Talk:Video blog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Blogging (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

the majority of vlogs and vlog entries are authored by individuals.[edit]

RegardingThough many vlogs are collaborative efforts, the majority of vlogs and vlog entries are authored by individuals.[citation needed]

This should be completely removed. It is not possible to accurately prove this nor do I feel it is useful to the article as it just does not matter one way or another. The genres list is enough. Sull

Though I agree it shouldn't be there if it isn't sourced, I do believe the claim to be true and i think it would help readers to understand vlogs if this were included in the article. Let's remove it but be on the lookout for verification because i'd like to reinsert it with a source if I were to find one. The genres list is original research however that was added by Adam Quirk. I asked him for the source but I think he just copied and pasted it from the blog article. We'll have to remove it eventually. (i'll wait until we get a third party to comment first however because I don't want to seem like I'm gatekeeping the article) :S Pdelongchamp 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes shortened to vlog[edit]

I added '(sometimes shortened to vlog)' to the beginning of the article. I chose the sources randomly aside from selecting one from 2005, 2006, and 2007. Pdelongchamp 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


History[edit]

  • The notability of the time line events must be asserted and each item must be sourced by a third party before they are reinserted into the article. Pdelongchamp 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In this history there is no indication of Educational progress with vlogs. However there is Pinkman (2006) who talks about blogging in the Japanese EFL classroom. There is also Gromik (2006) who mentions that Japanese students can now make there own videos and upload them on a video storage site such as (blip or youtube). Could this be part of history since it is a shift in educational directions? (Unsigned comment left by Filmedworld on 6 May 2007)

That's a great idea! You should definitely include whatever reliable information you can find on the topic. Pdelongchamp 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've edited the Steve Mann section to reflect the fact that he captured *stills*, not video clips. He was not the first video blogger, although his early efforts helped lay the foundation for today's modern era video blogging.Bradcwriter (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd say he's more of a precursor to various iPhone and Twitter apps than to videoblogging, so I've removed the reference altogether. Gordon P. Hemsley 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
[Steve Mann] Was a pioneer into such things as [life caching] the entry in the timeline '2005 - The term life caching is introduced by TrendWatch' and '2003, June 15 - Nacho Durán launches the first (known) South American (Sao Paulo, Brazil) videoblog based on soundless loops made out of sequences of pictures daily taken from a portable webcam' However he came in a decade prior to the activities described in the entries in the timeline that I have referenced here, and in fact he took it further than was done with either of these references. A video blog is a type of video diary, Mr Mann certainly did this, and in fact invented the concept as far as can be found. I really have a problem with 75% of the entries in the timeline, as they seem for the larger part quite subjective, and without proper reference. But as it stands and is written presently, Steve Mann belongs there, and most certainly to a greater relevance than some of the other entries. I will do a better irrefutable edit and with better references, when I have a moment, and re-add. thanks.Valdemar Windsor (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.U.A.K. (talkcontribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.192.110 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AK isaprick (talkcontribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.81.156 (talk)

Youtube[edit]

There are a few mentions of YouTube in the history section however none of the sources mention video blogs. Including these citations into the article acts as our own personal analysis of the events. We have to leave it to the sources to determine if, for example, "Youtube Gets Acquired" has anything to do with video blogs and not make that determination ourselves. Let's try to find sources that verify it's importance in the history of video blogging.Pdelongchamp 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Links[edit]

  • I removed the following sections from the article. If these links contain any usefull information (which I'm sure they do), that information should be included within the article. Links are not a subsitute for content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Pdelongchamp 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We shouldnt have a link list. BUT these are great articles to pull info out of...then they can be in the References section. Jaydedman 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Links[edit]

I once again removed the section. It violates WP:NOT#LINK.

A few editors including myself have spoken out against this section. Let's work at adding the content from the removed external links into the article.Pdelongchamp 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors[edit]

From Talk:Video_blog#Links

  • We shouldnt have a link list. BUT these are great articles to pull info out of...then they can be in the References section. Jaydedman 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

From Community sanction noticeboard: Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

  • Well, what I see there, in for example this edit, is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really would need a lot of improvement. [...] From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to listen to him, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable.Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [2] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times" 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal" & "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only if they were worked into the article. Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section[edit]

International news and articles[edit]
Regional news and articles[edit]

Timeline events[edit]

I made a few updates to some timeline events. Here are my comments.

  • I can't find a reliable source that states that Adrian Miles' post below was the first vlog post. Can anyone verify this fact?
  • Removed the external link to the Yahoo vlog group. External links should be restricted to a separate section. Found a reliable source for this timeline event.
  • I also can't seem to find articles that state that mefeedia is an important development in the history of the video blog. Nor does it have it's own wikipedia article. Any comments on this?
  • I removed the mention of FireANT being released at vloggercon. I couldn't find a reliable source that mentioned it other than a press release. I don't think it's really notable. It reads like an ad.
  • I couldn't find anything notable about the yahoo group growing to 1000 members but i found a reliable source stating it was nearly 1000 and another stating it was at 1200. I'll leave the timeline event at 1000 with the original date.Pdelongchamp 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section: Dispute over terminology[edit]

