Video posts

[swansont]

The staff has been discussing the uptick in posts that are simply video links, and whether something should be done about this. This is a discussion site, so one of the questions is whether videos actually promote discussion or inhibit it. Is there a difference between videos that start a thread vs ones given in response? Getting the view of the rest of people who view the threads would be useful.

 

My view: I'm not a big fan. A video doesn't afford the opportunity to give it a quick scan to see if is worthy of your attention — the time investment is much greater. It's a poor cousin to the wall-o' text post, which is bad enough, but another issue is when someone is traveling from site to site, just to deliver the same argument, i.e. trolling. There's no additional investment in the discussion when all you've done is post a link (to a video or a document) or pasted a bunch of text, which is one reason such threads generally go nowhere.

 

I would find videos less detrimental if they came with some written discussion, such that the debate could continue even if one did not watch the video.

 

So, what do you think of video posts?

[StringJunky]

I concur, especially with first-timers. Even with long-timers in their opening post I'd like to see a summary of the video posted with it. TBH I ignore threads that start on a video with speech content but might contribute if they put something in writing...I am severely deaf is the reason. It also strikes me as a bit lazy.

[CaptainPanic]

I have some issues with videos:

 

1. I cannot quote a section of the movie, with a beginning and an end, although it is possible to pause a movie, and then link to that moment in the movie...

 

2. Especially when I am on the move (train/airports) my connection is bad. Waiting until a movie starts to play is annoying. Text loads almost instantaneous. Also, it requires that I use ear plugs so I do not annoy other people.

 

3. It is just another external website. I do not see the difference between a youtube movie and a blog (or even commercial website). Our rules, section 2.7 are clear, and prohibit it.

 

 

Videos are great as a source of background information, but should never form the core of any argument, because it is not always possible for me to listen to it.

[Greg H.]

I don't mind the videos per se, but I hate slogging through a ten minute video trying to find the 30 seconds that the person posting it thought was relevant. If someone is going to post a video, it would be helpful if they at least posted a summary of the important parts that support their argument, along with a rough estimation of where in the video they are.

 

For example

 

See the linked video, around 1:35 where Dr. Fugensteinalgab clearly says that the moon is made of cheese and he has the studies to back it up.

 

 

This lets the reader know where in the video the presumed support is, and gives a brief summary of what that support is supposed to be. It also gives us (the reader) an insight into how the poster of the video interpreted the video, which can help identify misconceptions about the science involved.

[Phi for All]

I don't mind videos as a source, as long as there is some written member input as well. Like Greg H., I think narrowing down the pertinent parts shows that you're aiming at relevancy, rather than simply promoting someone else's video views as being similar to yours (I mean, do you really want Dr. Fugensteinalgab to do your talking for you?). Most people handle video linking quite well, especially when the link is to a news story reference as opposed to some kind of editorial perspective they're using to take the place of their own words.

 

There have been a few videos lately that are made by the member, and used exclusively as their opening post. I object to these mostly because there are rarely any responses to replies, and so the video seems like soap-boxing, stating a position with no intent to discuss. And I shudder to think what video replies would even be like. The written medium is usually much more thoughtful than any other while being fairly responsive time-wise as well. These types of videos also seem like they're aimed at increasing hits on YouTube accounts, which is against our rules.

[iNow]

I think this is an issue of courtesy that posters must think about when posting videos, but I'm unsure any rule changes are in order. I agree that text or discussion points should be shared when a video is shared.

 

With that said, I have also personally posted videos with comments that said little more than, "This pretty much speaks for itself." I intentionally avoided specific comments because I wanted people to watch the video then see where the conversation went (i.e. I didn't want to steer the conversation with my own comments or bias the response with my own interpretation and wanted to see how others replied). If people don't feel like watching the video then they also don't have to reply. Not sure it's a terribly big deal, really. If none of my videos generated conversation, I'd probably stop posting them or start adding comments to get conversations rolling.

[JMJones0424]

In my opinion, video links should be treated in the same manner as a link to a lengthy pdf file or a paper with many pages. It is rude, and generally unproductive for discussion, to require members to watch a 45 minute video to see the few minutes pertinent to your discussion. Some direction towards the relevant portion of the video should be included in the post. Note that with youtube videos, if you end the url with the string "&t=xmys", when clicked, the video will start at x minutes and y seconds.

[timo]

Until recently my job involved spending a month of full-time work to write an 8-page article (not counting the time that went into getting the results described therein, of course). My opinion on "here's a link, I don't want to spend my time to add a proper explanation" should be obvious from this. I agree that in this respect a video link is even worse than a link to a text in the sense that it takes even more time to figure if you are actually interested. Consequently, I pretty much never followed a video link posted on sfn.

