We recently bought a video camera and played around yesterday with some video shooting. Luckily, Scott, our resident former-Hollywooder, was able to convert the video into something we can put on the blog:
SEOmoz VidCast 1 - Wikipedia - video powered by Metacafe
Since we're completely new to videocasting, we'd love to get your input:
- What's your opinion of the format? More Mozzers? fewer? Different setup?
- How do you like the content and discussion? What would you like to see us talk about?
- Did the video splicing away to photos/screenshots enhance the experience or make it worse?
- Any good ideas on video editors you recommend? Scott downloaded the sample version of Adobe Premier to make this one (hence the logo). We'd love to try Jumpcut, but for some reason, our videos are hundreds of megs initially so we have to edit them locally.
Thanks for your patience with our experimentation - we're looking forward to getting more refined with the video stuff over time.
p.s. We did discuss 4 other topics after the Wikipedia set - we might try to put those up in the next few days as Scott finds some time.
Agree. Seating arrangement is important in a live discussion. As Rand is the maestro conducting the round table, seat him in the middle so that the SEOmozzers are arranged around him in a semi-circle which allows the viewer to see Rand face-on. Just like speaking at a conference, giving the camera a little eye contact every now and then is good too. Looking forward to more videos...
Bueno! Very interesting and entertaining.
It might be a good idea to have someone actually point the camera at whoever is commenting. Also, the sound wasn't fabulous. A few of those bluetooth mics would do the job nicely.
I think the number of people on your panel is perfect, and you might consider having guest panelists from time-to-time.
Also, the extra inserts were a nice surprise.
Looking forward to the next episode.
I thought this was great!
As far as format, I like the general feel of people just having a regular natural conversation on the subject.
As far as camera placement goes, it could be better. Closups of the individuals talking would be much more difficult to arrange but could improve things.
If you kept everything the same for the next videos I wouldn't complain though. You are an SEO company, not Paramount pictures.
Oh, and maybe it's just me but I thought the images spliced in were great, and made the whole production a lot more light-hearted. Made it feel less like a news-cast and more....more SEOmoz.
You guys try the "info" operator yet?
Might be old news, but I just found this out.
Do a search and put info at the end of it. If it matches a wikipeida title you get it as the first result....
What's your opinion of the format? More Mozzers? fewer? Different setup?
-I think the camera should be in closer, something like the webpronews.com video blog -the camera seemed out of focus and as a viewer i went to feel like I am apart of the conversation so having some mozzers look away from the camera and only seeing the back of their heads is counter productive
How do you like the content and discussion? What would you like to see us talk about? -over all cool discussion
Did the video splicing away to photos/screenshots enhance the experience or make it worse? -the strategic text inserts and pics were funny
rz
Great vid - I can see that becoming a really popular series.
I'm particularly looking forward to parts 2, 3 & 4 as advertised after part 1...
https://www.traphic.com.au/seomozvid.jpg
I saw that same thing. I think metacafe needs to work on their method of choosing relevant videos.
Speak for yourself!
;)
Great first attempt. I do think there was a little too much going on (too many people talking at once and hard to decipher). Maybe if the 2-3 second rule was observed it would have helped out - meaning no one can speak for at least 2-3 seconds after someone else is done speaking.
Also, I don't think the topic of the Google and Wikipedia relationship was too interesting. Your posts always seem to take a new look at something or put a twist and I don't feel that the video did this - seemed more like an internal office discussion than a vidcast.
As for video editors, I suggest Sony Vegas for PC and Final Cut for Apple. Both are easy to use and packed full of features.
I think it's a great start to a different level of blogging and sharing information. Once again, you've started something that has not been done within the industry. Good job.
Rand ... quick suggestion. Why not offer an audio version of your blog posts, especially long ones. Many bloggers have started doing so and it's quite helpful. Think about listening to blog posts in the car, airplane, by PC, etc (read by the author). Bill Marriott https://www.blogs.marriott.com/ is doing it and so do others.