Though the dispute may seem notable to you and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is concidered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the content is, consequently, unencyclopedic. I would have left it in but you admitted in the comments that it is non notable. Which means a) I can't place a [citation needed] message beside it because I know for a fact that it didn't come from a reliable source. Therefore, it's kind of my duty to remove it. (sorry!) I copied and pasted it below however because I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but until a notable publication agrees with us, we can't add it to an encyclopedia. Pdelongchamp 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The rising popularity of video sharing sites in 2005/2006 (notably YouTube) raised considerable online debate among vloggers about the definition of vlogging[1], particularly in the very active Yahoo! Videoblogging Group [2]. A large number of YouTube users, for instance, describe themselves as vloggers because they record personal video journals, despite not offering their videos in a traditional blog format.
  • HTML comments
    • Pdelongchamp wrote: Excellent topic, let's find a better source. Blog sources are frowned upon.
    • Ruperthowe replied: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item
    • jaydedman asked: "Pdelongchamp, since you seem to have a vision for this page, maybe you can share with us where you want this go. Or are you just being a referee as people make contributions? It'll help me understand exactly what role you are playing in this process. I am assuming good faith, but it's unclear to me where you're mind is at. What is Videoblogging to you? With all the articles and books listed so far, it's difficult to say that it's not a significant artform. I think it would help if we could all agree on the major areas we want to cover."

I concur with Jay and more importantly I would ask, "Why are you taking such an intrest in this?" What is your purpose? And why do you feel the need for everything to be run by you? Heath

Oh come on this is just more lack of assumption of good faith, the only way forward is to concentrate on specific changes to the page. Forget about people, personalities, motives, and focus on the article, or we will just go round in circles? SteveElbows 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me start by admitting something. In the past, I would remove Original Research (O.R.), place it in the discussion page, and start a discussion. This is an acceptable practice in regards to OR because OR can't be cited. OR doesn't actually come from a source, it's just someone opinion or analysis. Now, the author isn't going to like this since he obviously spent time writing it and, naturally, is somewhat attached to it. So what would happened in the past? They would put it back up without reasoning or discussion. (the wrong thing to do) So what did I do? I removed it again. So is removing it again another wrong thing to do? No, but it wasn't getting us anywhere and I now realize that. Instead of removing it a second time, I should have gotten a third party involved because obviously I failed in explaining Wikipedia policies and, in retrospect, even though I knew what i was doing was right, I wasn't going to make him see the light by simply deleting it again.

This is just to say that I only took action because I couldn't get a discussion going.

I don't take action when I know that things can actually be discussed. I hope that helps you to see my reasoning. For example, I'm not crazy about the news links at the bottom of the page and the genres section but I'm leaving it up because I know that I can finally get discussions going about whether it should stay or not. (and I also want to get a third party involved to give us tips and review the article now that people are contributing again)

So, no, i'm not a gatekeeper and I don't want to be a gatekeeper. Do i have a vision for the article? Kind of. I imagine one day the history timeline should probably be turned into paragraph form. (i have a feeling timelines are frowned upon but i haven't looked into it) and when the article got nominated for deletion, one of the reasons was the dictionary definitions (vlogger, to vlog etc) so I think we'll have to integrate those terms into the article somehow eventually instead of just having them up like they are now. (but now that they're sourced they're not as big of an issue i think)

I'm glad the discussion is moving to Wikipedia. (so that people that aren't on the vlogging group can join in) You mentioned on the group though that you were going to discuss things before putting them up. That may be a good idea for the topic at hand but I just want to say that generally, if you feel like it belongs on Wikipedia, then put it up. If someone doesn't like it, then they'll discuss it here and you can defend your reasoning. Either you'll be right, or wrong, or there will be a compromise. Just know that there's no need to get approval from anyone first. There are no gatekeepers here. Be bold. (oh, unless there's already a discussion about it, then you should probably read that over and contribute, but in general be bold) (oh and i'm saying that in regards to any wikipedia editing you do, not in regards to me or this article)Pdelongchamp 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, generally be bold...but the idea of just putting something down here before discussing it probably won't work. It certainly didn't in the past. People put down what they thought was correct, then it was removed. Being new to the process, I made sure I understood what "original research" means. We have blogs for own own opinions, but wikipedia is important since it's a starting point for many people. The term "videoblog" is more and more common so it's wise to have a clear description of what it is. I wasn't apart of the past edits on wikipedia, so let's drop it. The only goal here is to be constructive. I propose we all work on it together. Let's first talk about the major points we want to hit. Then we'll figure out the citations/references we need. Cool? See the next section below. Jaydedman 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Major points we want to cover[edit]

For me the goal of the Videoblog article is to make sure people understand how the artform has evolved, the different ways videoblogs are used, discuss any controversies, and list resources. Please comment so we can begin to flesh it out.

Let's begin here:

  • List the different definitions
  • Examples of different videoblogs
I've started a list of
to categories the different vlog types looking for common characteristics. And current definitions by different people are listed at Toward Vlog Definition
Please add more entries to fill in.
posted by: Iragilac 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Controversies
  • resources/articles/scholarly papers

posted by: Jaydedman 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Ive been reading the wikipedia entries for things like podcast and blog, to try to get a sense of what may be appropriate here. Things Ive noticed so far is that they dont have very many mentions or links to specific bloggers/podcasters. Directories get listed more than specific shows/blogs. Lists of hosting services or suchlike could be done on a seperate page? The articles seem better when not every sentence needs a source, but there are lots of sources included. Anyway I am going to do a lot more reading of such things before I form any conclusions.

