Talk:Video podcast

Requested move

Vodcast → Video podcast – {Agreed upon in talk page. New name is more commonly used and *much* more popular on google.Ehdrive 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose Video Podcasts for the most part are (or should be) specifically designed for Ipods; this is a completely different meaning from "video clip" Support Currently, "video podcast" redirects to this main article named "vodcast". From the table above, I gather that "Video podcast" is the most popular term (and nobody objects that those two refer to the same thing). I think it would make very much sense to move the the article to "Video podcast" and redirect "vodcast" there.

• Easier to understand when using the more popular term
• We regularly use the most easy to understand and popular term in the wikipedia to refer to things, not the shortest one
• Wouldn't change any way people interact with the article when using redirects

What does everybody think? Peter S. 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer that. Video podcast is the more usual term, even if the meanings are distinct. Stephen B Streater 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think I just vodcast in my mouth a little. (Um, why are there votes before the RM was posted?) --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  Someone had started the survey without using offical tags etc so I added the tags.70.29.156.229 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, seems to be the more common term. Recury 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, strongly. --Haakon 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, sure its not just some minority group of dumb americans who call it that? Never heard the term "video podcast" before. Everyone else calls it by its real name "vodcast" (when the BBC promotes their products as vodcasts, then that is the name that will stick.) IceHunter 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, vodcast is a non-starter. Term should be specifically for iPod-compatible video series that are subscribable via RSS.Wwwhatsup 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support with reservations, Unless you are being specific for technical reasons, it would be simpler just to refer to video podcasts as 'videos' using plain English. Vodcasts is an outmoded term now that most peole who use the web regularly understand you can download both audio and video files to your computer etc - and it only came out of differentiating if from podcasts so vodcast is a playful, but unnecessary term.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There is a theory that video podcast and vodcast are not the same. [1] I don't have a reliable source for this either way. Stephen B Streater 14:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about that discussion. Currently, both terms link to the same article, one of the terms is also the main article title. My proposal is to just take the other term for the main article title. No big deal. Peter S. 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc

Some of this article seems blatant advertising (WHICH baptist church?). 213.84.239.37 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be folded in with the vlog article? Aren't video blogging, vodcasting, and video podcasting just subcategories of RSS video delivery?

Changed line about Tiki Bar tv being released in March 2005 on iTunes. iTunes didn't support podcasts or video until June of 2005. Tiki Bar TV was started in March but only existed as a Video Blog and was not available on iTunes until June.

What about the popular term Steve Jobs refers to... Vidcasting!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.148.252 (talk • contribs)

Merge requested

The following terms should point to the same article: video podcast, videopodcast, vidcast, vodcast, vcast, video blog, videoblog, vlog, video podcasting, videopodcasting, vidcasting, vodcasting, vcasting, video blogging, videoblogging, vlogging (Update: boldified direct links to non-redirect articles. --Tokek 07:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)) --Tokek 06:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree heartily (except you don't need to create new articles to redirect to the proper one if they don't exist already). The problem seems to be that "vlog" and "vodcast" were "invented" in two different camps, and although they denote the same thing (if you think they don't, come on), the type of people who come up with these horrible contorted terms do not let go of them easily and think they are some kind of neat inventions (see: the histories of the "History" sections). That's why "video podcast", "vlog" and "vodcast" are all common terms for the same concept. I hope we can merge them though, it's the only thing that makes sense. Haakon 09:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging would be fine... except their should still be a comment about the distinction. I dont buy the "horrible contorted terms are thought to be neat inventions" argument because it comes down to language and loosely defined terms that can be used to help explain specific aspects of the online DV distribution processes. The reason why a vodcast is deemed a seperate component of such a process is because a blog does not require RSS syndication to be a blog.... a videoblog is a blog with links to and embedded videos as the primary content of each post. A vodcast is the term used for those that want to syndicate their video outward onto aggregator sites and for synching onto client-side applications like fireant and itunes and optionally onto mobile devices like video iPods and other portable media players. A videoblog can include a vodcast channel. If it doesnt, it still is a videoblog. likewise, a vodcast does not require a blog to even exist, though it is recommended. "VODCASTS are Internet Video On Demand Channels." vlogs are video blogs.

