4 ms·

Thanks for the attempt at constructive criticism. There are actually that many words as subtitles in the video, I didn't leave out the hearing impaired. And a

Thanks for the attempt at constructive criticism. There are actually that many words as subtitles in the video, I didn't leave out the hearing impaired. And a few hundred words are not necessary when six words at the top of the screen pretty much make it clear to most people. Maybe <h1> is not big enough, will consider making it bigger.

anigbrowl 4y ago
Your video didn't have subtitles. I get what it's about, but I don't want to sit through your video or spend lots of time trying to figure it out from documents without any other context. Watching videos is extremely time consuming compared to reading, and since I'm going to have to read the source documents anyway to fully understand your argument., I really don't want to process two different kinds of media. It could be that you're making a really great point, but it could also be that you're a crank or a bullshit artist. If you want me to invest time caring about your issue, invest a little of your own in explaining it.
vasqw 4y ago
Many people won't watch a video, especially not a 16 minutes long one. I know I won't. Use written words.
zerocrates 4y ago
Just so you know, captions don't appear to be enabled for your video.
- mchannon 4y ago
  Good catch, thanks! Fixing (or trying to fix) that now.
  - altairprime 4y ago
    As well: If you’re able to post a link or the copy of the transcript at the end of the page, that would be helpful even without time markers.
glaucon 4y ago
I realise you are being sarcastic but I genuinely did not see the H1. The face on the video was probably the first thing I looked at and then I went scanning for some explanatory text. It's your choice what you do with your web page but a short paragraph would, imho, help to engage casual visitors.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> a few hundred words are not necessary when six words at the top of the screen pretty much make it clear to most people The title makes clear the allegation. Not the evidence. Even allegation specifics, e.g. who forged whose signature on which form, is elusive.
michaelmrose 4y ago
The point of the words isn't in service of the hearing impaired it's to convince the person of the worthiness of a cause or at least to keep an open mind while watching a 16 minute youtube video. The meat of many matters can be digested in about 10 seconds and the whole meal disposed of in 5-10 minutes given that adults easily read at 300 words per minute. Most "causes" on youtube are to be quite frank absolute garbage and take 15-30 minutes to cover issues that could profitably have been read in 2 minutes of actual content in between ads and words from your sponsor. You had about 10 seconds to convince people that they wouldn't be wasting their time watching the video and you entirely failed. Based on reading others analysis it could have been summarized as convicted conman who is almost certainly guilty alleges unproven proprietorial misconduct to distract from own guilt and invites rubes to get in on the con on the ground floor. I believe that misconduct happens even happens frequently and have an interest in stopping it but I don't believe the most effective vehicle for that change would be donating money to a conman. I would prefer causes like the ACLU and the innocence project while leaving this party to handle his own affairs. I trust that his extreme vested interest in dealing with this matter will inspire him to pursue it to its end without outside investment.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Edit: prosecutorial misconduct damn you spell check. Is it just me or is spell check getting worse?

anigbrowl 4y ago

Your video didn't have subtitles. I get what it's about, but I don't want to sit through your video or spend lots of time trying to figure it out from documents without any other context. Watching videos is extremely time consuming compared to reading, and since I'm going to have to read the source documents anyway to fully understand your argument., I really don't want to process two different kinds of media. It could be that you're making a really great point, but it could also be that you're a crank or a bullshit artist. If you want me to invest time caring about your issue, invest a little of your own in explaining it.

vasqw 4y ago

Many people won't watch a video, especially not a 16 minutes long one. I know I won't. Use written words.

zerocrates 4y ago

Just so you know, captions don't appear to be enabled for your video.

mchannon 4y ago
Good catch, thanks! Fixing (or trying to fix) that now.
- altairprime 4y ago
  As well: If you’re able to post a link or the copy of the transcript at the end of the page, that would be helpful even without time markers.

glaucon 4y ago

I realise you are being sarcastic but I genuinely did not see the H1. The face on the video was probably the first thing I looked at and then I went scanning for some explanatory text. It's your choice what you do with your web page but a short paragraph would, imho, help to engage casual visitors.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> a few hundred words are not necessary when six words at the top of the screen pretty much make it clear to most people The title makes clear the allegation. Not the evidence. Even allegation specifics, e.g. who forged whose signature on which form, is elusive.

michaelmrose 4y ago

The point of the words isn't in service of the hearing impaired it's to convince the person of the worthiness of a cause or at least to keep an open mind while watching a 16 minute youtube video. The meat of many matters can be digested in about 10 seconds and the whole meal disposed of in 5-10 minutes given that adults easily read at 300 words per minute. Most "causes" on youtube are to be quite frank absolute garbage and take 15-30 minutes to cover issues that could profitably have been read in 2 minutes of actual content in between ads and words from your sponsor. You had about 10 seconds to convince people that they wouldn't be wasting their time watching the video and you entirely failed. Based on reading others analysis it could have been summarized as convicted conman who is almost certainly guilty alleges unproven proprietorial misconduct to distract from own guilt and invites rubes to get in on the con on the ground floor. I believe that misconduct happens even happens frequently and have an interest in stopping it but I don't believe the most effective vehicle for that change would be donating money to a conman. I would prefer causes like the ACLU and the innocence project while leaving this party to handle his own affairs. I trust that his extreme vested interest in dealing with this matter will inspire him to pursue it to its end without outside investment.

michaelmrose 4y ago
Edit: prosecutorial misconduct damn you spell check. Is it just me or is spell check getting worse?