As for controversies, only the trivial congdon-baron disputes got much mainstream press to use for sourcing, and Im not sure how relevent that falling out was to videoblogging. Controversies relating to sites/services neglect of creative commons stuff would be a potentialy more useful controversy to highlight, but regrettably I cannot recall much mainstream attention to such issues to date?

SteveElbows 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's stick to facts.

  • Stories: My favorite wikipedia articles have documented stories in them. So the Rocketboom blow-up is well covered and interesting. Also Ask a Ninja.
  • Quotes: since we have so many articles, we can pull quotes from videobloggers who explain the process.
  • Events: we should definitely mention the 2 vloggercons that occured. Well documented and reported on.
  • I personally like the categories since it shows the different ways the medium can be used. Looking at wikipedia, most articles have References, not citations. So we should be clear on which we need. There are lost of articles that give enough background to support the true realities of videoblogging art.

I'd like to hear thoughts if the above are adequate to go forward. Love to hear more examples for you guys. Jaydedman 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I would like Education to be covered. I think it is important to note that educationalist are attempting to educated students to express their opinions through this creative art. (filmedworld)


Removed Terminology[edit]

I removed the section because it violates WP:DICDEF.

A few editors including myself have spoken out against this section. It was one of the reasons the article was nominated for deletion nearly a year ago.Pdelongchamp 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors[edit]

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_blogs

  • Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From Community sanction noticeboard: Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

  • Well, what I see there, in for example this edit, is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really would need a lot of improvement. Wikipedia is not the dictionary, though we do have a sister project, Wiktionary, which you might wish to look at if you want to write dictionary definitions. [...] From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to listen to him, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable.Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section[edit]

Vlogosphere

Meaning: Vlogosphere is a popular term used regularly by the vlogging community to describe itself online. Derivative of Blogosphere.
Usage: "Congdon entered the vlogosphere answering Baron's Craigslist ad and later split from the enterprise to move into mainstream media."[3]

Vlogger

Meaning: Noun, One who videoblogs, or as the Wall Street Journal lightheartedly defined it: "Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera"[4].
Usage: "One major online vlog aggregator, mefeedia.com, lists 2,580 vloggers who have created a total of over 100,000 videos since the site started tracking them one year ago."[4]

To Vlog

Meaning: Verb, the act of recording something on video and posting it onto a video blog.[5] Adopted by Serious Magic for their software “Vlog It”, bought by Adobe Systems in October 2006.[6]
Usage: "I saw some policemen forcibly restraining a gentleman in an alley last night. I vlogged it."
Usage: "Vlogging has opened a new medium for film-makers and musicians to get their work into the public domain."[7]

Removed Section: Uses of video blogs[edit]

I removed the section because it violates WP:NOR.

A few editors including myself have spoken out against this section. It was one of the reasons the article was nominated for deletion nearly a year ago.Pdelongchamp 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors[edit]

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_blogs

  • Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, [...] followed by a genre list that consists of original research.Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From Community sanction noticeboard: Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

  • From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to listen to him, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable.Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section[edit]

While there are many distinct uses and genres for videoblogs it is important to note that the majority are individual and personal.

Rather than list individual videoblogs as examples, or provide a separate Uses of Video blogs page similar to Uses of Podcasting, this list simply covers the most common vlog genres:

  • Personal - Vlogs documenting the author's life, the recounting daily experiences, stories from their past, or the airing of their opinions on various topics.
  • News - Vlogs covering news events.
  • Collaborative (also collective or group) - Vlogs with a collaborative nature.
  • Citizen journalism - Vlogs "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information"
  • Conflict (see war blog) - Vlogs covering an armed conflict 1st hand, i.e. Alive in Bagdad, whom received distinction at the 2006 Vloggies
  • Digital divide (aka. bridge vlog) - Vlogs covering a culture, usually a developing world, not for people within that culture but to give people outside that culture insight. As such many bridge vlogs are in English or another common language.
  • Screencast - Vlogs demonstrating software or webservices through the recording of onscreen actions, usually presented with voiceover narration
  • Political - Vlogs discussing political issues.
  • Environmental - Vlogs discussing environmental issues, nature, and natural history.
  • Exquisite corpse - Vlogs where each concurrent part in a narative is shot by a different author
  • Media - Vlogs analyzing television, documentaries and other mass media.
  • Entertainment - Vlogs producing "shows" or short films.
  • Re-vlog - Vlogs promoting videos from other videoblogs or third parties.
  • Movlog (aka. mobile video blog) - Vlogs updated via mobile video phone
  • Educational - Schools and universities using vlogs as a teaching and creative medium.
  • Behind the scenes - Vlogs showcasing backstage activities of film production or other arts and skills.
  • Tutorial - Vlogs offering advice, demonstrations, how-to's, and tutorials.
  • Travel - Vlogs serving as a travelogue, exploring different places around the world.
  • Religious - Vlogs discussing religious topics.
  • Magazine type or lifestyles - Vlogs discussing lifestyles and hobbies in a television magazine format.
  • Assignment-based - Vlogs consisting of assignments.
  • Vlog Anarchy - Vlogs covering all or multiple genres.
  • Business - Vlogs created by businesses for external marketing or internal business communications.
  • Deaf vlogs - Vlogs used by members of the Deaf community to be able to blog in their native or preferred sign languages, as opposed to spoken/written languages. Issues are usually related to some aspect of deafness from a cultural, social and pathological view. These Vlogs use the medium of video to be able to communicate messages, posts, and other ideas through a sign language.