I happen to be someone who is from the videoblogging so-called 'camp' but have been promoting the use of the term 'vodcast' since March 05 with similar explanation to what i have added here. I maintain a videoblog directory -vlogdir.com so you can see how the distinction plays out in such an environment. If that last comment is deemed self-promotion or whatever, be my guest and yank it. sull

Video podcast now points to vodcast instead of vlog. I've added video podcasting to the list of articles that might need to be merged. I see now the difference between vidcast and videoblog - it sounds just like the difference between mp3 blog and podcast. I agree that a clear distinction should be made, whether the two articles remain split or merged. I've found pretty high Google counts for each of the terms I listed above. I think one of the benefits of redirects is that it can prevent a user from creating yet another article on the same topic.--Tokek 09:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Content moved from Talk:Vlog

Don't merge. Steve Garfield

I agree, don't merge. "Vodcast" is a term used only by 1 company, as far as I know, not by any community of people. PeterVanDijck

I've been vlogging since last year and I've often used the term vodcast. I know it's not popular. I've never really been comfortable with the term vlog. Frankly, I think the sheer descriptive force of the term video podcast is going to win out ultimately. Anyway, I think vodcast should be merged with vlog/videoblog. Oed 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No merge. I've rarely heard the term vodcast and I produce and consume a lot of vlogs. Ekai 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(end moved content)

My original merge request did not specify what the title of the new merged article should be. Hence if "vodcast" is an unfavorable title, then don't choose that, I wasn't recommending a specific title to begin with. I've created a separate article called VODcast (SeaChange) to deal with the above mentioned trademarked term. Different people have been referring to more or less the same thing as vlog, video blog, videocast, etc. etc. Perhaps here hasn't been as much consensus on the Internet as some believe. —Tokek 05:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article histories, it appears that the two articles were merged into Vlog on March 2006 by Ashibaka, but Vodcast was subsequently resurrected by an anonymous IP's revert. —Tokek 05:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

don't merge

There is a big difference between a vodcast and a vlog. Therefore both Wikipedia entries should not be merged. A Vlog is a personal bulleting like a blog, but then with video. Mostly a html site, sometimes with rss. A vodcast is a TV-channel with on-demand video titles, built by pro-users or broadcasters, mostly an rss but not a website. To keep the distinction, vlog and vodcast should keep their own pages. (cross posted this to vlog talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.22.113 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have written an article for SeaChange's VODcast technology and Vodcast (disambiguation). I find use of the term vodcast to be problematic because it is ambiguous. I'm still undecided/neutral on whether or not video blog and video podcast should be separate articles. Web feeds are usually a feasible and convenient feature to add to video blogs anyway, from what I understand. Four terms are used: video podcast, video blog, video on demand -cast (internet), and video on demand -cast (VODcast, a trademarked multicasting technology). The first three terms can exist in one, two, or three separate articles, but the fourth term (VODcast) is definitely unrelated. --Tokek 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

SeaChange's trademark is USA only, not international. In the Netherlands, VODcast is trademarked too, by vodcast.nl, referring to ondemand TV channels. If you search Google for 'vodcast', there is second to none article on Seachange's vodcast, but almost all articles are related to video blogging, video podcasts or (as I think it covers best) on-demand rss TV channels. IMHO we can have separate articles on all four subjects, and clear out the differences and correct terms. Even Apple uses incorrect terms. I can understand that iTunes and iPod use Video Podcasts, but in Front Row Vodcast makes more sense...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I will try to make changes to reflect that fact at Vodcast (disambiguation). By the way, could you please add a signature after your edits in the future? Sometimes I get a feeling that vodcast.nl is using Wikipedia to promote their website and their term VODcast. What they describe as a VODcast sounds like what Apple calls a video podcast. If that's the case, and there's no difference in what the two terms are describing, then I don't see why they should have separate articles. vodcast.nl's description uses "TV channels" as an analogy but I don't think it's likely that VODcasts are technically classified as TV channels.--Tokek 07:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, there is a difference where video podcasting is aimed at the iPod (hence video "POD"casting), where VODcasting is aimed at any media device (portables, desktops, TV's) that is able to subscribe to RSS feeds (the reference to TV channels = casts) and see Video On Demand ( = VOD) titles. Two different applications who share some technology (RSS) but not all (streaming is promoted as well instead of downloads, and one can imagine that a Windows Media Video decoding settopbox can be fed with WMV encoded content instead of MPEG-4). Perhaps vodcast.nl is using the page, consider that they introduced and promoted vodcasting (or video podcasting as Apple named it) prior to Apple, and have had good influence on other people starting to use and and improving the concept. If one has unique expertise on a subject he/she can (should! ;) post it on Wikipedia, unless he deletes others or makes his role bigger than it actually is of course. Which IMHO is not the case. Credits to who deserve them. No less no more. (The name is Martijn.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs)

Don't merge. Delete!

