Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Actually it's a click, typing in an URL, typing in a search, and then another click. Or you can just post a video so all I have to do is click. Much of the time when I click on a video here, I'm not beating down the door to listen to it; it's just kinda there, I'm kinda interested, and there's nothing between me and my idle curiosity except for a *click*. But if there's no video, and I'm not really familiar with what you're talking about, nine times out of ten I'm not going to care enough to go that far out of my way no matter how well you describe it.
And what are you talking about, "having to 'draw pictures' with a video"? Are you saying that the music actually interferes with your article about the music?
|
How many times a day do people go to YT and watch videos? It's not like you're asking them to eat ten raw pigs for breakfast. If they want to do it, they can do it. Nobody's forcing them to.
And I'm talking about the fact that some people seem to think that you have to illustrate your article by including videos, in other words, that the writing isn't enough. That's what I mean by drawing pictures. The description should be enough to draw the picture, otherwise why bother? You might as well just put up the video and say here, click this. Certainly it can add to the experience but I've found that some people might just read a few lines and then hit the video, which sort of negates all the effort you've put into the writing.
Anyhoo, I couldn't care less. I'm not saying don't use YTs, I'm just saying I stopped using them for that reason. I feel my writing should be adequate enough to draw a picture without having to actually, you know, draw a picture. If you read a description of music in a book, do you then need to rush to YT to hear what it's like? Often the words can form enough of a description on their own, which is what I try to do.