February 16, 2004
Should I Audio Blog?
I got this letter in response to my audio blogging today:
please please please stop.
I like being able to READ your site, not have my browser fire up iTunes every time I try to want to see(hear) the contents of an article. :-)
If you must audioblog, can you PLEASE include a transcript or something?
Sorry, but this gives me a chance to record my opinions real time, which for me is what blogging is all about.
So, with apologies to Bruce Springsteen:
I'm driving in my car,
I turn on the radio.
They're taking about Sori,
I just say no.
They think that he's real good,
But I just want to shout.
'Cause when he hits,
Oh, oh,
Strikeout.
Update: Just to allay the fears of some of the commentors, I have no plans to go to full audio blogging. I'm only going to use it if I'm on the road and can't get to a computer.
Posted by David Pinto at
08:31 PM
|
Blogs
|
TrackBack (1)
I like it. If I was at work, I probably wouldn't, but....I'm not. :)
I usually read from work (via the XML feed populating my livejournal friends list), and I just skip anything that says audioblog.
Which isn't to say that it particularly bothers me, as it's obvious before I click-through that it's audio content, but tally one more for the ignore_audio_entries column.
I'm not a huge fan myself, although I do tend to listen to them if I'm at home (but, obviously, not at work).
I agree with your sentiment that it allows you to blog in realtime when you're not home, though, and as such I encourage you to continue using audioblog: I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of your readers use it.
Personally, I'd feel compelled to include transcripts (after the fact, obviously) -- but more for hearing-impaired readers than for lazy folks like me. But that may just be because I'm used to following strict accessability guidelines at work.
I, too, skip the audioblog stuff mostly because I'm at work...
The audioblog is a bad idea. It makes it impossible to skim the blog. It means I can't download the blog (and the links) for later reading on the train. It means I can't read the blog when I have to worry about bothering people. I could go on... If that's where you're going with his blog, I'll be be moving on (sadly).
Hey, why not. It's nice to hear your voice after reading it.
The audio quality isn't the greatest, but then again, if we think of what you're doing, it's pretty cool.
For those who don't like it, they can skip it.
(Although I'm not sure I'd try audioblogging the probabilistic model of range...)
I skip audio posts not because I'm at work, but because I'm usually already listening to something and don't want the song/stream/whatever interrupted to hear something that probably would be better served written, rather than spoken. (No offense to you, of course, but that's been my audioblogging experience.)
Audio is perfect when you're in an impromptu situation, like you were when riding in your car.
It's not replacement for the written word, of course, but if you've got something you want to say re baseball and you're not able to blog traditionally, I'd rather have the audio than no Pinto at all. :)
I kind of like it, but I've got a more flexible job. I'd hate to see it replace typed entries, but it's a nice change of pace. I'd say keep doing it b/c people have already adapted.
If you could transcribe the audio blog later it would be great. I can't listen to it at work.
Another problem with audio blogging - those of us who can't actually hear have to try to piece together what you posted from only the comments. An interesting party game, but not so enlightening.
A post-dated transcript (or summary, at the very least) would be lovely.
I like it. I can just download the file and listen to it later if I'm at work.
Me thinks it's neat-o.