Can't post a post with just a video

[wraith808]

I don't know if this is intentional, but you have to post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but you don't have to do the same when posting an image.

[mouser]

interesting.. well i suppose it helps encourage people to describe the video so i won't worry about fixing it

[Deozaan]

For what it's worth, I do think it's a good idea to describe videos when you post them. That way in a couple of years when someone is trying to remember what they were, a search for related terms will bring something up.

[wraith808]

For what it's worth, I do think it's a good idea to describe videos when you post them. That way in a couple of years when someone is trying to remember what they were, a search for related terms will bring something up.

Many videos, because they have the text in the title of them, and even in the first frame, don't require that.  For example, the ocelot one.  Are you saying that I should just repeat the title? It felt spurious having to put text.

[IainB]

I don't know if this is intentional, but you have to post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but you don't have to do the same when posting an image.
___________________________

I are confuzzled by this.
The category for this thread is DC Website Help and Extras - yes?
What is intended to be the subject of the statement "I don't know if this is intentional..."?
Is there a DC Forum rule that one must post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but one does not have to post any spurious text when posting an image?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but, if there is such a rule, then would it not likely have been "intentional" to have that rule in the first place, and if it was not intentional, then why was the rule established and allowed to remain?
If "spurious text" was also intended, then why on earth was that so?
"Spurious" means:

• not genuine, sincere, or authentic
• based on false ideas or bad reasoning

Why would that be required?
Surely a video or an image could be potentially more informative if accompanied by relevant/contextual text and references, rather than by spurious text or no text at all - no?

My view is that posting just static images on their own, or just YouTube links/videos on their own, without any explanatory text would probably be more appropriate for (say) the DCF silly humour section(s), or Pinterest, for example, rather than a pukka discussion forum like DCF.

[mouser]

The category for this thread is DC Website Help and Extras - yes?

wraith's post was appropriate for this section, as this is the section where we discuss features and bugs of the forum and website, and he was asking if this was an intentional feature or a bug.

and the reality is that this is a bug in the forum software, but not one that i think is worth the trouble fixing at this time.  simple as that

[tomos]

For what it's worth, I do think it's a good idea to describe videos when you post them. That way in a couple of years when someone is trying to remember what they were, a search for related terms will bring something up.

Many videos, because they have the text in the title of them, and even in the first frame, don't require that.  For example, the ocelot one.  Are you saying that I should just repeat the title? It felt spurious having to put text.

I wouldnt say 'you should' but it can be helpful :-)
A good example is the music thread -- a lot of videos are posted with no info.

• cant be searched for
• if the video disappears from YT we have no idea what it was
• if the video is blocked in some countries, people can search for it (although I think google usually shows the title these days)

[wraith808]

I don't know if this is intentional, but you have to post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but you don't have to do the same when posting an image.
___________________________

I are confuzzled by this.
The category for this thread is DC Website Help and Extras - yes?
What is intended to be the subject of the statement "I don't know if this is intentional..."?
Is there a DC Forum rule that one must post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but one does not have to post any spurious text when posting an image?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but, if there is such a rule, then would it not likely have been "intentional" to have that rule in the first place, and if it was not intentional, then why was the rule established and allowed to remain?
If "spurious text" was also intended, then why on earth was that so?
"Spurious" means:

• not genuine, sincere, or authentic
• based on false ideas or bad reasoning

Why would that be required?
Surely a video or an image could be potentially more informative if accompanied by relevant/contextual text and references, rather than by spurious text or no text at all - no?

My view is that posting just static images on their own, or just YouTube links/videos on their own, without any explanatory text would probably be more appropriate for (say) the DCF silly humour section(s), or Pinterest, for example, rather than a pukka discussion forum like DCF.

It is there in one of the locations where you post things without necessarily adding context, i.e. interesting things.  I think this is the reason that Arizona Hot in many cases posts videos with a repetition of the title.  And I mean spurious as a synonym for specious, i.e. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible, to join you in pedantry.  I do apologize if you weren't familiar with that particular use.  I've heard it used quite often that way, and dictionary.com and thesaurus.com seem to support that connection.  And as mouser points out, this is the section to get help and clarifications, which is what I was asking for.

Thanks Deo/Tom- I didn't get the indexing part; that does, indeed make sense.