Check out the War on blogs we could use your votes. -- Femmina 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious right? What's got this to do with blogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs)

Don't merge, vodcasting is a technology, a vlog is a website that may use vodcasting. This is like arguing podcasting and blogs should be merged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.218.34 (talk • contribs)

Do not merge. These mean different things but are very closely related. Why don't you guys do ..what you do? Have the distinct entities keep different definitions, have them "see also" each other, whilst in each definition emphasize the differentiating factor between them all (ie: "not to be confused with" "similar to ___but" "also called" "also known as" "also called __by such-n-such company" etc.----Kim-design student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.68.71.189 (talk • contribs)

---

Merge request removed, it's obvious that VLOG and VODcast are totally different applications and different technology as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.250.42 (talk • contribs)

Vcast

Vcast also refers to a technology for streaming data to mobile phones that may have nothing to do with video (some games use it for instance): http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=vcast_technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.18.224 (talk • contribs)

Verizon's technology has now been mentioned at Vcast, which is now a disambig page.—Tokek 06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Google count

My original request was that articles referring to the same topic be merged. I wasn't advocating any title if there was a merge to take place. However, if it turns out that these terms are indeed referring to the same thing, and trivial cases such as minor trademark issues can be resolved with disambiguation pages, then some people may be interested in Google counts. So here they are, from highest to lowest:

Google search term	search count	English results only
"video podcast"|"video podcasting"	6,090,000 [2]	5,210,000 [3]
vlog|vlogging	5,420,000	4,380,000
"video blog"|"video blogging"	4,280,000	3,610,000
"videoblog"|"videoblogging"	3,910,000	2,490,000
vodcast|vodcasting	2,720,000	864,000
videocast|videocasting	2,000,000	2,110,000
vidcast|vidcasting	613,000	511,000
"video cast"|"video casting"	463,000	378,000
vcast|vcasting	287,000	235,000
videopodcast|videopodcasting	204,000	49,300

Above: note the lack of vodcast hits for the English only search in the third column.

Dutch count

Since I am not familiar with the Dutch language, I avoided counting the "-ing" variations, which weren't affecting counts by a great deal anyway.

vodcast[4]	324,000
"video podcast"	71,200
videoblog	51,100
vlog	38,600
vidcast	35,700
videocast	11,200
"video blog"	895
vcast	360
videopodcast	331
"video cast"	323

—Tokek 07:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Vodcast(Video Podcast) and Vlog(Video Blog)

Tokek, it seems that you are not familiar with how democratic decision making works, the majority already concluded that vodcast (a video podcast) and vlog (a video blog) are different applications and different technology as well. That is why your merge request is removed, so stop vandalism the articles with your own ideas which apparently don't stroke with the consensus.

There is a big difference between a vodcast and a vlog. Therefore both Wikipedia entries should not be merged. A Vlog is a personal bulleting like a blog, but then with video. Mostly a html site, sometimes with rss. A vodcast is a TV-channel with on-demand video titles, built by pro-users or broadcasters, mostly an rss but not a website. To keep the distinction, vlog and vodcast should keep their own pages. -- 11:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You can read up on policy pages to find out how decisions are made by votes on Wikipedia. There are rules against sockpuppeting on deletion requests, for example.

The "TV channel" explanation was given to me by an anonymous with Dutch IP address a while back, as you can see on this page, and it is the description given at vodcast.nl. However, vodcasts don't work on TV, but they're for computers, and the video is retrieved via the Internet. So it seems like the "TV channel" explanation is an analogy and vodcasts don't actually work with TVs. "TV channels" can also be used as an analogy for explaining vlog, by the way. Most entries, if not all, that are listed in the Vodcast#History section are what can also be called "vlogs." Here is the explanation that I've previously given at Talk:Vlog on the similarities:

However, upon inspecting the definitions offered at the Vlog and Vodcast articles before they were merged, they had the same essential definitions:

• Is video the primary content? Yes.
• Do they have a webfeed (RSS or Atom), and are they served over the internet? Yes.
• Are video podcasts (that work with iTunes, for example) considered a vlog/vodcast? Yes.

