video embedding aka youtube tags

[Hygro]

at another forum to which I belong they embed video like we do with pictures.

Here's an example of short thread with a few vids ready to be loaded.
http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160939

 

[LucyDuke]

No videos is one of the things I love about CFC.

 

[Hygro]

well I like the lack of ani avies but videos are convenient.

 

[dutchfire]

A simple link to Youtube works just as fine, and it is much less annoying.

 

[Mise]

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I don't see why clicking a link isn't just as easy, but on the other hand, I don't see any drawbacks in having the videos embedded into the post.

 

[Turner]

A simple link to Youtube works just as fine, and it is much less annoying.

QFT.

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I don't see why clicking a link isn't just as easy, but on the other hand, I don't see any drawbacks in having the videos embedded into the post.

Bandwidth. There are still people on dialup, and d/ling / streaming the video would hurt that. I also don't like the way the embedding breaks up the flow when I'm trying to scroll quickly through a bunch of posts. And yeah, I have the same feelings towards big pictures too.

 

[philippe]

Bandwidth. There are still people on dialup, and d/ling / streaming the video would hurt that. I also don't like the way the embedding breaks up the flow when I'm trying to scroll quickly through a bunch of posts. And yeah, I have the same feelings towards big pictures too.

i agree
Bandwidth can be very limited to some users here (like me)

I never go to the GIF thread

 

[LucyDuke]

Bandwidth. There are still people on dialup, and d/ling / streaming the video would hurt that. I also don't like the way the embedding breaks up the flow when I'm trying to scroll quickly through a bunch of posts. And yeah, I have the same feelings towards big pictures too.

I don't have bandwidth issues, but one of my computers has RAM issues. If I load a YouTube video, there's a better than 50% chance that my browser will crash, sometimes taking everything else down with it.

Video-laden threads would be like a minefield for me.

 

[.Shane.]

BW is overstated as the problem. The YT videos don't automatically stream.

 

[Cutlass]

QFT.



Bandwidth. There are still people on dialup, and d/ling / streaming the video would hurt that. I also don't like the way the embedding breaks up the flow when I'm trying to scroll quickly through a bunch of posts. And yeah, I have the same feelings towards big pictures too.

Which is why I prefer pics to be thumbnailed unless they're pretty small files.

 

[GenMarshall]

No thanks, I rather have posts load efficently and quickly instead of being lagged because of an embedded flash link.

 

[Mirc]

BW is overstated as the problem. The YT videos don't automatically stream.

QFT!! Too many people seem to forget that. You would need to click on them first.
I think it would be useful. I support this.

 

[dutchfire]

BW is overstated as the problem. The YT videos don't automatically stream.

I sometimes visit a site with a couple of YT videos on a single page, and it takes damn long to load it, while pages on the same site without videos load quickly.

 

[Hygro]

but it only has to load the picture and the bit of flash code that allows you to load the actual video... =/

 

[Mirc]

Exactly. The only way for something like that to make a webpage load slower is to have literally thousands of them on one page, which I've seen on some poorly-made websites. That's easily fixable by limiting the number of videos one can tag in one post, just like it is currently with pictures (how about a maximum of 3 for example?). And thus even if every poster in one page would use the maximum embedded videos allowed, you would still get at most 60 on one page, which should not actually make much a difference in page load time.

 

[azzaman333]

If limited to 1 embedded video per post, I support this.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No thanks, I rather have posts load efficently and quickly instead of being lagged because of an embedded flash link.

I sometimes visit a site with a couple of YT videos on a single page, and it takes damn long to load it, while pages on the same site without videos load quickly.

Both of the above posts explain the same reasons as I have for not supporting embedded videos. Besides, they just look ugly. And as LucyDuke said, not all of us are blessed with scads of RAM. Unless I'm actually at YouTube and just watching something like my soaps, my browser tends to crash.

 

[dutchfire]

Exactly. The only way for something like that to make a webpage load slower is to have literally thousands of them on one page, which I've seen on some poorly-made websites. That's easily fixable by limiting the number of videos one can tag in one post, just like it is currently with pictures (how about a maximum of 3 for example?). And thus even if every poster in one page would use the maximum embedded videos allowed, you would still get at most 60 on one page, which should not actually make much a difference in page load time.

Well, no offence, maybe you haven't noticed it, but I have noticed it on various sites, and I think it's important to keep the site accessible to people with slow internet connections/computers.

 

[LucyDuke]

I like to keep up with the Funny Pictures thread in H&J, and Members Photos. But I don't check them on my regular home computer because they're just too heavy.

I don't see why embedding is so much better than linking.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

For those with slow internet connections: If you got Firefox, consider Stop Autoplay addon. It allows you to block flash, so you get a frame which you click so it'll show up.
I know, slightly off-topic, but can't hurt.

I tested it a while ago with some flashy sites, and it loaded a lot faster with the addon.