[Moontanman]

I have mixed feelings about this, I rather like using videos to show a point especially if the video is short and to the point and makes the point much better than I ever could. A case in point is the expanding earth nonsense that keeps popping up, potholer54 has a great video that debunks that nonsense quite well and posting information, the same information, over and over is just tiresome.

 

Videos can also be helpful in getting a point across that is difficult to visualize in text. Some of the videos about evolution are quite useful especially the ones that give a text of what is being said and have links to the sources of the information.

 

Then you have videos that I just like to share, such as the golden crocoduck awards which are just humorous and not intended to start discussions although sometimes they do and then videos like coffee with Claire which I think are kind of like mini news casts about current events surrounding society and science and the people out there who are just batshitcrazy but still manage to influence others.

 

Some videos are very thought provoking by themselves and often generate discussions, i know I have learned quite a bit from various videos by several people, AronRa, Thunderf00t, potholer54, and bretpalmer to name a few.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that videos are increasing in popularity as a means to communicate ideas, I don't see how it would be productive to eliminate them completely, it might even be counter productive over the long term to stop using or allowing them completely.

[swansont]

Another thing to keep in mind is that videos are increasing in popularity as a means to communicate ideas, I don't see how it would be productive to eliminate them completely, it might even be counter productive over the long term to stop using or allowing them completely.

Elimination is not what's being discussed. And if the response had been that everyone thought they were wonderful, I think the staff would accept that. But what I'm seeing is that the opinions that we see here match up pretty well with what we'd already talked about amongst ourselves. Which means that we're not overlooking anything.

 

I also don't think we can come up with any rigid rules, since there are so many different circumstances. We'll have to use judgment, and make sure the guidelines we decide upon are well-advertised.

[Phi for All]

Another thing to keep in mind is that videos are increasing in popularity as a means to communicate ideas, I don't see how it would be productive to eliminate them completely, it might even be counter productive over the long term to stop using or allowing them completely.

I don't think anyone is saying they should be eliminated. They have a function as long as they aid in discussions.

 

I think the key is to make them more effective at that. Kudos to JMJones0424 for the tip on how to zero in on the important bits of imbedded youtube videos. That's a step in the right direction, imo.

 

What I would like to ban is starting threads in the science sections with videos like Smell Explained. If the OP would respond to replies in written format, it might be different, but a video like this is just soapboxing, and would be better as part of a blog. But that's just my opinion, and so far this hasn't happened often. And yes, we already have rules about soapboxing, should the OP fail to show up for replies.

[Bill Angel]

I would agree that videos are a form of canned response, much like copying and pasting of a section from a wikipedia article into a discussion thread. Personally I would not bother participating in a discussion thread if all I had to contribute was the pasting in of a section from someone else's writings, or the embedding of someone else's video. That said, I find it easy enough to ignore such postings by others when they appear in a discussion thread.

[Moontanman]

I don't think anyone is saying they should be eliminated. They have a function as long as they aid in discussions.

 

I think the key is to make them more effective at that. Kudos to JMJones0424 for the tip on how to zero in on the important bits of imbedded youtube videos. That's a step in the right direction, imo.

 

What I would like to ban is starting threads in the science sections with videos like Smell Explained. If the OP would respond to replies in written format, it might be different, but a video like this is just soapboxing, and would be better as part of a blog. But that's just my opinion, and so far this hasn't happened often. And yes, we already have rules about soapboxing, should the OP fail to show up for replies.

 

I'm not sure why you and SwansonT thought I was suggesting that I thought videos were going to be eliminated, I was just saying that I thought not allowing them would be a bad idea possibly my ability to communicate was somewhat off the mark with that remark...

 

But I will agree that some guidelines are a good idea, I would hate to see threads degenerate into dueling videos...

 

While I do occasionally use a video to make a point I do agree that simply posting a video is more like soap boxing than discussing... unless of course the video it's self is what is meant to be discussed. I do not like the very long videos being used as talking points or evidence, if it's more than few minutes long I need to understand why it is important to watch the video at the very least.

 

I have to ask, what about the posting of videos as items of interest? Videos like Coffee with Claire or the Golden Crocoduck awards are for the most part just general interest items that can be watched or not watched as the forum likes, does anyone have a problem with videos of that nature being posted?

[Phi for All]

I have to ask, what about the posting of videos as items of interest? Videos like Coffee with Claire or the Golden Crocoduck awards are for the most part just general interest items that can be watched or not watched as the forum likes, does anyone have a problem with videos of that nature being posted?

If there is something in the videos that you want to discuss, I think it's fine to link to them. If it's just "Hey, this is really good, have a look", well, we're all capable of surfing on our own, no offense.