See also: Uses of podcasting

Extended research on blogging genres, useful for context on genre in videoblogging – closely related, but on which no specific academic study has been done - can be found at BROG, the Blog Research on Genre project[8].

Wikifying and Contributing[edit]

Thanks to 128.135.98.105 for improving the article. I really really like what you've added. One question, what was the reasoning behind taking the timeline out of chronological order? I'm assuming it was to provide emphasis but I'm not sure it works well. I have no interest in changing it though. What does everyone else think? Pdelongchamp 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

Blogs ar eincluded under the generic clip term and thus to merge the two small artuicles is a no brainer for our readersn to get access to the meaximum amount of information, SqueakBox 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Though video blogs may be referenced elsewhere, they are not the same as "video clips". Video clips can be anything. Video blogs may use video clips as a format/medium, but they are not the same thing. Oed 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well exactly, clips can be anything which includes blogs so it is appropriate. I am not saying they are the same thing, I am saying blogs is included in the more generic clips. It isnt appropriate for you to leave two versions of this, one at clips and one here, SqueakBox 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, video blogs aren't just blogs with video clips in them. Video blogs are not a subset of "video clips". I've removed all details about video blogs from the video clips page. Don't know why it was there in the first place. Oed 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well that is cos you arent reading what I said. I dont think much of a user who breaks 3rr and then indiocates they havent even read the arguments for doing so, so it'll have to wait until another day, and meanwhile all the redirects point to clips, SqueakBox 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how you think I didn't read what you posted. Because I disagree? I said "video blogs aren't just blogs with video", which you claim isn't what you meant by "blogs is included in the more generic clips". Video blogs are far more than just a subset of video clips. I definitely think the video clips article should reference video blogs, but why not point to the entry already in place rather than try to subsume it? Oed 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

This article should be merged into video clip as they are a type of video cliup and dont really have enough notability to have a separate article, SqueakBox 23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NO MERGE. Video blogs are not a subset of "video clips", inasmuch as text blogs are not a subset of all "text articles". Video clip is a generic term. Video blog is a mode and method of distributing serialized content. They deserve separate entries. If anything, the entry for "video clip" should be pared down, or deleted. Oed 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What you mean clips arent notable but their sub-set blogs are? that sounds not right unless you just want our readers to read about video blogs but not about the more generic clips, SqueakBox 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No. I specifically said that video blogs are not a subset of "video clips". And what I mean is that "video clip" is more a dictionary definition than an entry. Video clips are, simply, short pieces of video. They pre-date the Internet. Oed 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I know you said so but I think you are wrong. Video clips may pre date the internet but what has that got to do with anything? The internet transformed the meaning of the word to incorporate a new internet phenomenon which is much more notable than are video blogs which are pretty obscure, and this has been referenced and is amply so way beyond your alleged dictionary definition. If you got rid ot that article you would leave a hole in our knowledge whereas that is not the case mergiong the content here. Perhaps this article should be redirected to blog instead, SqueakBox 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's starting to sound like you have a vendetta against video bloggers. If "video blog" were to be redirected (which I don't think it should be), it would make more sense to make it redirect to "blog", as you say, or "video diary". Maybe "video clip" should be better named? "Internet video clip", maybe? The fact that video clips pre-date the Internet has a lot do to with this discussion. You seem to think a video clip is something that exists only as an Internet phenomenon, and thus "contains" video blogs. You can think of it however you like. The fact remains that video blogging exists on its own right. Oed 23:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
NO MERGE. As pointed out Videoblogs are simply NOT the same things as video clips. To say that videoblogging = videoclips makes about as much sense as saying blogging = text clips. It shows a profound misunderstanding of the subject matter. I could understand if videoblogging was redirected to blogging perhaps... but then there is not video section on the blogging page and there is a tremendous amount of material and emphasis on videoblogging right now in popular culture (i.e. youtube) that warrants this article being given it's own page... not to mention the blogging page itself is already overrun with material.
Anyone looking up "videoblogging" on wikipedia would find themselves utterly confused and disoriented being redircted to "video clips". The logic posed for redirecting simply does not stand up to scrutiny.--mmeiser 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No Merge. Video Blogs are not only different from video clips, but maintain a unique sub-culture online. It would be more realistic to merge it with an article on Blogging, but even then, the time and effort above the need for a simple keyboard that it takes to maintain a text blog separates it as a medium. A video clip suggests that it is a brief section of a larger event, while a Vlog is in itself the event. Two very different things. --8472
No. Doesn't make sense.--Alf 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Already reverted[edit]

Underpinnings was already reverted. My mistake. Pdelongchamp (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First Vlog?[edit]

I notice that the first vlog post claimed in the entry is Nov. 27, 2000. I know I'm naught but a new user, but I thought I'd point out a vlog that Adam Kontras started in January of 2000, The Journey. It's been updated for nine years running now. The Wayback Machine vouches for its authenticity. I think that this is enough to be bold and make the change. Mden2013 (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, archived by web.archive.org on 1 May 2001, is a (conventional, written) blog entry that starts "Entry #1" "8:18 PM - January 2nd, 2000" and that links to "some compressed footage(only 222 KB)". This links via another page to this small MPG file at web.archive.org. Perhaps later instalments more closely resemble postings in a video blog as most people would understand the term. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vlogging began way before 2000, Geogodley youtube channel has vlogs dating back to 1990 and will be uploading more with proof of dates in the actual videos to prove it. Since user Ckatz removed this information and link, another attempt will be made without the link, is that okay?Sneakygreek (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Sneakygreek (talk) 10 Feb 2011 (UTC)

The #Starting points for historical investigation section on this talk-page is pretty important. We can't just say "I found an old video, therefore video-blogging dates back at least that far"--that's WP:OR (drawing a conclusion based on our own google-based research). Per WP:V I think instead we need an actual WP:RS for a factual statement such as "X is the first Y". DMacks (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement necessary?[edit]

"Video blogging arose as a video form of blogging."