And for the last time, I'm not here to advocate the term "vlog." I just want to determine whether the two articles should be merged or not. And I would appreciate it if you'd tone down with the name callings (e.g. "vandal", "vlog fan", "child") as it doesn't add value to the discussion. All I am asking for is that since you disagree with me, I just want a better explanation, in your words, how vodcasts are different from vlogs. Instead of continuing to focus on what you think of me, I would appreciate it if you'd change your focus to providing this explanation. Also, would you agree with "vodcast == video podcast" or are these different in your opinion as well? —Tokek 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Learn to read Tokek, I'am not going into a discussion with someone who asks questions which already have been answered. And again, wikipedia is not on the internet just for Tokek. -- 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a rather unfortunate response. Thinking that at least you want to back up your claims, I come here wishing to be informed on what you think is the significant difference between the two terms, and all I get is hot air. —Tokek 04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a distinction between what a term means in relation to the technology used, as different from how the audience for them would refer to them. The landscape has shifted. Video is video on a website (is also 'film') and does not need further clarification anymore. Podcast however still seems to be a popular term in the absence of any other one word for audio only (no-one has ever said 'an audio'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.27.252 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A Video Podcast can't be a Video Blog

Because if a video podcast is a video blog, a podcast should be a blog. -- 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Video podcast

I would like to take a survey from the anonymous user(s) logging in from Dutch IP addresses if it's OK to say in the main article that the term video podcast is a synonym of vodcast? (Obviously, "vlog" is not liked by some person(s)). —Tokek 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

VODcast is not video blog is not video podcast

Tokek, this discussion has been closed before and the conclusion was that a merge is not ok.

- A video blog is a personal website with videos - A video podcast is an rss feed aimed at the iPod (hence the name) - A vodcast is a tv channel, with VOD titles, fed through RSS, for any device

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs)

Podcasts have NOTHING to do with the iPod-- they are just an RSS Feed that carry links to audio. The name is misleading, but that's it. Vodcasts are essentially another name for a video podcast. A video blog most likely carries an RSS feed, a.k.a. a video podcast. Thank you. (And quite frankly, I think the name "vodcast" is awkward). bCube(talk,contribs); 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Publishing vodcasts

I see there is no "See also" section to articles about tools which allow editing, publishing and hosting of video podcasts. Are there many of these?

My own company, Forbidden Technologies, makes FORscene, which includes upload from DV or mobile phones, editing, publishing for iPod and also hosting thrown in - a one-stop shop for video podcasting in fact. Stephen B Streater 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Research Message Box

I reinserted the original research message box removed by IceHunter. The section in question violates WP:VERIFY. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Ehdrive 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

IMO this article should be merged into video clip. Any thoughts/objections? SqueakBox 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of ourse not! A video clip has nothing to do with rss, and that's the hole point of a video podcast.

I think you should read the RSS article first SqueakBox, then you will understand the huge difference between a video clip and a video podcast.

I know the RSS article but I still think this coul;d ebincluded in the more generic video clip article, RSS info and all, SqueakBox 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you obviously really don't know where you are talking about. You should merge podcast with audio first. And why do you think the vlog merge request was rejected 2 times? It's not logical at all to merge video podcast with video clip. Please read both articles carefully before you request such a strange merge. And as long as podcast is not merged with audio, you can never merge video podcast with video clip.

I've been regularly posting on-demand video clips of live music on my PUNKCAST site since 1997, and podcasting same since 2005. I consider myself a vidcaster but not a vlogger. I reserve that term specifically for personal journalistic efforts using blogging software.Wwwhatsup 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Test

1. REDIRECT asdfasdfasdfxzcv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.61.14.25 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== 'Vodcast' lives on == or does it == yes it does if NASA and Commercial TV Networks use it

Someone recently added their opinion that 'video podcast' and 'vodcast' are redundant terms. They based their remark on the argument that podcasts have always contained video, and that "the term video will usually suffice instead of the cumbersome 'video podcast' or now redundant 'vodcast' as downloads of videos have become so commonplace in countries where broadband is affordable."

A few points:

Firstly, according to the history of podcasting, podcasts were initially all about audio, just like iPods were all about audio. Not until later did video start appearing in the enclosure tags in RSS, but by that time "podcasts" were well and truly associated with audio. Therefore "video podcast" or "vodcast" was and is a great help in distinguishing video subscriptions from their audio siblings.

