f



AOL video.aol.com commericals and strategies

I sort of like the AOL video commericals.

But commericals are one thing and computing experince is another.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that AOL's videos play nicely
on a Mac. The resolution is good. What's missing, though is a link that
lets me download the video to my iPod.

Vids at AOL look much better than at youtube (which isn't saying much).

And there is less clutter at AOL than there is at yahoo (where before
most vids you have to wait through a bank commercial)

And for what it is, a site where you search for videos and play them
back, video.aol.com gets the job done.

The grid/list/detail switch is nice.

But to me, it seems that AOL is playing catch up and, mostly, is
throwing money away. (Their problem is that they continue to see the
world through the eyes of overpaid PC oriented executives.)

Here is where AOL has it wrong:

1. No original content

In today's world where making a video podcast is as easy turning on
your computer, your iSight, and clicking on record (in Recorder  for
Mac cost just $10) why doesn't AOL sign up a few celebrities and
produce some original content? Like E!.

Some bands  use their own resources to keep their myspace pages fresh,
so why not pay them for their trouble  in return for access to their
content?

Videos are a natural mechanism to keep fans up to date on up coming
concerts, sustain interest between CDs, and generate buzz. But AOL
isn't participating.

2. Old content

Search "Hilary Duff, Alice Cooper, GreenDay, or U2" for  example, most
of the links point to content that was generated over a year ago. (It
pisses me off to see "Lost In America" being one of the top Coop links
considering that vid was made in the 80s! Anything on Brutal Planet, or
more recently would be way friggin better than that. I mean. COME ON!)

3. Clutter.

Example, I clicked on a U2 video, and placed below the 240x340 (small
sized) video were 50 links to "Also In Video". That content is really
misplaced. Wouldn't a more natural place for that content be on a
portlet on the home page?

4. Non existent user community.

This is where myspace really gets it right - with the friend thing. But
also, with AOL, there isn't even a connection to the usenet.

I mean, how hard would it be to place a few newsfeeding machines on the
internet and to add a few new aol newsgroup? (Even I could do that.)

5. Not engaging enough for people to hang out.

OK. You seen old videos of your favorite artists. What's next? Leave
aol.com

AOL stands out as a go-it-alone site that lacks the human touch of even
a good one person blog.

.....

Finally, for all you WinTrolls, I conceed that Microsoft's live.com
will overtake aol.com. (And you thought I was a  MacTroll.)

0
1/1/2007 7:52:14 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

9 Replies
15771 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49

Download video from YouTube to iPod

>>> Absolutely FREE >>>

http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/guides/dvd/convert-YouTube-FLV-video-to-iPod-MP4-video.htm

0
1/1/2007 10:50:18 PM
Thanks Alex,

Nice tool. And it's great that it's free.

AOL could do just a little and improve upon youtube a lot. As a web
site Youtube is not really very well thought through.


Problems with youtube:

1. Moderation model is based upon users instead of real moderators
(people). For example, you sometimes can't find posts by professional
journalists like Michelle Malkin eventhough she has her own group of
over 1000 listeners.

2. Resolution and quality of videos is poor

3. No local angle

4. Default search results are by relevant instead of by date (so by
default search results remain the same from day to day)

5. Off topic spam.

AOL could improve upon youtube in all catagories above. Dealing with
item one would allow users to maintain their own kill files.

Item 3 is the key. AOL could have a human become an expert in, say 10
locations of 500,000 people or more. They could compile calendars of
performances and encourage fans to submit reviews. If AOL put 20
dedicated humans on the project the site would be a big hit.


Both AOL and youtube could do much better if they made their search
results available as StarTrees. You're wondering what's that, so if
your curious check out inxight.com or
http://nsdl.org/browse/ataglance/browseBySubject_netmac.html.


But sadly, I fathom that AOL is focusing mostly upon what it can do to
get purchased by Microsoft rather than upon making cool web sites.

0
1/1/2007 11:33:32 PM
In article <1167694412.377006.203200@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com wrote:

> Thanks Alex,
> 
> Nice tool. And it's great that it's free.
> 
> AOL could do just a little and improve upon youtube a lot. As a web
> site Youtube is not really very well thought through.

