Yeah, as you two mentioned, it's a bit lengthy. An hour... interesting. The World According to Wikipedia probably didn't need (imo, at least) that many opinions about the events which made have elevated the article(s) in question into the list, but the idea of explaining/checking to see how they made it = good. Overall, not bad imo. – Chacor11:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listening to Episode One (how ominous) right now, and have a suggestion for a minor format change. In this episode, since there are only Tawker and Fuzheado speaking together, things sound less relaxed than they could otherwise be - would it be better, then, to increase the panel to four or five regular speakers, to make the podcast more of a round-table discussion? I'm thinking of something similar to the LUGRadio podcast, where the four speakers speak as in a normal conversation: especially in the very early episodes, it's very comfortable to listen to. That, and it might be easier to produce, since each topic could be explored a little more and fewer topics would have to be found for each episode. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the AAC version of the podcast appears to be encoded at roughly 128kbps VBR. To save bandwidth, this can be reduced to as low as 32kbps without any major loss of quality, since human voices don't require much detail to be listen-able. I'd suggest encoding future episodes at between 32 and 64 kbps. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To reduce file size even more, segments of the show around 5-15 mins long could be formed and cut up into multiple files, for people who want to hear the segment they're interested in while saving bandwidth on both sides. That would also give the panel little breaks to relax a little. - Zero1328Talk?11:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second episode didn't seem to be descriptive enough. For example, references of Jimbo were made but a non-wikipedian or a wikipedian who doesn't follow the community/history well will be wondering, "Who's Jimbo?" When discussing topics it would be helpful to sometimes elaborate on things that the common person may not know. - Zero1328Talk?07:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero1328's comment. I think you guys need to think about who you're aiming the podcast at - is it just Wikipedians? If so, is it established Wikipedians like Tawker and James F., or people who want to learn more about the project? Or is it non-Wikipedians who want to know more about it? Acknowledged, only an old-timer would be interested in some of the things you talked about; however, the casual surfer-by won't have a clue what was going on.
Sum total: Make your audience clearer. You've done a fabulous job, but obviously there's some ironing out to do (hey, it's only Episode 2, you've got plenty of time :) )
On a purely technical note, someone's mic was a little hissy. I listened to it this afternoon, so I can't remember whose it was, but, well, there you go. riana_dzasta14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you looked to register it, but on GoDaddy, .com domains are $8.95 and .org domains are $8.99, so it's just a 4 cent difference. .info, .biz, and .us domains are actually cheaper than .com. Wikipedia itself moved from .com to .org a few years ago to signify its noncommercial status. I've got a Domain Hall of Shame page to "commemorate" misuses of the domain space. *Dan T.*03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, it seems like a bit of a waste to just change domains, since we have the .com variation for at least a year now. I'd be happy to pay for the .org one, though, to which .com could then be forwarded... or, uh, something. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
