So an over site on my part in entering data on the "edited" field of our YouTube stake-out - and Dr. Wesch's subsequent inquiry as to what we consider to constitute editing - has prompted me to post the following. Hopefully this will lead to some kind of fruitful discussion for anyone interested. None of this is intended to alter any data already collected; simply to raise a discussion.

In reviewing my notes on the videos I had watched with the specific intention of identifying what I found to qualify as an edit, I've come across a kind of dilemma regarding some possible sub-categories to be considered as an edit, along with some other tenuous "stuff".

The majority of my videos either lacked edits entirely (i.e. continuous user-gen footage), or were illegally uploaded talk shows, dramas, etc. - the edited content of which was NOT GENERATED BY THE USER. I also had instances in which the user had made edits in the 'anything qualifies' sense that seems to have been standard with the class, which I did not factor as significant in my reading of the categorizing of our videos as edits (many, for example, were extremely minute). Some of you may consider that a mis-reading, but if so, I'd encourage you to explain your perspective. As I take it, our use of the label "edited" connotes that the user is aware of and has demonsted the editing process beyond uploading a video and throwing a soundtrack on top of this (e.g. scene transitions, text, or speed alterations). The edit should evidence at least a rudimentary use of editing beyond dropping either video or sound into, let's say, Vegas, and then simply rendering and uploading the work.

My point being - as we have currently classified it, edited content can include work that actually lacks any real editing whatsoever on behalf of the user - beyond their superficially having rendered the material in some form of editing software. Thoughts?

1  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Show Last Reply