I'm sure our resident web "pro" Michael Glasser could give them a hint 
on ho wto make it uglier :-D


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/2/2007 9:32:11 AM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-A6AC52.10321102012007@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/07 2:32 AM:

> In article <1167694412.377006.203200@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Alex,
>> 
>> Nice tool. And it's great that it's free.
>> 
>> AOL could do just a little and improve upon youtube a lot. As a web
>> site Youtube is not really very well thought through.
> 
> I'm sure our resident web "pro" Michael Glasser could give them a hint
> on ho wto make it uglier :-D
> 
Damn, Sandman, you just can't let go that:

1) You changed your site in ways consistent with my suggestions for you
2) You, someone who claims to be a pro, has so much trouble getting your
   CSS and HTML to validate

And before you deny it... remember, from a past post:

-----
* You claim I am not an instructor
* You claim I flooded your site

Please post your best support.

Since both of your claims are lies, however, you are right that I cannot
think of *anything* you could do to support such dishonesty.  I welcome you
proving me wrong.  And, face it Sandman, if you could you would.  :)

Here is an example of support for an accusation, in this case the accusation
that you lied about your CSS validating when it did not:

* Direct PDF "printout" from the CSS validation services:
  <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_css.jpg>
  (I also point out his bad html:
  <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_html.jpg>)
* I pointed out the Google archive and the WayBackMachine showing his
  faulty CSS here: 
 <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e758896e0b579f64>
* Reading Sandman's reply, he makes no claim that the code snippets or
  the links I provided were in any way incorrect.  In the same thread I
  repeatedly point out how both the WayBackMachine and the Google record
  prove my claim about his CSS, and he never is willing to even talk about
  that, continually running.

I offer other support for more of Sandman's related lies in the same thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/f07f
21c76c0176c5/>  (the thread is relatively short, less than 30 posts).
----

All you can do is run like the scared little troll that you are.

-- 
� The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
� Things which are not the same are not "identical"
��The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.



0
SNIT1 (7401)
1/2/2007 1:09:30 PM
In article <C1BFA79A.6E176%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:

> >> Thanks Alex,
> >> 
> >> Nice tool. And it's great that it's free.
> >> 
> >> AOL could do just a little and improve upon youtube a lot. As a web
> >> site Youtube is not really very well thought through.
> > 
> > I'm sure our resident web "pro" Michael Glasser could give them a hint
> > on ho wto make it uglier :-D
> > 
> Damn, Sandman, you just can't let go that:
> 
> 1) You changed your site in ways consistent with my suggestions for you
> 2) You, someone who claims to be a pro, has so much trouble getting your
>    CSS and HTML to validate

I have no problem "letting" either of the above two lies from you 
"go". I've ignored them many times. In the mean time, you've been 
trying to take credit for my sites, while claiming you are a 
professional web developer when all your sites look like shit, you 
didn't get any "observations" of my sites correct and you have been 
lying and arguing against the google record since then. It's been a 
fun show to say the least.

> You claim I flooded your site
> 
> Please post your best support.

I can only post proof. But you have yet to provide a description of 
what you would accept as support. Once you do, the proof will be made 
available to you. If you can't tell me what you would accept as 
support, stop asking for support. I can fully support and prove the 
fact that you flooded my site almost three hundred thousand times, but 
since you are a troll, I am certain that you would ignore the proof, 
like you ignored the proof that you're sigmond and that you forged the 
PDF, to mention a few times you've neglected to accept facts as facts.

So, tell me what you would accept as support that my claim is true.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/2/2007 1:51:50 PM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-37743A.14515002012007@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/07 6:51 AM:

> In article <C1BFA79A.6E176%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>  Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> 
>>>> Thanks Alex,
>>>> 
>>>> Nice tool. And it's great that it's free.
>>>> 
>>>> AOL could do just a little and improve upon youtube a lot. As a web
>>>> site Youtube is not really very well thought through.
>>> 
>>> I'm sure our resident web "pro" Michael Glasser could give them a hint
>>> on ho wto make it uglier :-D
>>> 
>> Damn, Sandman, you just can't let go that:
>> 
>> 1) You changed your site in ways consistent with my suggestions for you
>> 2) You, someone who claims to be a pro, has so much trouble getting your
>>    CSS and HTML to validate
> 
> I have no problem "letting" either of the above two lies from you
> "go". I've ignored them many times. In the mean time, you've been
> trying to take credit for my sites, while claiming you are a
> professional web developer when all your sites look like shit, you
> didn't get any "observations" of my sites correct and you have been
> lying and arguing against the google record since then. It's been a
> fun show to say the least.
> 
>> You claim I flooded your site
>> 
>> Please post your best support.
> 
> I can only post proof. But you have yet to provide a description of
> what you would accept as support. Once you do, the proof will be made
> available to you. If you can't tell me what you would accept as
> support, stop asking for support. I can fully support and prove the
> fact that you flooded my site almost three hundred thousand times, but
> since you are a troll, I am certain that you would ignore the proof,
> like you ignored the proof that you're sigmond and that you forged the
> PDF, to mention a few times you've neglected to accept facts as facts.
> 
> So, tell me what you would accept as support that my claim is true.

