tag:,2008:/1/tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218- 2008-09-24T12:06:35Z Comments for Top 10 YouTube Videos of All Time Movable Type 4.1 tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218 2007-11-09T03:00:55Z 2007-12-16T23:08:23Z YouTube Releases Multi-file Uploader, Raises File Limits to 1 GB digg_url = 'http://digg.com/tech_news/YouTube_Releases_Multi_file_Uploader_Raises_File_Limits_to_1_GB'; digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff'; digg_skin = 'compact'; YouTube just announced the availability for Windows users of a desktop uploader (install page here). Users will now be able to do bulk file uploads. The company also raised its file size limit from 100 MB to 1 GB. Length will remain at 10 minutes... Marshall Kirkpatrick http://www.readwriteweb.com YouTube just announced the availability for Windows users of a desktop uploader (install page here). Users will now be able to do bulk file uploads. The company also raised its file size limit from 100 MB to 1 GB. Length will remain at 10 minutes though, so that just means more high quality video will be available on the site.

Google Video remains the option of choice for long form video uploaders but some YouTube users have long complained about the small file size requirements and resulting low quality. Vimeo, a tiny boutique competitor owned by IAC, opened to HD uploads at the end of last month.

A Mac version of the uploader is in the works, the company said. Hopefully the time limit will be changed as well - the YouTube brand is so strong there's no reason not to encourage users to store their full length videos there. Video archiving is important work and YouTube should be up to the task.

]]> tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26156 Comment from * Miss Universe on 2007-11-08 * Miss Universe http://aa11.tripod.com/gold/ Several video sharing sites were doing this months ago. Why did it take YouTube so long to implement this.

Perhaps, it a concern that members would be uploading more spam videos.

Hope no one abuses this.

]]> 2007-11-09T04:32:59Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26157 Comment from Web Directory on 2007-11-08 Web Directory http://www.fatinfo.com Kind of surprised that people are still so reliant on YouTube when there are so many other video site that had been offering high quality videos, and longer lengths for months already.

But it is good to see YouTube playing catch up.

]]> 2007-11-09T04:38:41Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26158 Comment from Bud Gibson on 2007-11-08 Bud Gibson http://michiganinnovators.org I have to say the length limit is a giant pain.

]]> 2007-11-09T05:52:24Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26159 Comment from quirkyalone on 2007-11-09 quirkyalone http://quirkyalone.blogspot.com >>> Several video sharing sites were doing this months ago. Why did it take YouTube so long to implement this.

]]> 2007-11-09T10:15:07Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26160 Comment from Norman on 2007-11-09 Norman http://web500.us This is great new. Although many others have high quality video , they don't have a lot in their database. This will make youtube even popular. I wish youtube can remove 10 min lilimt or at least 30 min.

]]> 2007-11-09T10:57:01Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26161 Comment from Michael Woo on 2007-11-09 Michael Woo http://michaelwoo.net Gee, it's good to know that they have raised the limit.. this also means that MORE people will upload videos on youtube and they will have an enormous traffic..

Thanks for the info :)

]]> 2007-11-09T12:05:31Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26162 Comment from Sujoy on 2007-11-09 Sujoy http://techkeyla.blogspot.com Aah. So it means we can upload larger vids. Yippe!! Won't have to get paused in the middle of a Joke on a Lee Evans concert . LOL.
Thanks for the Info!

]]> 2007-11-09T12:51:07Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26163 Comment from Stelabouras on 2007-11-09 Stelabouras http://www.wiggler.gr Great move from Youtube but this will only help in video quality. I really wish they would remove this 10-minutes-only limitation in each video upload :/

]]> 2007-11-09T12:52:15Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26164 Comment from Dan Schawbel on 2007-11-09 Dan Schawbel http://www.personalbrandingblog.wordpress.com Well one thing is for sure, we will get better quality video's.

]]> 2007-11-09T13:47:50Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26165 Comment from Voices.com CEO on 2007-11-09 Voices.com CEO http://www.voices.com Agreed. YouTube definitely needs to increase the time limit to 60 minutes.

If the new measurement of a websites stickiness is no longer page views, but rather time-on-site, you'd think that Google would take the first step in keeping people at YouTube longer. The best way to keep someone engaged is through video, and the easiest way they can do that is keep users watching longer videos. There's some logic for you.

]]> 2007-11-09T13:48:10Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26166 Comment from dude01 on 2007-11-09 dude01 Humm, that uploader is available for several days now, why did they just announce it now o.o

]]> 2007-11-09T14:33:32Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26167 Comment from Chi-chi Ekweozor on 2007-11-09 Chi-chi Ekweozor http://www.realfresh.tv Thanks for the heads up, Marshall!

Paired with the InVideo Ads announced a while back, this new development is clearly the next step in demonstrating that YouTube takes quality video output seriously.

