Talk:Podcast/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Podcast. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Vodcasts

The video podcast sections says that any video series created for and released on the web, including things like Netflix Originals, are a kind of podcast. I have never once heard the term used for video series like that--or really, at all. Podcasts with supplemental visuals make sense, but the audio is still the main focus (e.g. Youtuber podcasts that may have video recording, which is often used for promotional purposes but may not even be released in full) but in these cases the audio can still make sense on its own. Literally any video under the sun that's produced for the web, from vlogs to animations to full online video series like Stranger Things, falls under this definition of "Video podast" but it seems more like a misuse of the term. Unless there's genuinely a large group that uses the word like that (in which case I would like sources) I think it should be removed. Iridi (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, bringing in Netflix seems to expand the definition too broadly, I do not think the use of the word podcast is every intended to encompass Netflix videos. Eminentlycurious (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A video podcast is a video delivered by RSS 2.0 with enclosures. It's not just a video web series. That's video blogging. Here's the first video podcast, VideoPodcast 20041114. Stevegarfield (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Stevegarfield do you have any secondary sources for your claim? The current example in the article has content dating back to 2003, and even in the primary source you've listed none of the content goes back that far. I've added the article related to that vodcast to the Wikiproject Podcasting, but unless their are reliable secondary sources it can't be added to the Video Podcast section of this article. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Name

The article says Ben Hammersley coined the term "podcast" as a portmanteau of "ipod" and "broadcast", but does not say when he coined the term. Vorbee (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The date has been added to the name section. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The article has the wrong information about how the name was arrived at: Dave Winer disagrees on how the name was arrived at - see How podcasting got its name (2013-04-07). Mortense (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The naming history has been corrected. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Profitability

The statement, “podcasts are very profitable” is unsupported by data and may have been added for marketing purposes. -R Rozzychan (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the bogus info and updated the podcast listeners stats with reliable source. Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

Is there no way to approach the lead so that it doesn't devolve into line after line after line of Captain Obvious? It's one of the fluffiest leads I've ever read — MaxEnt 23:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't restrain myself. I try not to do this very often, because it's definitely a drive-by sin, but I simply had to supply a new starting point for a lead not mired in quite the same sand trap. Every so often, one comes across a very poor lead that seems to reach stasis because there's really no way for a concerned editor to jump in with a progressive edit. I'm sure my new lead is a horror show in many dimensions, but the point was to provide a horror show where there are many obvious points of entry for any concerned editor that passes by. I was trying to break the back of what read to me as an extreme case of low-aim steering. Edit with abandon. I only reluctantly hung around to supply a first redraft. The main reason I didn't blow this off was because I've consumed a fair amount of the podcast series HowSound, which is extremely explicit about podcast formats and production values, so I felt I had enough of a settled vantage point on the whole landscape. — MaxEnt 00:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

In permlink you can see that the two images are semantically reversed with respect to the progression of the text I supplied; I tried it the other way around, and it looked bad. Adding a suitable third image might create the scope to address this problem in a better way. — MaxEnt 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Active Editors

I am a student who will be working on this page for the next few weeks as a part of a class assignment. I will be attempting to streamline the content in the article lead and reorganize the excess information into more appropriate sections of the page. Feedback is welcome to any of my edits or additions, as I am learning the platform and doing the best I can. here is the link to my sandbox for this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Maddiemac800/sandbox-podcast Thanks Maddiemac800 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead section did need some work, but this may have cut it back too much. The first paragraph no longer mentions that podcasts are spoken word, and the second sentence of "Platforms such as iTunes, Spotify, and Google Podcasts provide a convenient, integrated way to manage a personal consumption queue across many podcast sources and playback devices." line reads too much like an advert for those products. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I made some minor tweaks to the lead sections based on your comment. I agree that the section was cut back significantly, but I think that the changes needed to be made and any important information that was removed could likely be relocated to subsequent sections in the page rather than the lead if need be. Maddiemac800 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)