Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Contents |
Let's Get this Party Started
It seems to me that there has been some stagnation in the progress of this exciting, newly formed wiki project. Many quality discussions have taken place regarding specific podcasts themselves, related nomenclature, categorization and perhaps most importantly benchmarks for podcast notability in Wikipedia. I am gleeful that many users have taken interest in the development of this project furtherance of well constructed podcast related articles in Wikipedia itself. I do hope to see some future progress made in deciding upon key factors that will ultimately be used to judge individual podcast notability for inclusion.
So my fellow WikiProject cohorts, let us jump start our efforts in continuing the good work that has been done so far, I propose an extended discussion on what this project will use as a measure of what makes a podcast notable. I'd love to see some sort of definitive resolution on this particular issue within say, the next month. Now I know this is hopeful thinking, and I know there are other key issues involved with the maturation of this WikiProject, but I do feel that if we can determine project priorities we can really begin to see more rapid growth of both quality articles as well as the Project Podcasting's goals to more swiftly be met. Thank you to all who have been so helpful in working hard on this project, we have a long way to go so let's get this party started and resume discussion! Testerer 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Testerer is right, the project has been sailing on stagnant waters recently. I admit, I've been very busy and have had very little time to do a lot of things, so we all need to chip in and help a litle. Sixteen of you signed up saying you were willing to help this project grow, well now it's time to start. We need to figure out what makes a podcast notable.
In my experience, it's very hard to get notable/working subscriber-tracker sites, but I think that the number of subscribers is obviously important. Does anyone know of a way in which we can find accurate subscriber counts?Ganfon 04:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- FeedBurner is the only service that tracks feeds and their subscribers and also publicly display this information(that I know of). Obviously Digg and Itunes and Podcast Alley top ranked podcasts are worth a look. Advertisers themselves have a hard time getting the numbers we are talking about. I think Ganfon gets to the root of the matter in saying that those who've volunteered are now more than ever welcome to move things along. Notability standards are a priority like no other and I personally would applaud any efforts at solidifying agreed upon requirements for such status. Testerer 08:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I would like to point out that Feedburner is not the only podcasting host that shows subscribers. Very many podcasts use Liberated Syndication libsyn.com and Liberated Syndication shows statistics of subscribers and downloads almost to the second after the download of the podcast is completed. Privately hosted podcasts also now have parsing programs used to show their bandwith and by using some simple math can show exactly how many total downloads they have had per podcast.Cachefly is also a notable podcast host. Just a few suggestions to let you know you are severely limiting popular podcasts by only going to Feedburner as a requirement. MenuetRanit 03:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Alright, so with that said here's what I propose. We form a list of traits that show notability. I will being this list below. We'll start with a boldface trait, underneath which we'll have a discussion until we get the trait the way we want it. Than we will put the finalized list on the main page, and begin to expand our project.Ganfon 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Notability Requirements
The following are a list of traits that merit the notability of a podcast, podcaster, or podcasting-related topic. In order to meet the notability requirement, the topic must meet two or more of these requirements.
- Have at least 100 subscribers, according to Feedburner's subscriber count or Digg's Digg count.
- Have some sort of news coverage.
- From what sources?Elocina 17:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sponsored by a notable corporation or group
- Hosted by a Notable individual or Group.
Notability and Farpoint Media
The above sounds good to me. I am working on reviving Farpoint Media, which failed an AfD a while back. I am holding off on reposting it until I am sure we have made notability clear and evident. I know it could pass all of the above measures as a company. Anyone want to help me out? If so, click into my sandbox (above) and help me get the article ready to fly. --Kukini hablame aqui 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you get some more references in there it'll be a big help. We've laid out four good-solid notability requirements that I think will help a lot. Ganfon 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep an eye out for the Podcast and New Media Expo in a couple of weeks guys. I believe you will get your notability for Farpoint Media then.--Arkcana 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Diggs Should not be a requirement
- I'd like to bring a few things to your attention regarding the Digg.com requirements for a podcast. Digg.com is a very good social news website but, the podcasting area is very flawed. There are two points I'd like to bring up to you before you use this as a requirement. The first point is, new podcasts submitted to Digg.com's podcasting area are never seen by the public. There is no way for Digg users to find a new podcast with 0 or 1 diggs unless they search for it and hope the description contains that word or, the podcasters themselves ask for Diggs. Many podcasters do not even submit their feed to Digg.com
- Which brings me to my second point. There are many podcasts listed on Digg.com with a very low number of diggs. The podcasts themselves get thousands of subscribers and downloads. One in particular is a web development podcast who mentoned on their show they received in excess of 10,000 downloads that week. On Digg.com they have less then 20 diggs. Another show I know of is a smaller gaming podcast with over 2,000 downloads a week. On Digg.com they have less then 20 diggs. There is a podcast on Digg that I listen to with well over 100 diggs but, they only receive 1,500 downloads at the most. However, everytime they are on the air, they beg for diggs from their listeners which caused them to get the notoriety on digg.com.
- A third reason is, podcasts never "fall" off of the pages. On the front page of Digg's podcasting area, there is a show listed that has not been produced since October of 2006. The hosts of that show have said they will no longer be producing it (unfortunate as that is). Because the users who dugg the show are still using digg, that show is still on the front page and, other shows are pushed down the list as a result. Which keeps users on Digg.com from seeing the other podcasts available.
- And my fourth (and last) reason for this. Digg.com's podcasting area only shows you podcasts that are on the front page or, happen to get on the up and coming list. The up and coming list shows podcasts that get a certain number of diggs within a certain amount of time. Once they get too many or too little, they are taken off of the Up and Coming area and fall into the pages of podcasts on Digg.com.
- There are many well-known and popular podcasts (within certain genres and circles)that can not even be found on Digg.com . Digg.com is known to most podcasters as a good way to get extra exposure but, it is not the way to gauge popularity of a podcast. Until the podcasting system on Digg.com is improved, only the certain podcasts will be shown and found by users. This is not a good way to determine a notable podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MenuetRanit (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
