Talk:Video hosting service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ĝ

WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Are we honestly suggesting that wikipedia is a video hosting service?[edit]

Seriously, this article is a joke. YouTube, Akamai and Wikipedia? There are hundreds of better video hosting services than these three suggestions. Google Video? Vitalstream? Ninesystems? Why is forbidden.co.uk and pro.forscene gravlab et al. even mentioned? These are regional obscure carriers, at best.

Deleting all of this as linkspam. This article needs to be deleted. (unsigned comment)

This is a stub for expanding. Why don't you add some serious hosting services in instead of / as well as the three you've deleted? Stephen B Streater 06:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of video hosting services[edit]

It would be good to have some examples, within the context of WP:EL ie this is not a place to advertise and external links should only be included when they contain useful information about the subject. Here are some examples which spring to mind:

  • YouTube is probably the most popular at the moment. (Alexa rank 22)
  • Akamai Technologies is one of the most famous content caching companies. (Alex rank 8645)
  • FORscene, my company's own product, incorporates video hosting and is a European example. (Not registered in Alexa because of the use of iframes)

If there are other products which meet the notability guidelines, please add a relevant article and we'll add them in to this prototype list. Stephen B Streater 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For comparison,

  • www.forbidden.co.uk, which makes FORscene, is currently ranked 414,314.
  • pro.forscene.net which serves FORscene has no Alexa data as professional users are not allowed to run Alexa. Each big production will typically upload about 2,500 minutes a day, compared with YouTube's 40,000 "clips". Productions run concurrently.
  • www.gravlab.com is currently ranked 879,401.

My feeling is there are quite a few video hosting companies between Akamai and Forbidden. The only place to include FORscene would be as an interesting addition to the article itself because of the unusual additional facilities it provides. Stephen B Streater 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the FORscene ones in as they are relevant to WP videos, but other editors may not think this is important to the article, which covers a much bigger area. Stephen B Streater 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"See also" section[edit]

62.168.125.219 insists on adding three links to non-existing articles to the "See also" section. This defeats the whole purpose of this section, since readers can't see the articles. I don't want to hit my 3RR, so perhaps 62.168.125.219 will explain why we should redefine "See also" in this case. Haakon 10:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What is difference of Video hosting service and Video sharing service?[edit]

Lotus L-12 - 06:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I don't think there is a real difference. According to wikipedia, YouTube and Metacafe are both video sharing sites, but YouTube links to Video hosting service and Metacafe to Video sharing. So I suppose there is no need to maintain theese two separate articles: Talk:Video_sharing Gregorio (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Move[edit]

What is the point of the move/split? The new "commercial" article is hardly even a stub and the "consumer" article is not long. If anything the one article Video hosting service could have two sections. no need to move... 16x9 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As per the guidelines at WP:SPLIT, an article with this length doesn't warrent splitting on that alone, and I propose that, based on the spirit of WP:NAD, these pages should be remerged. Was there any discussion prior to this split? ShakingSpirittalk 09:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I can find no discussion. I added a comment to the user talk page to comment here. I think it has to do with a company article the user is trying to create that is a "video hosting service" for "commercial" purposes. I think the two articles need to be speedy merged. 16x9 (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As there's been no opposal, and the user who originally split it hasn't comment, I will now revert this. ShakingSpirittalk 13:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you revert it or does an administrator need to do so? 16x9 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
An admin will need to axe the disambig page as G6 so we can keep the page history, then we can move it back and cleanup the mess. ShakingSpirittalk 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I put in a move request yesterday, but that seems to be the slowest moving maintenance process ever. 16x9 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved back and pointed everything to back where it should be ShakingSpirittalk 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Need more links[edit]

How to make you own Video hosting service and Video sharing service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.178.162 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Online Video Redirects to Video Hosting Service?[edit]

Online Video has now become a multi-billion dollar industry and is a key component for many successful companies, with 'video hosting service' being just a tiny fraction of the topic. I think there should be a page dedicated to 'online video' that discusses the industry as well as some of the best practices (i.e. amateur, professional, etc.) and highlights some companies that are a part of it (i.e. YouTube) --Mstigall (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get any clarification on this?

I would think that "online video" is now a vague term that includes live video, commercial Video on demand such as what NetFlix is now doing, maybe a more general subject like streaming media. It turned it into a disambiguation page.--Peterclancy (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking of obvious words[edit]

Regarding the last change, do we really need, "upload", "internet" and "website" linked? I would think if you are reading this on wikipedia at the very least internet and website are self evident. Surely it's easier to read if you don't link every single base word?

If no objections I'm going to remove this. Omandias (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's easier to read with less links. I suggest that we keep "upload" and "video clips" linked since they are the central concepts to this article. Thank you - Etiaetia1020 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I was going to to remove video clips too, and update the content. Many video hosting sites now take full videos. We're way beyond that days of when YouTube launched and everything was 10m segments and clips. I'll leave upload in, although personally I think it's a bit superfluous, especially if you read the upload entry, which is rather weak. Omandias (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's right that now many video hosting websites take full videos, not just short clips of video. I think update the content of the article is a good way to go. Thank you. - Etiaetia1020 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. I think that's a lot more update about what really happens these days. -Omandias (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)