 

Me, I'm much more interested in what Moontanman and other SFN members have to say about the variety of subjects we discuss here. I can get unchallenged opinion lots of places. I can only get discussion with this particular international group of high-caliber intellects here at SFN.

[Royston]

I think this is an issue of courtesy that posters must think about when posting videos, but I'm unsure any rule changes are in order.

 

There shouldn't be any rule changes due to the fact that posting a video is no different to posting a body of text i.e it is a discussion (and funnily enough a Science) forum, you should read/watch then come up with your own conclusions to present an argument.

 

I happen to agree with this...http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/irretreat2011/read/2009_schawinski_b.pdf. But so what...unless I narrow down the specifics, then it muddies the discussion.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Royston

[swansont]

A recent resurgence of videos has stirred some more staff discussion.

 

The consensus is that videos, especially long ones, as a response/rebuttal to a point, are to be discouraged if they are not accompanied by some kind of summary of the points. We don't wish to exclude the participation of people who don't have the time or ability to view them (e.g. on a mobile device, or a work computer that blocks videos, even on your lunch break).

 

We are NOT banning videos outright. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to see if they violate the spirit (or letter) of rule #8

"Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them."

 

Basically what this is announcing that we've decided that, as an example, a 30 min video posted by itself, to make or rebut a point in a thread, is a barrier to discussion. As will other rules violations, you can be warned about this (and asked to include some commentary), and/or the staff have the option of removing the post, depending on the circumstances.

[Phi for All]

The two changes I'd like to see are:

 

1) No more "this sums ups exactly what I want to say so I'm just going to keep referring you back to it" videos. Point to certain bits, or link the video but perhaps quote the parts that are particularly relevant, that's OK. The arguments a video presents are not evidence in and of themselves but are usually based on real evidence at some point. I personally feel that rigor demands I at least put thoughts I learn from others into my own writing style. And it's the style of others that I come here to read as well.

 

2) No more "I'm just going to film myself asking what I would normally ask in print" videos. Remember that this type of discussion forum is a very loose type of peer-review. It's important for everyone involved to be understood, and for ideas to be picked apart to remove what's bad and let the good continue. It's very hard to do that with a video. You have to keep repeating the video to make sure you quote the person correctly, and I feel it's too much to ask to strip our convenient quote tags and copy/paste capabilities away to make it more convenient for those with cameras. And I admit that part of me thinks I'm being used to drive up You-tube hits, especially when I have to replay a video several times to pick out certain arguments.

 

If I just want a story, I can watch the movie. If I want to enjoy a story by the great Moontanman or timo or Bill Angel, I'd rather read the book.

 

As swansont mentions, we don't need new rules since soapboxing is already covered. Link to a video, use it to support your stance, but the video shouldn't be pointed to ad nauseam, "see my link in post #X", in further responses. And the whole stream-of-consciousness video rant just has to stop. Can you imagine if people started replying in video too? Gah!

[studiot]

With regard to the blog, which led me here, I thoroughly enjoyed the thread on Bohemian Gravity.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78785-bohemian-gravity/?hl=%2Bbohemian+%2Bgravity

 

However I don't see any essential difference between this piece of pure entertainment and any other non interactive presentation.

[swansont]

With regard to the blog, which led me here, I thoroughly enjoyed the thread on Bohemian Gravity.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78785-bohemian-gravity/?hl=%2Bbohemian+%2Bgravity

 

However I don't see any essential difference between this piece of pure entertainment and any other non interactive presentation.

 

Posts that go into the Lounge would generally be exempt, although a brief description would still be nice. There's really no back-and-forth expected there.

 

The area of concern really is speculations, where people are posting links to really long videos as a form of argument, and not including any discussion.

[swansont]

New policy officially posted

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78946-video-post-policy/

Edited February 19, 2014 by hypervalent_iodine
Fixing broken link

[iNow]

New policy officially posted

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80989-new-policy-concerning-video-pictures-and-links/

FYI - This link is now broken for some reason...

[hypervalent_iodine]

FYI - This link is now broken for some reason...

 

 

I'll edit it to reflect the correct link, one sec.

 

Edit: done! The link should work now.

[iNow]

Thanks, HI.

[K Sky]

I have mixed feelings about this, I rather like using videos to show a point especially if the video is short and to the point and makes the point much better than I ever could.

 

I also don't think we can come up with any rigid rules, since there are so many different circumstances. We'll have to use judgment, and make sure the guidelines we decide upon are well-advertised.

 

 

Thank you for the guidelines. I see how many posts the senior members hold. The forums on this site are interesting, and I enjoy writing responses. In future, when more mathematically educated, I have questions for topic. Thanks for the clarifications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub1Dc3NHZ3s