Secondly, when a website chooses to use "video podcast" or "vodcast" to describe their video subscriptions, they do so because that's exactly what they are. Using just the word "video" means that the crucial information is missing - that this is a video subscription (as opposed to a video stream, or manual file download).

Lastly, on the remark that "downloads of videos have become commonplace is countries where broadband is affordable"... this is not a reason to declare terminology universally redundant. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that not all countries have affordable broadband, and that not all people can even afford "affordable broadband".

Identifying video podcasts as such, can only ever be a helpful thing, and whether that identifying comes from 'video podcast' or 'vodcast' is not only acceptable, but is currently in use by a few major media broadcasters. Plazma351 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

*In response to your remarks above:*

I did not base my remark on 'the argument that podcasts have always contained videos'. I didn't say that and don't know where you got it from. I said that for web visitors, what matters is whether you are clicking to get a podcast (audio) or a video (vodcast as you insist on), not what the technical term is and what the technical term means. It is either audio or video. Indeed you agree with this yourself when you say "Therefore "video podcast" or "vodcast" was and is a great help in distinguishing video subscriptions from their audio siblings. " This page is dominated by arguments about what terms mean to those that develop the tools and services, and in defending niche terms that may be useful at the point of development but quickly become unhelpful to a general user. There is very little discussion here about what a web visitor finds helpful.

With regard to your comment "this is not a reason to declare terminology universally redundant. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that not all countries have affordable broadband, and that not all people can even afford "affordable broadband". " - Your comment is a red herring and unnecessarily hostile... I very clearly said that where people can use broadband "in countries where broadband is affordable." (implicitly acknowledging that vast numbers have no access to the web and no affordable broadband) they are now used to seeing videos available to view online or download and so the term vodcast therefore just does not add anything to the experience and so is redundant (although useful when new). How does calling it a vodcast as opposed to a video help me as a user? You say: "using the word "video" means that the crucial information is missing - that this is a video subscription (as opposed to a video stream, or manual file download)." But excuse me for not being technical, these terms don't mean anything to me as a user. I would expect the difference to be spelled out to me on the web page if it required me to do anything other than just click to view it or download it - I would not expect the web editor to assume I know the distinction that you describe comes with the term vodcast - that is the definition of jargon. Editors edit, I did not make a universal declaration, I explained why it is redundant - in the same way you are defending it. Obviously I did not convince you.

The fact that I do not understand (as a simple user) that vodcast means specifically a subscription, indicates it is not a widely understood term. I am speaking up for all those who just want to keep editorial plain and helpful and not leave most of the arguments to the people who work with the technology or develop it. Podcast is not used exclusively to mean subscription (there are a huge number of audio offerings labelled podcasts which do not require any form of subscription, same with videos) so I would just expect any video output requiring a subscription to just say so, without introducing yet another term where an existing one suffices. I am not arguing against vodcast if it means something to techies, just please don't imply we must all adopt it when there is a more common term already in use.

I am enjoying the debate - you don't seem to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.233.12 (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

*Reply to above...:*

The argument above is messy and all over the place. Not really sure you should be editing someone else's heading or copy on this discussion page either thanks.

At the end of the day the horse has bolted on "Vodcast". Declaring it "redundant" is not helpful when sites such as NASA and major commerical TV stations and public broadcasters use it to describe both their video downloads and/or video podcast subscriptions.

Consider the following scenario... Joe User arrives at NASA and sees a "vodcast" link. He doesn't know what vodcast means so he googles it and arrives at Wikipedia where he finds an awkward attempt to explain the redundancy of the term. This is not helpful. The simple fact is that 'video podcast' is interchangeable with 'vodcast', and so I will now re-instate the part where it says in brackets "sometimes referred to as vodcast" because that is both accurate and informative. I will leave your redundant paragraph because I am not interested in wiki-wars, even though what you write doesn't fit with the article - which I shouldn't need to remind you is about 'video podcasts' or 'vodcasts'.

Plazma351 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Redundant?

This claim about redundant terms is fundamentally misconceived (quite regardless of the issue of factual accuracy, which you all seem so worried about):

1. As a matter of principle, the existence of a more inlcusive term does not make a less inclusive term redundant. You might as well say the term sparrow is redundant because bird includes sparrows.
2. The possible redunancy of a term is not an encyclopedic fact. Unless it were sourced from some expert work of lexicology, it is almost impossible to present this claim as NPOV, so it has no place here, and has no value.

--Pfold (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)