I'd suggest the same thing to SEOBook as Aaron's posts can sometimes be too long (good quality though, don't get me wrong).
Glad to hear most of you liked the video.
Let me join the chorus of production value naysayers. The quick screencaps were shoved in there mostly for comedy and to cut down the length: since I didn't have a B-roll to work with, I was stuck on a master shot and needed to cut away to something in order to trim the length of the discussion.
As far as editing, I like Premier and I like Final Cut (although we run PCs around here), I've never used Vegas but I'll take a look at it.
I promise I'll make the next one a bit more technically sound from a cinematic perspective.
Thanks for all of the feedback. One last question though: Do you prefer the tone to be more on the humorous/light-hearted side or the academic/serious side?
Light-hearted. Otherwise it's just Rand and Matt yelling at eachother, and I've seen that, like, a bazillion times.
Seen and heard here!
overally, it was a great first pass.
i'm in agreement with miles, above, that one of the main elements that was lacking was sound quality. getting every person a lavalier (lapel) mic can be expensive, so you might consider a good boom mic mounted centrally to the group.
On the wikipedia subject - It ranks so high simply because people find it easier to link to sites that don't make obvious monetary gains and are not affiliated with any commercial entity. IMDB (in people's mind) is actually exactly the same thing. Movie title searches still rank IMDB higher than wikipedia. People link to neutral sources of information before they would to a store, even if the that store does a better job presenting information, has better usability and so forth.
My take: I loved it. I think this is a brilliant idea and for the first run, isn't bad at all.
Now for the criticism: What the hell was going on in the background during the first part of the video? It was VERY distracting. Also, as people mentioned, it was tough to hear what people were saying when you all get wound up. I'd say bring the camera in closer and maybe try to avoid talking over each other but you also don't want to lose that spontaneous feel to it. It needs to be a discussion, not a scripted dialog. One of the things I enjoyed most was the free feel to it and honest reactions (or at least so it seemed).
I don't much care for VBlogs, so you an take my advice with a pinch of Harissa;
1. Get a table and all site around it The View Style. Rand kept turning his back to the camera, and if you just plan to make it "Speaky" and not "looky", go with a podcast.
2. Make sure the camera can see all people (Rand == problem maker number one, as he kept getting into the dude at the back's way).
3. Hard to hear some people. Get closer together, or put a Mike in the middle of you all.
4. DON'T sit on swivel chairs if possible. People spin too much (and I get distracted real easy like).
5. EXCELLENT edits and "style". Give the editor a prize.
6. Have some non-roundtable stuff (maybe a single person to camera Springer style finishing sentiments).
7. Close the blind on teh left of camera, as it is a source of too bright light and causes weird light.
8. Ignore nitpickers like me :)
I have this habit, after watching a movie for the first time, of Googling all the actors in it. I can tell you that there are several reasons to go to Wikipedia's pages instead of (or along with) IMDb's.
First, Wikipedia's pages all link internally, so if there are interesting things mentioned in the person's bio it's easy to keep clicking. On IMDb you would see all of their stage/screen credits, but you'd have to click on their bio to see more and details there are often sparse.
As far as accuracy, I've definitely seen mistakes at IMDb so I wouldn't put it ahead of Wikipedia there. Also, Wikipedia has pages about actual characters (not just the actors who play them), and sometimes there's just too much detail, but if it's a show or movie you really like it can be addicting to follow the links.
Re: Wikipedia's SEO pages - if they're that bad, why don't some mozzers edit them? I'm not Wikipedia's biggest fan - I've spent time surfing sites that expose Wikipedia's dark underbelly of hierarchical control - but since high rankings are a reality for Wiki pages, why not improve the content?
Sorry to double post, but I edited my post once and now the edit button is gone...anyway, I blogged tonight about the Bears (no, not the current Bears - the Super Bowl winning Bears).