[IainB]

and the reality is that this is a bug in the forum software, but not one that i think is worth the trouble fixing at this time.  simple as that
__________________________

@mouser: Ahh, I understand now. Thankyou for explaining. I are now no longer confuzzled:

• (a) It is effectively a rule - and it apparently sits within the software for whatever passes for the CMS (Content Management System) for this website - that some text (any text, whether relevant or not) must accompany the posting of a video, otherwise the post cannot be published.
• (b) The same rule, however, does not apply to the posting of images, which can be published without any accompanying text whatsoever.

Yours and others' comments also help to explain the other thing that I were confuzzled by - why the text had to be spurious: (the explanation is that it doesn't have to be spurious)

    spurious /"spjU@rI@s/
    · adj.
    1 false or fake.
    2 (of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid.
    3 archaic (of offspring) illegitimate.
    – DERIVATIVES spuriously adv. spuriousness n.
    – ORIGIN C16: from L. spurius ‘false’ + -ous.

    Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Ed.)
    _______________________

However, where you say that "...this is a bug in the forum software...", you presumably say so on the basis that the/any rule here would be (or is) assumed to be consistent, or something - that is, that it should be equally applicable to videos and images - yes?

I'm not sure that that would necessarily be a correct assumption/interpretation though. One would need to imagine taking a look at the specification or taking a look inside the heads of the people who developed this system at the time and asking, "Under what circumstances might they have arrived at a decision to deliberately make this seemingly (to us, now) contradictory/inconsistent rule?"
If one did that, then one could arrive at the conclusion that it might well be a deliberate rule, rather than a bug.
I mean, someone would have had to code - or not code - that rule, and they would presumably have done so whilst working from (say) a specification, or a systems analysis, or a statement of work/requirements and then tested it, and I can imagine conditions where the rule could be useful - e.g., (say) in the detection or avoidance of spam. For example, you would probably only need to look once at an image to see whether it was relevant to the thread (e.g., in the interesting things/stuff section, as @wraith808 refers). However, you'd actually have to watch a video to be able to accurately determine whether it was relevant or spam, or something else, so, obliging posters to add some (say) relevant/explanatory text would seem to make sense, and if they just put gobbledegook text instead then that could be a useful indicator for admins to take note of.

In terms of rules, therefore, I consider that this inconsistency is possibly a good rule, rather than a "bug" per se.
I personally dislike being invited to look at a YouTube video without knowing what to expect from it, as these things invariably turn out to be a WOT (Waste Of Time) - time bandits - and I am frugal with how I spend my finite cognitive surplus (equates with experience of life) and do not wish to be merely a passive observer of elementary canned life (e.g., TV) unless I am deriving something developmental/educational or seriously entertaining/interesting from it - e.g., a good SF film (in my case, at any rate).
Most times I simply won't watch a YouTube if the poster can't be bothered to give some relevant background/contextual notes. That's why I usually try to post some relevant details when I post a YouTube link. It's similar to reading the back of a paperback and the foreword before one decides whether one wants to buy the book, or checking IMDB before one decides whether one wants to watch a video/movie.

As well as posting some relevant background/contextual notes - so people can decide whether they would want to spend any time watching the YouTube video - I also post the URL for the link, because I am aware that some browser add-ons block embedded YouTubes, but do not block URLs to YouTubes. Similarly, when I post images, I tend to provide some background/contextual notes, if that is relevant, and, whether it's an embedded YouTube or an image, I am aware of the need to leave text footprints, so that the forum Indexing and (say) Google spiders/crawlers can pick up meaningful data for later searches to use - makes it less of a needle-in-a-haystack search for subsequent enquirers - because a lot of what is recorded in this forum could arguably correctly be described as knowledge, and that would mean that it was potentially intrinsically valuable, in and of itself, to not only the DC Forum members, but also the Internet community as a whole.

This leads me to the suggestion that there is an opportunity here to improve/expand the capture of Indexable knowledge in the forum, and improve the ease of location of and access to that knowledge by DC Forum members and the wider community, if we:

• (a) consider putting the same/similar "must have some relevant text" rule in place for posting images, as a matter of good/best practice.
• (b) we consider recommending to people who post images containing text that they post the images as .TIFF files, and that we add an iFilter for .TIFF files (if not already done) to enable Indexing to pick up the text from the relevant .TIFF images (as per Windows Index/Search).

(Just a thought.)

[wraith808]

However, where you say that "...this is a bug in the forum software...", you presumably say so on the basis that the/any rule here would be (or is) assumed to be consistent, or something - that is, that it should be equally applicable to videos and images - yes?