The statement reminds me of the sort of filler one finds in a high school student's essay. Is it even necessary? If so, I would suggest retooling it like, "Video blogging arose circa XXXX" with a citation. I lack enough knowledge in the subject to provide such a reference at this time and wouldn't want to mess with all the hard work by trying without knowing what I was typing about.--otherlleft (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Request For Comment : The First Video Blog Timeline Has Been Changed Recently[edit]

Hi. Anyone want to weigh in on the following link: [[1]], which is cited as the source for the claim that The Journey was the first Video Blog? In general, is The Wayback Machine considered to be a reliable source? In the current AfD for Adam Kontras [2], there is a spirited debate. If you feel like doing some homework and making a comment, that would be great. I'm persuadable on this. Here's a link to the source which was the reference for the previous first video blog (which seems somewhat more reliable) [3]. Here is the link to the revision before the substitution of Adam Kontras in October: [4]. Talk Me Down! --OliverTwisted 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your link says "not found" and is the vlogger's own site. Not sure how that is more reliable than an internet archive. The internet archive doesn't even have that page until 2007.98.151.17.229 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Types of vlogs?[edit]

With vlogging becoming more and more popular, new "types" of vlogging have been appearing. For example, mordeth13 (who is one of the first vloggers, and definitely the first ever motorcycle vlogger) records his blogs on his motorcycle, instead of talking directly to a camera.

If I have time, I will try and create this new section of types of vlogging.

KungFuMil (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful to avoid original research. Haakon (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Adam Kontras[edit]

There is presently an AFD discussion page on Adam Kontras leaning to the references and claims being not notable, as per Wikipedia standards. Should there not be a discussion on the pages that are used to reference this issue of notability as well? Should not all of these claims be removed and/or discussed until such time as notability may be established? It still seems, as with the old pattern that Kontras is trying to be famous for trying to be famous. While this has been attempted to some success in the past, by the likes of people like Perez Hilton and the like, They were covering subject matter that was of some importance, or at least interest to a greater calibre of individual. I tried to get this into a discussion forum for removal, and anything I attempt gets reversed, and then I am attacked for vandalism. The matter at hand, is the page and verified notability of Adam Kontras. I would like to see the record put in order as to all of this, and have verifiable sourses, and notability issues addressed as per Wikipedia standards. Any help in this endeavour will be greatly appreciated. And, yes I know that I am not impartial, and as such wanted to have such information in the general discussion forum, and have the standards adhered to. Charles F Groves 24.125.217.58 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! there was absolutely nothing wrong whith saying that and it was deleted? I put it back simply because I feel the debate should be expanded. Not by me! Just for someone to notice and see the facts and do something about it. I am no longer in the argument, but feel that it should certainly continue, as important issues have come to light in the debate. That is what debates are for. It seems that someone fears that thier noteability is based on a house of cards. You cannot think yourself noteable! Others must feel this of you! The subject of the article is attempting to write his own history. That is the last I say on this, but I will reverse any deletions of what I previously put into the discussion forums, as this is important (feelings aside)Is there no honour left in this world?... Charles Franklin Groves III, Richmond Virginia....24.125.217.58 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed Kontras entries in the timeline as both unsubstantiated, and irrelevant. There is no noteable documentation as to his status as 'first' video blogger. I have also added an entry for Steve Mann as what he did revolutionized, and infact introduced the concept of a video Journal, and early precursor to video blogging, and further, Mr. Mann invented the means to do so. I feel that this entry is far more relevant in the beginning of video blogging, as well as occuring prior to 2000 as the previous entry.Valdemar Windsor (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Charles (Google "Valdemar Windsor" and Charles Groves' myspace page comes up http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=OVS&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Valdemar+Windsor&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=). So once again, continued vandalism. As for Mr. Mann he is indeed a revolutionary figure in wearable computers and documenting your life in realtime, and he indeed did transmit stills from a video camera in 1994 off and on for 2 years. It was not however, a video blog. I've known of Steven Mann's work for over a decade. Brilliant stuff. Again, just not a video blog. And deleting the worlds' longest running video blog (10+ years) is part of Charles' personal vendetta, as he continues to make public: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1000302&blogId=533828125Adam Kontras (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears as if you will scapegoat anyone who attempts to question your own personal attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional device. I see no evidence of anyone vanalizing accept to remove the edits that conflict with the personal aggenda of an Adam Kontras, which appears to be you. I have made a proper and correct edit of this page. You seem to be uninformed as to the scope of Steven Mann and his well documented and notable work. He was ahead of his time and as such should be part of this timeline, he predated video blogging by a decade, (should be considered a viable part of the timeline) and what he did went beyond what is even today considered a video blogger. Certainly not stills from a video camera, but a comprehensive and complete video diary (in real time), and he has been recognized for this from several sources. So I will add him back and the community can do what it will with your personnally created and sourced entries, I will leave them alone. Since this seems to be not the first time that you have taken actions agains a page in your own interest, I will make this your final warning for editing blindly on your own behalf without proper references to back your claims.Valdemar Windsor (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Luckily, in this case - it doesn't matter who is writing Charles, Steven Mann's work is well known in the community and he is absolutely a pioneer. http://wearcam.org/shootingback.html - is an article about what Steve Mann did (which, again, brilliant stuff) but also explains that all that was ever posted were stills, like this: http://wearcam.org/eastcampusfire.htm. And all of this is by taking him at his word (which I do, and Wikipedia editors don't) because there is no proof that any of this was online at the time, there's no other pages like the one I linked, and this diary is no longer around. The internet archives have no record of the eastcampusfire.htm page until the 21st Century. Nevertheless, even if we take it all at face value (which I personally do -'cause dude is a genius) it wasn't a videoblog. I have no problem keeping it up and letting the community decide, but the reason he was never included before, again, is because he was not posting videos - he was posting video stills. And in all honesty his pioneering is far more impressive - brother invented a wearable computer that could transmit video stills online in real-time in the freaking mid-90s (wish there was more evidence though, for his sake, than just that eastcampusfire.htm page). And no offense Charles, but a "final warning for editing blindly on your own behalf without proper references to back your claims." is pretty comical when your entry on the time-line has zero references. Your vendetta and stalking of me is clear and well documented, you've even stated it, I'm not the one hiding behind Ren-Fair usernames. You really should google your sockpuppet names before you attempt to hoodwink wikipedia again, 'cause when your myspace comes up on the first page (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=OVS&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Valdemar+Windsor&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) it kinda kills your anonymity. Adam Kontras (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Or, I could be the right honourable Earl of Ulster, I have no idea what you are talking about. In any regard however, that is not the issue. I stand by my edits, and fact shall outweigh any opinion of your own seemingly grand illusions.Valdemar Windsor (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Significant events in the development of video blogs", Kontras, and Miles[edit]

