New Feature: Video Embedding

[Corran]

So, there isn't any protection from them flooding across the internet through places like MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, Gaia, 4chan, SA, or any of the other 1001 meem-based social collectives, then?

Not really, but if it ever came to it we could rename the files or alter the random numbers present in the embed code. People upload videos to this site to have them seen so it would depend on the situation and the users involved. We won't try to break an embed just because a video gets popular somewhere other than here.

[hasteroth]

So, they couldn't be copy-paste lifted off a "view source" 'd HTML page?

They could.

I am a Nay-sayer again.

[ngsilver]

I decided to actually check out the preview option after reading this announcement, and tested it on my own vids that have been previewed. Nice work on the encode, the preview didn't lag on some of my vids with really fast cuts. I'm impressed, my own encoding didn't even work this well.

As for embedding... I have the space and bandwidth for it, but seriously, these encodes are much nicer then my own so I might just switch to them. Well, for my vids that have been encoded already ^^()

Keep up the good work guys!

[Corran]

So, they couldn't be copy-paste lifted off a "view source" 'd HTML page?

They could.

I am a Nay-sayer again.

You do realize there is nothing any web developer can really do about copy and pasting a web page's html source code right? This is especially true of sites we don't control. I assume Bashar was asking questions he already knew the answer to in order raise everyone else's awareness.

I personally do not share the sentiment that increased visibility is a death knell for the org. It may bring unwanted attention, but if we did nothing to increase the general user base then the org would not be sustainable. The donation drive has helped, but it was temporary.

I also don't agree that embeds will be "flooding across the internet" just because the html source can be viewed/copied/pasted.

[hasteroth]

They could.

I am a Nay-sayer again.

You do realize there is nothing any web developer can really do about copy and pasting a web page's html source code right? This is especially true of sites we don't control. I assume Bashar was asking questions he already knew the answer to in order raise everyone else's awareness.

I personally do not share the sentiment that increased visibility is a death knell for the org. It may bring unwanted attention, but if we did nothing to increase the general user base then the org would not be sustainable. The donation drive has helped, but it was temporary.

I also don't agree that embeds will be "flooding across the internet" just because the html source can be viewed/copied/pasted.

I give up. *Fence-sitting*

[Scintilla]

but if we did nothing to increase the general user base then the org would not be sustainable.

I can understand why this is the first I'm hearing of this (if I was an admin, I wouldn't want to admit it either), but now I'm curious. When did things get to that point?

[Otohiko]

but if we did nothing to increase the general user base then the org would not be sustainable.

I can understand why this is the first I'm hearing of this (if I was an admin, I wouldn't want to admit it either), but now I'm curious. When did things get to that point?

I think they've been at this point for a good 2-3 years or so now. It's just that last year's rather painful upgrades and replacements for the server finally highlighted it and put some heavy, but not at all unexpected financial strain on the .org. Since roughly 2006 the .org's popularity/population has been declining. And you could argue that some of the issues with raising donations go all the way back to 2003 and its commitment to local hosting. Ever since that came in, the .org tied firmly to donations. You can theorize your own conclusions from there, but the fact is that the site needs not only to keep a low profile but also stay in a comfort zone for donations. Which always means attracting some amount of new attention and cementing the "old" attention with new features. I think the fact is that the use of video online has changed drastically over the last 5 years. You can't hope to maintain a membership by sticking with a now-obsolete model, without making for compromises, and without giving up the local hosting which has been both the site's pride-and-joy and ball-n-chain over the last few years. So the trick is to get enough features to stay in a comfort zone and continue attracting new members without going overboard. There are only three scenarios for the .org right now - 1) Stick to 2007-2008-level standards, which are not sustainable if the site's donation levels for 2007-2008 are any indication. Good way to shut down the .org; 2) Forge ahead with new features - possible risks here but nothing concrete, no matter what the critics say; 3) Dispense with local hosting and go back to pre-2003 standards. I think it's obvious what we'd all be losing here...

[Corran]

I can understand why this is the first I'm hearing of this.

There is enough information publicly available for anyone to make inferences. In this thread, Phade mentioned that our operating expenses are $2550. On the donation stats page we've not been hitting that target for some time.

When did things get to that point?

I'm not sure when donations were out paced by expenses but looking at the VCA related graph in this post, I'd guess the trend is relative to the video figures listed. (which falls in line with what Otohiko just mentioned.)

The donation drive has certainly helped. However, the notion that this site must do everything it can to stay obscure in order to exist would likely have the opposite effect.

[jasper-isis]

I can understand why this is the first I'm hearing of this (if I was an admin, I wouldn't want to admit it either), but now I'm curious. When did things get to that point?

You know, some of us have been freely "admitting" this for quite some time now.

There are only three scenarios for the .org right now - 1) Stick to 2007-2008-level standards, which are not sustainable if the site's donation levels for 2007-2008 are any indication. Good way to shut down the .org; 2) Forge ahead with new features - possible risks here but nothing concrete, no matter what the critics say; 3) Dispense with local hosting and go back to pre-2003 standards. I think it's obvious what we'd all be losing here...

Options 1 and 3 are actually the same thing.

I'm in favor of option 4, which entails:
- don't be assholes
- welcome new members
- improve the site with features/policies that are tailored to our needs as an AMV community on a constantly evolving internet
- watch/make/discuss AMVs and be happy.

It's not about funds, it's about attitudes. There is only so much that the administration itself can do.

[LittleAtari]

I'm in favor of option 4, which entails:
- don't be assholes
- welcome new members
- improve the site with features/policies that are tailored to our needs as an AMV community on a constantly evolving internet
- watch/make/discuss AMVs and be happy.

It's not about funds, it's about attitudes. There is only so much that the administration itself can do.

Can I ask for stricter moding when it comes to this? We get a lot new people that come in and may make a little mistake by putting their YT link and then you get a thread of mean and sarcastic remarks. Even saying "what is this boochsack you speak of?" really does harm when you think of how this same member can tell someone what they need to do. I know people should read the rules of a community or lurk it before posting, but I don't think we have that convenience. A lot of major forums usually have similar rules, but the censor of YT here is unique. People will get confused.
Even when it's not about YT, we get threads like this: http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/v ... =2&t=93912 I mean come on this person came here wanting to start making AMVs. They asked a simple question and about only 2 people could give serious answer.