Not necessarily.  The youtube linking code is an add on to SMF, while the image code is inbuilt.  Therefore, there could have been allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup.

[IainB]

Not necessarily.  The youtube linking code is an add on to SMF, while the image code is inbuilt.  Therefore, there could have been allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup.
____________________________

Ah, I see. So, if that is possible, then who would be in a position to determine whether there were "allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup."?
@mouser seems to think is is a "bug" of some sort. Presumably he would know?

[Curt]

I think Deozaan gave the answer. If you people would go and test Recommend some music videos to me!, you'll find that an aweful lot of video links are empty by now. When I did, I felt disappointed each time. I mean, the video link was uploaded for a reason, right? But how is that reason justified, when there is no video? Such a post is now without meaning. If the post at least had the video's title, I could go search for it - and the post would then still have a meaning.

----------

For what it's worth, I do think it's a good idea to describe videos when you post them. That way in a couple of years when someone is trying to remember what they were, a search for related terms will bring something up.

[Deozaan]

I think Deozaan gave the answer. If you people would go and test Recommend some music videos to me!, you'll find that an aweful lot of video links are empty by now.

Oh my gosh! Ha ha! Sorry for the off-topicness of this, but I followed that link to the first page of that thread and I was confused by the weird images people (including myself) were including with their posts. Finally I realized they were screenshots of what YouTube looked like in 2008!

[wraith808]

Not necessarily.  The youtube linking code is an add on to SMF, while the image code is inbuilt.  Therefore, there could have been allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup.
____________________________

Ah, I see. So, if that is possible, then who would be in a position to determine whether there were "allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup."?
@mouser seems to think is is a "bug" of some sort. Presumably he would know?

A bug is a defect or imperfection, as in a mechanical device, computer program, or plan; glitch.  However, that does not cover all of what a bug or defect is.  A bug is any an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection found in a program.  Just because it can be capitalized on, doesn't make it not a "bug".  That's what mouser meant.  He wouldn't even necessarily know, as it seems that he didn't before I brought it up.  But I think this conversation is descending into the highest form of pedantry.

It is an unexpected flaw that mouser sees as a feature, and will not correct, as the general consensus is that it is useful to explain any video post (more than an image) as they, not being hosted on the server, can disappear, leaving a gap in the flow of the thread.  In addition, text can be indexed for later retrieval by a simple text search- videos can't.

That seems to be enough to answer the question brought up in this thread, so I will leave it with that.

[IainB]

and the reality is that this is a bug in the forum software, but not one that i think is worth the trouble fixing at this time.  simple as that
__________________________

@mouser: Ahh, I understand now. Thankyou for explaining. I are now no longer confuzzled:

• (a) It is effectively a rule - and it apparently sits within the software for whatever passes for the CMS (Content Management System) for this website - that some text (any text, whether relevant or not) must accompany the posting of a video, otherwise the post cannot be published.
• (b) The same rule, however, does not apply to the posting of images, which can be published without any accompanying text whatsoever.

...
...This leads me to the suggestion that there is an opportunity here to improve/expand the capture of Indexable knowledge in the forum, and improve the ease of location of and access to that knowledge by DC Forum members and the wider community, if we:

• (a) consider putting the same/similar "must have some relevant text" rule in place for posting images, as a matter of good/best practice.
• (b) we consider recommending to people who post images containing text that they post the images as .TIFF files, and that we add an iFilter for .TIFF files (if not already done) to enable Indexing to pick up the text from the relevant .TIFF images (as per Windows Index/Search).

(Just a thought.)

Given the earlier and subsequent comments by @Deozaan and @Curt, I would reiterate the suggestions (a) and (b) as above, but only if taking the "...opportunity here to improve/expand the capture of Indexable knowledge in the forum, and improve the ease of location of and access to that knowledge by DC Forum members and the wider community" is seen as a necessarily useful or even desirable objective from the perspective of the overall direction envisioned for the DC Forum. For example, I am unsure whether that direction might include contributing to the improvement of the gestalt knowledgebase that is the www/Internet.

In any event, this deliberate or accidental "bug" (or "unintended feature", or whatever it should properly be described as - and my apologies if I did not use the correct terminology earlier) seems to be something which could usefully be extended as a rule to cater for the posting of images, as well as YouTube videos, as discussed.