally Posted by minimag

Just one thing, not sure if this has been said already.

If a user posts a link to a video with illegal content, how is it worse than a youtube video embedded.

Apparently because it gets more channel views. Honestly, if the link gets removed, then I'm sure mods would remove the video as well. And again, people are acting like allowing videos to be embedded would suddenly lead to an upsurge of users showing illegal videos.

Seriously, a lot of people's points are basically hinging on the idea that there's going to be enough embedded videos around the forum that it's going to cause significant lag everywhere or that spambots and illegal streamings of videos are suddenly going to get worse.

Here's the thing guys, if you post a video with a non-descriptive title of your illegal upload, then people on Youtube aren't going to click it. Give it a descriptive title and the 10 minute (for segmented episodes) run-time is basically one giant red flag to mods here. It's actually much easier to to maintain a link to fake episodes by just placing a link since it won't be descriptive, yet no body does that, people almost always say "here's a place to watch =D" and we're suddenly going to expect this behavior to change?

Honestly this whole LAG-SPAMBOT-ILLEGAL UPLOAD debate sounds more like fear-mongering considering how disproportionate people make it seem.

Unless you can show me how allowing embedding will suddenly cause an upsurge in spambot activity and illegal uploads, and in the case of lag, be used to the point that it slows everything down forum-wide then I don't really see the validity of those points (Well, the lag I do, hence why I suggested blogs, but the other two, not so much).

If a user posts a link to a video with illegal content, how is it worse than a youtube video embedded.

For the purposes of the forum, if we were to implement this, they'd be treated the same as infractions go.

Well I dont know if I can post this in but I vote UP as I have tried frustrated to show my friends the videos I make on Youtube without them crossing a million other videos I mean my YT account is "NegiHyga90" and there is NigaHiga and stuff so...I just think I would like to show them my vids so I give this one...A Thumbs UP

Originally Posted by evkl

For the purposes of the forum, if we were to implement this, they'd be treated the same as infractions go.

So are you saying that it will be handled the same as linking?

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by minimag

So are you saying that it will be handled the same as linking?

Please elaborate.

Im thinking evkl means that the links would possibly just "expire" like infractions.

No he meant that if the video violated a rule (such as if it was a video of a Pokemon episode) then the poster would be infracted/warned.

Originally Posted by Sublime

No he meant that if the video violated a rule (such as if it was a video of a Pokemon episode) then the poster would be infracted/warned.

But then how is it any different to just linking?

The link will also have to floow the rules, wont it?

I don't think he meant it would be different, just warning you guys that the rule would apply.

UP

It is more convenient to watch the video from the site than to go to the link, I think.

Thanks for reading.