When I see the title "Significant events in the development of [XYZ]" I expect to see, well, significant events in their development.

However, this one now starts "2000, January 2 - Adam Kontras launches the first video blog". Which suggests that -- "Pop!" -- the video blog is born fully fledged.

The footnote that I've just added to this reads:

Here, archived by web.archive.org on 1 May 2001, is a (conventional, written) blog entry that starts "Entry #1" "8:18 PM - January 2nd, 2000" and that links to "some compressed footage(only 222 KB)". This links via another page to this small MPG file at web.archive.org.

Is this a video blog entry? Yes it is, if you define a video blog entry to mean a conventional written blog entry that links to a video file you can download and view on your computer. But that's hardly my idea of a video blog entry. I'd be inclined to say instead that on that day Kontras linked his (conventional) blog entry to a video.

For all I know, Kontras may have quickly thereafter switched format to something resembling what we would now call a video blog. Frankly I can't be bothered to look. However, it's all at web.archive.org, and perhaps the energy recently devoted to edit-warring and bickering could instead be directed to looking.

In this edit (25 August 2008), Mden2013 added the stuff about Kontras, simultaneously (and silently) removing:

2000, November 27 - Adrian Miles, then a senior researcher in New Media at the InterMedia Lab, University of Bergen, posts the first (known) video blog entry. Creates a number of videoblogs in the remaining months of that year that combine text, sound, photos, video and coding using a Quicktime Pro architecture, which he call 'vogs'. In that period he also publishes his "Vogma Manifesto" (a pun on Dogme 95) in the form of a 'vog' to inspire thinking about the possibile directions for videoblogging. <ref name=TusedayBergen>27.11.00 Monday Bergen, "Vogma Manifesto" and other 'vogs' published that year are [http://vogmae.net.au/drupal/doing/vogs archived at Vogmae]</ref>