Your dishonest snipping and lying and babbling are all noted.

-- 
� Nuclear arms are arms
��OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
��Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing

0
SNIT1 (7401)
1/2/2007 2:03:30 PM
In article <C1BFB442.6E185%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:

> >> Damn, Sandman, you just can't let go that:
> >> 
> >> 1) You changed your site in ways consistent with my suggestions for you
> >> 2) You, someone who claims to be a pro, has so much trouble getting your
> >>    CSS and HTML to validate
> > 
> > I have no problem "letting" either of the above two lies from you
> > "go". I've ignored them many times. In the mean time, you've been
> > trying to take credit for my sites, while claiming you are a
> > professional web developer when all your sites look like shit, you
> > didn't get any "observations" of my sites correct and you have been
> > lying and arguing against the google record since then. It's been a
> > fun show to say the least.

Michael Glasser has no response to the above facts, and runs.

> >> You claim I flooded your site
> >> 
> >> Please post your best support.
> > 
> > I can only post proof. But you have yet to provide a description of
> > what you would accept as support. Once you do, the proof will be made
> > available to you. If you can't tell me what you would accept as
> > support, stop asking for support. I can fully support and prove the
> > fact that you flooded my site almost three hundred thousand times, but
> > since you are a troll, I am certain that you would ignore the proof,
> > like you ignored the proof that you're sigmond and that you forged the
> > PDF, to mention a few times you've neglected to accept facts as facts.
> > 
> > So, tell me what you would accept as support that my claim is true.

Michael Glasser has no response to the above facts, and runs:

> Your dishonest snipping and lying and babbling are all noted.

Michael runs from facts again. I win again. This is becoming way too 
easy.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/2/2007 2:19:14 PM
In article <C1BFB442.6E185%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:

> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-37743A.14515002012007@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/07 6:51 AM:
> 
> > In article <C1BFA79A.6E176%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> >  Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> Thanks Alex,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Nice tool. And it's great that it's free.
> >>>> 
> >>>> AOL could do just a little and improve upon youtube a lot. As a web
> >>>> site Youtube is not really very well thought through.
> >>> 
> >>> I'm sure our resident web "pro" Michael Glasser could give them a hint
> >>> on ho wto make it uglier :-D
> >>> 
> >> Damn, Sandman, you just can't let go that:
> >> 
> >> 1) You changed your site in ways consistent with my suggestions for you
> >> 2) You, someone who claims to be a pro, has so much trouble getting your
> >>    CSS and HTML to validate
> > 
> > I have no problem "letting" either of the above two lies from you
> > "go". I've ignored them many times. In the mean time, you've been
> > trying to take credit for my sites, while claiming you are a
> > professional web developer when all your sites look like shit, you
> > didn't get any "observations" of my sites correct and you have been
> > lying and arguing against the google record since then. It's been a
> > fun show to say the least.
> > 
> >> You claim I flooded your site
> >> 
> >> Please post your best support.
> > 
> > I can only post proof. But you have yet to provide a description of
> > what you would accept as support. Once you do, the proof will be made
> > available to you. If you can't tell me what you would accept as
> > support, stop asking for support. I can fully support and prove the
> > fact that you flooded my site almost three hundred thousand times, but
> > since you are a troll, I am certain that you would ignore the proof,
> > like you ignored the proof that you're sigmond and that you forged the
> > PDF, to mention a few times you've neglected to accept facts as facts.
> > 
> > So, tell me what you would accept as support that my claim is true.
> 
> Your dishonest snipping and lying and babbling are all noted.

And michael glasser runs away again. so typical.

-- 
regarding Snit  "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, 
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting 
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
0
Tim
1/2/2007 10:04:44 PM
Another think AOL could do is have a netcast where a human tells
subscribers what's been added during the week.

They probably have a person on their staff whose job it is to know this
anyhow. Why not ask him to host a show? (Or that guy and his
assistant?)

That is, AOL needs the equivalent of "New Music Tuesdays" and it would
help if a human fielded calls and answered questions through the
netcast. This might be a prefered option to moderated groups (since
right now users can't leave feedback of any kind.)

Also, right now there is some sort of issue where you click on one
video but end up viewing a different video. Sad.

0
1/5/2007 6:51:01 AM
Reply: