That's correct. As with my stated 207 total embedded videos, that's one video short of 208, which is the number that causes total causes computer meltdowns. Hence the "Part II" as a preventative measure.

Explaining the joke makes the joke no longer funny. Which is a shame because I found it quite amusing.

On two side notes: the biggest culprit for video overload is almost certainly me. At one point I did 100 videos on a 4-part basis, which I think was my largest, but I got slapped down in no uncertain terms about that and learned my lesson. I honestly did not realise how much of a drag the extra graphics put on a computer. Now I know.

Side note two: I never realised that the abbreviation of Urban's username is an expression of surprise or misunderstanding: UH? :laughing:

Aux-in, as you say, we all have different ways of doing things, and as long as the mods are okay with it and it doesn't crash computers then I guess you have your answer. I still feel though that the supposed "hassle" of actually clicking your mouse one more time to get to a spoiler is indicative of the generation who want everything now now now! There's no patience anymore. Why, I remember back in my time ramble ramble kids these days drone drone don't know you're born mutter mutter usen't to be like this zzzzzzzzzzzz

If you read my explanation of the first joke, you will see I made a second one. Leaving my typo in the quotes is the third one, but the joke's on me.

It slows mine down too, but usually the load time is under a minute, then it's okay. Under 20 seconds is a better average. If I went to gather 100 videos, even in chunks of 25, it would take forever, particularly if I'm editing text and continually re-loading the page to proofread and such. YouTube is buggy sometimes too. So much music being made, so much to share, and we're still left with clunky mediums like the Internet...hate limiting that energy.

I don't feel like having to "sell" the spoiler tag with a bunch of words when I don't really have something to say that the song can't say itself, you know? Also, it's easier to miss a spoiler tag than an embed video, but too many embedded videos can cause a viewer to click off. Eh, whaddyagonnado?

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?

I think this is being blown out of proportion.

It's not a case as Trollheart says of the mods being ok with it, because it's only ever been an issue once in about 10 years. And that was when he himself was posting stupid amounts of videos everyday.

Nobody else has ever come close to however many he posted so I don't know why there's all this discussion, especially since then we can now approve journal posts with all the html turned off.

Quite simply it's a total non issue.

Hide them. If you love videos so much, you got to hide your love (for videos) away. :shycouch:

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.

Actually, I don't know why I bother. All I did was offer some advice, given that Aux-in had specifically mentioned his journal would be video intensive, and now it's a big argument over why videos should/should not be used. Maybe I'll just keep my big mouth shut in future. :rolleyes:

Don't take it the wrong way. Maybe the conversation didn't unfold the way you wanted to, but don't think disagreement (or argument) is bigger than it actually is. I like the idea you start this thread. And I would hate to think that would you give up giving advice on journals cause people don't see eye to eye on certain matters in this thread.