The sourcing (which should be updated to http://vogmae.net.au/research/doing/) is terrible, but this could contain keywords for googlable verification. -- Hoary (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As it's obvious that what Kontras posted on 2 January 2000 is not an instalment of a "video blog" by almost any imaginable definition of that term, I have done some rewording. And I followed that edit with another that cut a description of what Kontras did seven years later. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what definition of "video blog" you're imagining. The video that is linked to from entry #1 is directly related to the content of the entry. Kontras produced the video himself and uploaded it specifically to supplement the entry. He has repeated this same process for more than 1000 entries over a span of 10 years, through to the present. The entries that were archived by the Wayback Machine are still available live. Just take a look at his entries from January 2000: 14 entries, each with an accompanying video. And don't forget that when he started his video blog, computers were not well-equipped for downloading media files from the Internet. Back in 2000, most people were still using dial-up modems. As the years progressed, Kontras' videos evolved: the files got bigger, eventually became HD, and later were all uploaded to YouTube. Again, he has been doing this continuously for over 10 years, posting over 1000 textual entries accompanied by a video. Gordon P. Hemsley 01:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's start with what the article itself says (while remembering, of course, that WP is not a reliable source):
Video blogging [...] is a form of blogging for which the medium is video,[6] and is a form of Internet television. Entries often combine embedded video or a video link with supporting text, images, and other metadata. [...] Video blogging arose as a video form of blogging.
The medium of that blog entry is text. The text doesn't support the video; instead, the video illustrates the text. This is not a video form of blogging; it's a minor video supplement to (text) blogging. ¶ The article makes a claim for something that Kontras did on 2 January 2000; what he may or may not have been doing continuously since then does not obviously illuminate this. -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're being extremely pedantic about the definition of video blogging, especially given your own note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You've turned the discussion from whether Adam Kontras was the first video blogger to whether Adam Kontras is a video blogger at all. That, to me, seems like an even bigger waste of time than chasing around a sockpuppet vandal. Gordon P. Hemsley 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Really? Hmm. I see no pedantry at all in a simple observation on the huge contrast between (a) video blogging as the term is described in a source that I openly admit is not authoritative, and (b) what is alleged in the article to be the first ever video blog entry. Lacking the OED, Britannica, or any encyclopedia of web use or video, I have no very obvious authoritative source here, and instead have to use Google. Very obviously the most prominent hits at Google are not necessarily the best. The first one is this en:WP article. The second is "The Complete Guide to Video Blogging". The latter doesn't seem to define video blogging, but it does describe it as of 2009. Common points between Kontras's 2 January 2000 effort and what's described in the page seem to be: (i) they use video, (ii) they're on the web, (iii) they're not (or not primarily) commercial. By video blogging, do you mean non-commercial video on the web? If so, I'm surprised to see no mention here of Punkcast, which I believe was uploading noncommercial videos to the web in the late 90s. If you mean something else, please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, for starters, I think we can both agree that the quality of this article (Video blogging) is rather low, according to Wikipedia standards. In comparison, the article for blog is much better. Here's how that article describes the term:
A blog (a contraction of the term "web log")[9] is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.
Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (Art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (Video blogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting). Microblogging is another type of blogging, featuring very short posts.
Thus, a video blog would be a blog (as defined above) that has video on a regular basis. That does not include any old video just lying around on the Web. It means video within the context of a blog. And, given that blogs only began to arise circa 1997 (see further down on blog), the first video blogger (if not Adam Kontras) would have to have: (1) had a blog, (2) posted video to that blog on a regular basis, and (3) begun doing so between 1997 and 2000. Otherwise, I think it would be fair to say that Adam Kontras is the first video blogger. Gordon P. Hemsley 00:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's look again at that definition: Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (Art blog), photographs (photoblog), videos (Video blogging), music (MP3 blog), and audio (podcasting) (my emphasis). Thus most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on X, Y, Z, etc. The "although" seems to imply a contrast between text on the one hand and X, Y, Z etc on the other. If I'm right, then (say) a photoblog is not a blog about photos but instead a blog via photos -- which accords with my own impression. ¶ What Kontras posted on 2 January 2000 wasn't a blog entry via video. It was a text blog entry that linked to a (necessarily) short and tiny video. As such, it may for all I know be significant in the history of video blogging -- rather as a zoetrope is significant in the history of cinema despite not being cinema. ¶ What makes you think that this was the first instance of a blog linking to videos? The current sourcing for this claim looks very dodgy to me. -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Biased as I am, a few points need to be made here. The reason it's a video blog is because there's a video with every entry. The reason there's more text than video is because in the late 90s, space was so limited. What's being missed in this discussion seems to be that twice a week, for over 10 years, I have posted videos documenting my life. Some are just songs, some are short films, some are me brushing my teeth, some are 10 seconds, some are 10 minutes - they are however: All videos, all online, and all posted in the context of journaling my life. Hoary, your photoblog example actually proves my point. There are countless number of photoblogs that have more text accompanying the entry than pictures. That doesn't make it LESS of a photoblog because the author used MORE than photos. Finally, simply linking a video within a blog... does not make it a videoblog. Videoblog, or vlog, is short for a video-web-log. It's video, on the web, documenting something for a length of time. It inherrently implies a "series", not doing something once. That's why the current entry on the timeline is misleading. It reads as if one thing happened on January 2, 2000 - when in fact it was the start of over a thousand occurences that continue today. Hope that makes a bit more sense. Adam Kontras (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
If having a video with every entry makes a blog a video blog (1), and if there's a video with every entry (2), then this is a video blog. But where does definition (1) come from? As for (2), I suppose somebody could check the first half-dozen entries or so. ¶ What's being missed in this discussion seems to be that twice a week, for over 10 years, I have posted videos documenting my life. If this is indeed true, I don't understand how it makes the first entry more significant than if the total had been twice a week for just ten weeks. ¶ There are countless number of photoblogs that have more text accompanying the entry than pictures. That doesn't make it LESS of a photoblog because the author used MORE than photos. If the text is more important than the photos, I wouldn't call it a photoblog. ¶ it was the start of over a thousand occurences that continue today. This looks to me less like something for a timeline here, more like a claim for the significance of Kontras. But here at WP, the significance of Kontras hasn't been established: see this "AfD". -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
On your (1) question of definition, it seems we're now arguing the semantics of what the word "log" means? A log is a written record of events according to most dictionaries [[5]], which implies plurality - so more than one. A video log would be a VIDEO record of events. And a video BLOG would be an ONLINE video record of events. Thus the term: video blog. So linking to a video in one blog would not make it a video blog. Posting a series of videos recording events is a video blog. As to your question about the significance in doing it for ten years or ten weeks, in terms of it being a video blog? There is none. However, ten years is presently the longest-running video blog - which in itself does bear significance when talking about the history of video-blogging. Whether it bears significance for the video-blogger, is up to WP to determine and I understand Wikipedia's standards are different than what the mainstream media feels is notable. Not arguing that. Adam Kontras (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with Kaminsky's book, as used for a source for the claim that Kontras had the first video blog, is not only that it is unsourced and unsupported but that it was published in 2010, after the same claim appeared on Wikipedia. It occurs to me that Kaminsky may have depended on Wikipedia for it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, from August 2008, Wikipedia readers were perhaps first told that 2000, January 2 - Adam Kontras launches the first (known) video blog. That assertion came with nothing even resembling independent evidence. It occurs to me that none of what is now adduced as evidence for the claim predates August 2008. (Actually I can only read one of these: a second costs money that I am unwilling to pay, and a third requires the ability to read Tagalog.) Could the then-unsupported assertion in Wikipedia be the source of the "evidence" later used to support it? -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting points for historical investigation[edit]