What would be the point in YouTube courting advertisers without first ensuring that the content that they can advertise against is sufficiently high quality? As in, the quality deemed acceptable on a medium these advertisers already understand: TV.

Disclosure: my company helps content owners --from independent companies to brand advertisers-- publish content on the top video sharing and social networking sites on the web, including YouTube.

It'll be interesting to see how the big media companies react to this. @11, the reason YouTube announced it now is probably to make sure it was quietly tried and tested by the YouTube community first.

There’s more insight on our combined website and blog: www.realfresh.tv

]]> 2007-11-09T16:19:44Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26168 Comment from Michael K Pate on 2007-11-09 Michael K Pate http://michaelkpate.com I was offered this last Saturday when I was uploading something but since it was only 83MB I didn't bother to use it. I didn't realize it was such a big deal.

]]> 2007-11-09T16:34:35Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26169 Comment from Bill on 2007-11-09 Bill No matter how big your uploaded file is, it is converted to 320x240 video with mono audio. So can anyone enlighten me how useful this is? It is just a waste of you uploading time.

]]> 2007-11-09T17:31:56Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26170 Comment from Dish on 2007-11-09 Dish http://www.satelliteusa.com Right on. It's one good news. Good to know they came up with that idea.

]]> 2007-11-09T20:06:05Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26171 Comment from Cece Salomon-Lee on 2007-11-09 Cece Salomon-Lee http://www.Insight24.com Regarding the time limit, my company was allowed to post videos to our channel (www.youtube.com/insight24) that were up to 90 minutes long. Because we focus on business/tech content, the extended time was needed to show the full presentations and that's probably why we were granted an exception.

Per voices.com CEO, it's be interesting to see if the longer time does translate into longer viewing times.

]]> 2007-11-09T21:02:07Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26172 Comment from alex williams on 2007-11-09 alex williams http://splashcastmedia.com SplashCast launched last February with the ability to upload multiple file types.

]]> 2007-11-10T01:36:16Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26173 Comment from Dave on 2007-11-09 Dave Blame the money-grubbing Big Content for limiting YouTube to videos ten minutes in length.

]]> 2007-11-10T03:09:57Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26174 Comment from John Buchanan on 2007-11-09 John Buchanan http://HowToTeachEnglishOnline.com This is great! So now when I create my YouTube English lessons, the quality will be better. This is great for online English teachers who want to make better and better English lessons for their students.

]]> 2007-11-10T05:52:19Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26175 Comment from mark on 2007-11-10 mark http://free-iphone-apple.blogspot.com Great! Better quality videos...

]]> 2007-11-10T18:16:25Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26176 Comment from Bijoux on 2007-11-10 Bijoux http://www.jeforma.com For bloggers like us this is pretty sweet, increasing the size 10x will enable to better serve our readers. Once again, YouTube is leading the market.
Bijoux
www.jeforma.com

]]> 2007-11-10T22:24:13Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26177 Comment from Nature Wallpaper on 2007-11-10 Nature Wallpaper http://www.eugenef.com Has anyone considered that a lot of PR companies will be uploading commercial and other commercial generated content that will look like user generated? By increasing the limit they can produce higher quality and none to be the wiser. :(

]]> 2007-11-10T22:42:12Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26178 Comment from Slacker on 2007-11-11 Slacker http://askaslacker.blogspot.com Several sites have unlimited upload lengths and file sizes, but aren't "popular" like YouTube at this time.


http://askaslacker.blogspot.com

]]> 2007-11-11T09:03:42Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26179 Comment from Mike G on 2007-11-11 Mike G Yea there have been plenty of sites doin this for a while and the quality of the video will stay the same since its compressed. There are new sites popping up, such as Garfum.com, that lets you upload as many videos as you want no limit. Besides why would anyone want to upload to youtube when there content is just viewed? If your serious about your videos and want to make something with it, i found garfum to be a solid site for that. It seems as though they have structured competition with money prizes. Im still new to it but it seems promising...and something else thats awesome is you get a free email...its like ur challengerid@garfum.com its pretty sweet. who knows this might be the new site to come

]]> 2007-11-11T22:34:56Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26180 Comment from Dude on 2007-11-11 Dude http://garfum.com yea i have seen this site on youtube on such, through some video like garfum tahiti girl or w/e...it doesnt seem too bad

]]> 2007-11-11T22:36:40Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26181 Comment from Datta on 2007-11-14 Datta ok its very good no?

]]> 2007-11-14T10:34:20Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3218-comment:26182 Comment from Richard on 2007-11-20 Richard http://www.frankwatching.com/archive/author/richard Why is this useful? Seems to me that you don't need 1GB for content that is transcoded to 320x240 with a mono audiotrack.

Unless, of course, YouTube wants higher res content being uploaded to the site already, in preparation for higher quality purposing of content at a later stage...

Should we start pushing up videos at full resolution (e.g. 720x576 for PAL)? Or even HD at 720p?

]]> 2007-11-20T13:33:01Z