 I mentioned Walter Payton and I wanted to link to some info in case people don't remember much about him. His own website's bio was poorly written and sparse. Wikipedia's article, in contrast, was positively Shakespearean. I know that quality there varies, but I didn't just link to Wikipedia by default because I was lazy. I did my research and found them to be the best source of info.Â
Most of my points have been mentioned above - better sound quality, Rand turned to the camera, better seating, etc. Was there someone rattling a door handle for most of the first minute? It sounded like there was. All in all not a bad first attempt, and anyway won't you have to pay a 'restocking fee' to Best Buy if you have to take the camera back? ;)
Haha, that rattling sound you heard is probably the printer going off--Si was in town, and whenever he's in the office our printer gets some major usage.
Are you posting this to all the video sited to get wider distribution? YouTube-GoogleVideo/Revver/MySpaceVideo/etc.
...then posting the one with revenue share on your site? (I guess that was more of a suggestion than a question)
It would be nice if there was an option allowing people to download the video instead of stream it.. The internet is still pretty shaky here in Asia.
"What's your opinion of the format? More Mozzers? fewer? Different setup?"
I got the feeling that you didn't have a script, you really should prepare a script or at least a bullet point of the key points that you should cover.
And you should not have several people talking at the same time and interrupting each other.
"Did the video splicing away to photos/screen shots enhance the experience or make it worse? "
Worse in this case. However used correctly it could greatly enhance an educational video.
It might also be an idea to post a transcript of the conversation. I know that there are agencies that offer transcription services.
Oh, missed that one. Nice discussion and also for you Rand the same message as Aaron Walls got: If you think an article is wrong or incomplete, especially an article about a subject that is you profession and/or passion, go and click the "edit" link and fix it.
The Search Engine Optimization article is a spam and vandalism magnet so be a bit careful with your edits.
Just adding a link (one extreme) or complete replacement by something new (other extreme) might not be the best idea. Creating an account (takes 10 seconds) is probably a good idea.
The good thing about Wikipedia is that everybody who complains about the content and does not do anything about it, is outing himself. There are arguments why somebody did not correct or extend it, but they are all bad arguments.
Okay, it takes more time than giving a bum a $1 bill but probably also less time than writing a blog post, so the sacrifice is really not major.
At least be honest like some affiliate marketers who noted on that: "It's a waste of time, because I am not being paid commission for that". It sucks but is at least honest, no BS.
At least Bill Slawski listened and also did something. It says a lot about him. I also had the opportunity to met him in person at SES SJ last year which confirmed my opinion that he is a great and honest guy.
Also good read regarding the subject (especially the discussion) here at CostPerNews.com.
Wikipedia is not about talking, it's about DOING.
p.s. I don't have time either and also did only little contributions to that particular article. I watched it more and provided some sources. I worked a lot on the affiliate marketing article though.
Hi SEOmoz Gang, I thought the video was a great idea. I'd make the following changes: better lighting (maybe one of those 1500 watt construction-type halogen double lights from Home Depot?), I'd seat you better, like in a perfect semi-circle (or get one of those semi-circle tables like on the Sunday morning talk shows), I'd put a mike on each of you, and I'd zoom in to the person who is talking.
I don't think there were too many of you. Great job!
Good first try. Maybe take a clue from web pro news and use a microphone for each person. This will make it expensive to do, especially if you go wireless.
Return the camcorder and buy the ones that web pro news uses. I asked them what equipment they use but they never returned my email.
Im just stoked you had the Shins in there the best Damn Band on the Planet.
Good ear, glad somebody caught that! :)
Rebecca is just smoking hot. Let's have some videos of just her.
Rebecca, honestly, creating fake accounts and writing stuff like that just sounds really desperate. You know we think you are pretty.
Yep, my gum chomping, exposed back fat, and limp ponytail really make the fellas swoon.
I liked the format but definitely keep the running time under five minutes as that's the outer limit of my attention span for any topic - three would probably be preferable.
Also, see if you can find a microphone to use! Having it in the center of all of you would probably make the audio clarity much stronger.
Another positive vote here.
Format: I'd like to see everyone a little closer to the camera. Matt, Jeff, and Scott seemed to be very far away. I think more and less would be fine. If someone has something to say let them be there.