I note in this message the announcement that Jennifer Ahl is working on this matter as a part of her PhD thesis. Jennifer may have located authoritative materials and wish to comment here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting find. I have sent Mrs. Jennifer Ahl an e-mail noting this discussion, and how it may be relevant to her research.

Might I also add that the works of Steve Mann should be relevant to this article and timeline as being instrumental in the development of video blogging. He was a pioneer in the field of video, combined with blogs, by the definitions and understanding that are being discussed on this page. I am recalling an article that I read in wired magazine on this that I do not have the time to locate right now. It seems that we either go with a narrow definition of what a video blog is or a broad one, in the case being argued for a broad definition of a video blog then Mr. Mann would certainly qualify. There is no proper definition of Vlog, or video blog to be found in Oxford, Cambridge, But Websters (and this will aid Kontras' case for inclusion a bit) states that a vlog is simply 'a blog that contains video material' [6] by that definition then the first person that placed any video content to a blog, would be the 'first video blogger' Then we would have to get into verifiable references if that were actually Kontras, additionally this entire article would have to be rewritten to include that definition and anyone that included video in a blog would be the first, regardless if it was 2 times or 1000.

The year 2000 was neither the dark ages of video or internet as it is being depicted by some in this conversation.CFGroves (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Mann is a revolutionary figure that is a pioneer in several fields. What was most spectacular about his blog, was his ability to wirelessly post pictures taken from a wearable computer in real-time in the mid-90s. However, he never posted one video. Somewhat difficult to include him in the history of video blogs when he never posted a video. Adam Kontras (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

By this [7] It is stated that the technology used was indeed a video camera, just with a reduced frame rate, (and a webcam at that) This allowed viewers with a dial-up connection to be able to properly enjoy what was going on. The section which I believe Mann should be included is titled 'Significant Events in the Development of Video Blogs' of which his contribution is certainly a significant event in the development of video blogging. The term and thus need for the term video blog was not coined (per Merriam-Webster) until 2002, therefore anything that can arguably be called a 'video blog' before that is an event in that developement.CFGroves (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Vlogfest[edit]

Vlogfest is a video blogging event created in 2012 in Marbella, Spain, by a spanish vlogger, MrJuanPapparazzi. The people can vote for their favorite spanish vloggers and the most voted youtubers win prizes.There is also a party. You can go to Vlogfest buying tickets. The only and first Vlogfest was on 24th March 2012. This year there will be other Vlogfest. The web is http://vlogfest.es/ It would be fantastic if someone add the Vlogfest to the section "Miscellaneous video blogging events". Sorry for my bad English :$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.138.97 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Vloggerfair[edit]

On the list of Vlogging events, I noticed there is one that I think should be included. It is called Vloggerfair, and is going to happen on June 7-9. You can find out about it at www.vloggerfair.com. I think Vloggerfair should be on the list for Video Blogging events. SloTheKing (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks. Begoontalk 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

There's an request for comment underway at Natalie Tran. There's a question about using Vidstatsx statistics to track YouTube views. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2013[edit]

I would like to help flesh out this article more. First of all I'd add links to Vloggercon 2006 which I attended and is on http://vloggercon.blogspot.com/ also I'd like to improve the article by describing some of the ways the community built up around things like Ant, blip.tv, and Freevlog (http://freevlog.org/)

That's a start, but I bet if I spent a bit more time I could find other areas to examine - this was a very groundbreaking period in web community building and deserves more info on the page. lsblakk (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Hello, edit requests are only for specific requests in a "please change "x" to "y"" format. If you'd like to make any specific requests such as that, feel free to do so here.. However if you'd like to contribute in a more complex manner, consider requesting confirmed status so you can edit the article yourself. -Ryan 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Basics of a Video Blog (Vlog)[edit]

A video blog or "vlog" will often act as a live journal as it recounts the daily activities and thoughts recorded by the "vlogger." Like many other shared videos, vlogs give individuals a chance to openly share their opinions or interests; whether that may be sports, fashion, humor, beauty, science or any other genre. These genres form the theme for a vlogger’s channel and based on what viewers typically watch, video- sharing websites like YouTube can suggest other vloggers that post videos on similar topics.

A vlogger usually posts a video every week or so, considering the amount of time it takes to edit multiple videos together. The video can also be edited with music, written comments, or vocal commentary for greater appeal. People who vlog are usually very comfortable speaking in front of a camera because they will record themselves at home and in public. The more open a vlogger is the more views their videos are likely to get as audience members enjoy watching people who act naturally in front of the camera.


S6234 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC) s6234

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)