<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Testing Flickr Video</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.darcynorman.net/2008/04/08/testing-flickr-video/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2008/04/08/testing-flickr-video/</link>
	<description>just a lowly edtech geek, mumble mumble university of calgary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:06:05 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dnorman</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2008/04/08/testing-flickr-video/#comment-180897</link>
		<dc:creator>dnorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=1888#comment-180897</guid>
		<description>If the limit were the result of some technical scalability thing, like that they didn&#039;t want people posting 500MB HD videos, I&#039;d be fine with it.

But they describe the limit as being put in place to save us from boring wedding videos that are too long.

That is Flickr providing aesthetic judgement over materials that haven&#039;t even been posted yet. They don&#039;t do that for any of the photos that are uploaded. Why is video different? Why do they need to be able to save us from boring videos, but not boring photos?

Why do they allow the ugly/tacky/annoying &quot;photo prize&quot; comment spammers to continue with their drivel, but want to be able to enforce that I won&#039;t upload that 1 hour video of waves rolling onto the beach?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the limit were the result of some technical scalability thing, like that they didn&#8217;t want people posting 500MB HD videos, I&#8217;d be fine with it.</p>
<p>But they describe the limit as being put in place to save us from boring wedding videos that are too long.</p>
<p>That is Flickr providing aesthetic judgement over materials that haven&#8217;t even been posted yet. They don&#8217;t do that for any of the photos that are uploaded. Why is video different? Why do they need to be able to save us from boring videos, but not boring photos?</p>
<p>Why do they allow the ugly/tacky/annoying &#8220;photo prize&#8221; comment spammers to continue with their drivel, but want to be able to enforce that I won&#8217;t upload that 1 hour video of waves rolling onto the beach?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2008/04/08/testing-flickr-video/#comment-180896</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=1888#comment-180896</guid>
		<description>I think the 90 second limit makes some sort of sense.  I see them trying to keep the community focus the same as it has been, mainly personal photo sharing. I think flickr has an interest in keeping the video content on their site constrained to mostly unedited small clips from primarily-still cameras.  I don&#039;t know how you really accomplish this. The 90 second limit might a little clumsy, but I can&#039;t think of anything better right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the 90 second limit makes some sort of sense.  I see them trying to keep the community focus the same as it has been, mainly personal photo sharing. I think flickr has an interest in keeping the video content on their site constrained to mostly unedited small clips from primarily-still cameras.  I don&#8217;t know how you really accomplish this. The 90 second limit might a little clumsy, but I can&#8217;t think of anything better right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Shareski</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2008/04/08/testing-flickr-video/#comment-180876</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Shareski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:56:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=1888#comment-180876</guid>
		<description>I actually like the idea. I use youtube for more full featured, edited video but will likely use flickr for the videos I shoot on my still camera. I wonder if they are trying to distinguish themselves from other video sharing sites? I do see your point about possible contradictory concepts but I&#039;m looking forward to housing my video snippets along side my photos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually like the idea. I use youtube for more full featured, edited video but will likely use flickr for the videos I shoot on my still camera. I wonder if they are trying to distinguish themselves from other video sharing sites? I do see your point about possible contradictory concepts but I&#8217;m looking forward to housing my video snippets along side my photos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: And He Blogs &#187; Flickr is to video, as Twitter is to . . .</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2008/04/08/testing-flickr-video/#comment-180864</link>
		<dc:creator>And He Blogs &#187; Flickr is to video, as Twitter is to . . .</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=1888#comment-180864</guid>
		<description>[...] my warped mind. Flickr video only allows 90 seconds worth of whatever you&#8217;ve got. Looks like Darcy&#8217;s reaction was [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] my warped mind. Flickr video only allows 90 seconds worth of whatever you&#8217;ve got. Looks like Darcy&#8217;s reaction was [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