Content: I don't mind if it's off the cuff. It gives me the feeling of being in there with you and seeing how ideas might get started for future content. Maybe a mix of both the casual and the researched.
The Wikipedia itself isn't of great interest to me. I don't visit the site a lot, though Rand you did make me feel guilty because I know I've started a post or two with 'Wikipedia defines' somewhere in the first paragraph. You've guilted me into never doing it again though.
Screenshots: The cuts to the images didn't add anything for me. They were there and gone quickly. Maybe an image that was there longer while you were specifically talking about what was in the image. Here they just broke the continuity for me.
Video Editors: Sorry I have no clue.
* What's your opinion of the format? I liked the format - casual... but I really wanted to hear what everyone said and to make that happen a little less of two people talking at the same time would improve what the viewer gets out of the discussion.
* How do you like the content and discussion? What would you like to see us talk about? I don't know how much preparation you did but research before hand will always kick up the impact. It will enable each of you to have a couple of concise statements about the topic. And, if you posted the topic here a few days in advance we could submit topic-specific questions - then you will hit what readers want to know. You might need to do some reasearch!
* Did the video splicing away to photos/screenshots enhance the experience or make it worse? I think that a relevant graphic or two will be fine... if shown at transitions in the discussion. In this video my mind jumpped the track when the graphics were inserted because I was engrossed in the discussion and then the graphic and silence or stage sounds blew my chain of thought (maybe because I am geezer age). I think that the graphics would have been better if the disuccsion continued behind them or if they were used when you guys took a breather... or maybe your commentary focused on the graphic then it becomes part of the discussion. * Any good ideas on video editors you recommend? Scott downloaded the sample version of Adobe Premier to make this one (hence the logo). Nope... but if you figure out something that is easy to use and nice quality let us know about it and some of the readers might start using it.
I enjoyed this and look forward to another one.
Nice touch with the Rand & Danny image.
Grazi
Format: Overall pretty good. When two people are talking at once you can't really hear what either of them are saying. You can't see Matt very well; maybe if you move the camera in a little closer?
Content: Maybe everybody could do a little independant research ahead of time and presents a different side of the argument. I also like EGOL's suggestion about posting the subject ahead of time.
Splicing: The inserted graphics are great, but it would be nice if they stayed on a little longer. Not too long, though.
Video editors: I couldn't say for splicing video. I do know that cinepaint is a good open-source program for fx. You'll probably need a commercial program if you're going to do any serious editing.
Yeah - we got a lot of requests for close-ups of Matt. Mostly from his mom.
MOMMA MOMMA I'M COMING HOME
https://www.snowblind.biz/ozzy7/images/115f.jp...
I noticed that when Jane started to speak, everybody froze and started to pay attention. hehe..
That Kiwi accent gets us everytime - gotta love it :)
I think I sound awful on the video :(
That's an accent you hear, Jane. ;)
I think accents are cool. Everybody has an accent, especially Americans :)
Yeah but I think I sound pretty darn bad on the video. I often wish I had an Australian accent instead :o
Perhaps I'll start doing one, just because I can.
If you ever want to learn accents, watch the Simpsons.
Especially Apu, Willy the Groundskeeper, the South American Bumble Bee guy, Sideshow Bob
classic rainbow of accents
I don't think there were too many people in the video, the group discussion was interesting to watch, but the camera should be zoomed in a little. The roof of the room showing is a total waste of space.
All and all a great added dimension to the blog. Having the camera closer (so we can see those hollywood faces) would be a nice touch. The acoustics on my PC speakers may be of poor quality, but at times I could not hear what everyone had to say (to my detriment). I like how some humor (gasp) was incorporated; you can be informative and jocose at the same time (some may beg to differ- forget you :P ). I am sure that the broadcast will continue to become more dynamic and I look forward to it- do not take the camera back to BestBuy. PS - I'm sure you guys don't need ideas, but you could have like different anchors on, top stories (breaking news), live interviews, a man-on-the-scene (how about Danny), etc.- I know you guys are going to take this and run with it- lots of luck
I enjoyed it, as already mentioned, I think that you could keep the discussion going during the photos/screenshots, it not like we'd be missing any action (although it's good to know who's speaking).
As a first go it worked well, I'm sure that if you keep going with this you'll find ways to improve the framing/sound/cutaways. I like the group discussion format as it doesn't tie the information into a predefined path. With many presentations I find myself skipping to the end in the hope that there's a summary but this is more of an insight into a set of opinions than being fed a 'company line'.
Nice job. Some tips:
- Everyone needs to wear a mic. - An intro...Even a basic 2-3 slides with some music. As a bonus it can be re-used. I usually build the frames in Photoshop and just dump them into my editting software. - Build a similiar template for credits. - Lose the Adobe watermark. - Script and rehearse key talking points some. Not too much, but having 1 filmed dry run will totally improve the end result. - Incorporate some editting/zoom techniques. Sometimes it washard to tell which girl was speaking. And you know we were hanging on their comments. - On that note - bikinis. - For discussions, a cheap solution is to throw in another camera that zooms on a speaker and edit between that shot and your wide shot. Being able to see your speakers mouth move is also helpful to greased up deaf guys. - I've played with most of the editting apps. I use Sony Vegas 7.x.
Keep it up. Video = super link bait.
Good call on Vegas 7. I just downloaded the trial and I already like the interface and features better than those on Premiere Elements.
Although I'm a bit rusty, I'm used to editing on high-end, professional software so a lot of the consumer stuff is actually too simple for me to do what I want to do. Vegas seems to at least provide a fairly powerful UI.
Participants too far away, although I found the sound fairly clear (maybe the accents aren't too bad?).
Interesting more from the group dynamic than what was actually discussed. I must admit I far prefer this type of discussion than a more scripted and researched one.
Maybe you could combine the two by having an SEOMOZzer present a topic or thought and the others could play devil's advocate or support it?
Or if someone picks out live questions from a chat box during a particular time period?
Incidentally I agree about the hosting, I also got a NSFW choice of videos at the end (which wasn't too tragic as I work from home).
Hehe, that was neat having a little spyhole into the 'moz. I quite liked the instant cut to screenshot with clapping, apart from it made everyone in the office turn around to see what I was doing.
Perhaps look at other video hosting as after the video finished (and people walked over to see what I was looking at) I was presented with the next, (related?) videos which mostly consisted of "Upskirt Girl!!11"
well i think you should change env a bit. oh, and there was no round table ,) and vidcast was not only about wikipedia. it was about wikipedia's and google's relationships
Great idea, too bad the sound isn't very good and also the group layout suggests imediately that you're not talking to an audience, but amongst yourselfs, which excluded me a bit.
But good first one!
How about taking some questions?
Nice work guys. Good to see you take things to a new level.
If you're working on a Windows based system, I would recommend Premiere. I use it all the time and it's pretty slick in operation. Oh, and don't worry about the size of the raw files. I'm used to working with raw footage of approx. 1Gb p/min
Regarding the photos/screenshots, I could have done with them being onscreen a bit longer. By the time I knew what I was looking at, they were gone again :o(
While I like the idea of a group discussion format, I think it was a little too busy and might have translated to video a little better if there were a couple less people involved.
Overall, I think it's a great attempt at a video blog. Keep up the good work!
I've got to agree with Mintyman - a little fade in and out for the screenshots might not hurt either.
Bang it was there bang it was gone was all a bit too sudden.
I understand that you were perhaps trying to keep file size down but sometimes you have to trade that off for a little better presentation.
Perhaps the way you were all sitting could be opened out a little too. There were times when it felt like I was looking over Rand's shoulder.
I agree, Mintyman. There were too many of us on screen, and having the camera fixated on us as a group looked a bit weird after a while.
Oh, and I definitely need to remember to spit out my gum before the camera starts rolling :/