wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: new promotional possibility - Fullscreen QTVR site
Nick Crossland 2006-Jul-22 17:32:00
Wow, you go on holiday and come back to find the pano-world mailing lists
are either having major heated debates or imploding!
I've read through this thread (thanks Gmail) and thought I'd just throw my
thoughts in - although many of them have already been said very clearly and
calmly.
Broadly I would be against the proposal, for the main reasons already
outlined by others, but which I will summarise in my own words:
- This is strictly a non-commercial project, and this kind of association
with any commercial entity, anywhere in the world implies some sort of
commercial arrangement or endorsement - WHETHER OR NOT this is the case.
- I have nothing against Hans, VRMag, FullscreenQTVR.com, or any of the
people involved in this, and I think the intentions of promoting VR are
entirely worthwhile and honourable, and would support showing as many VRs to
people who have not seen them before!
- As I understand it, the only real benefit presented is to increase search
engine rankings. I don't understand the value of a page replicating the
content of the WWP site (I do understand it from a SEO point of view, before
I get leapt on -- I've been working involved in producing website for 10
years now). The benefit of being number one in a search for 'widgets' if you
sell widgets is clear, but PageRanks, etc are very much like the emperor's
new clothes but for this type of content: what are the actual practical
benefits? What would people be searching for? As already pointed out the
'vanity' searches already turn up the WWP pages for the author's names, so
what will be the benefit of adding a duplicate page? (I just checked, and
googling for myself the WWP pages are results number 7-10). If we are trying
to attract 'newbies', will they search for 'worldwide panorama'? Or
'panoramas of water'? Or are they more likely to follow a blog link saying
'I saw this really cool site'?
- On this basis, I think the work that VRMag etc have been doing to date (
e.g. a regular article pointing out the events have taken place,
highlighting good examples) are far more valuable than merely duplicating
existing content. I think 'the greater good' would be served better by
concentrating these efforts into more 'critical analysis' of the project.
- I have never found the WWP site to be slow, but if it was the case that a
European mirror would be useful, I would have no objection to this saying
'Sponsored by XYZ', no more than it is currently 'sponsored' by the
University of California (as I understand it, universities these days
particularly in America (and in the UK too, if we don't want to be
anti-American!) are practically run on a commercial basis anyway!)
- I obviously didn't read the small print on the WWP site very carefully
because I had no recollection of the permission to include thumbnails on
another site, but this is no doubt my own fault!
- Many of the panos submitted are not Wow-Class visually (I'll be the first
to admit that in the case of my most recent submission), but the story
behind them is what makes them worthy of inclusion. Since fullscreenqtvr's
mission is to GIVE the wow factor to people, would the WWP content fit
comfortably with this? If we are trying to showcase the medium to newbies,
would some of the WWP panos (for the sake of argument my most recent one!)
give the first-time viewer the same gasp of excitement as ones from the
moon, Everest or other visually stunning locations?
- The problem of linking with/without permission has been around ever since
the first images were put on the web. If you are permitting one site to
reproduce an index of WWP projects, it is an extremely valid point to say
'if they can do it, why can't I?', and end up with a number of derivative
sites, in the style Yuv described so well.
So turn the problem into an opportunity - publish a list of panoramas as an
XML files (it could probably already be done from the KML file for Google
Earth, if someone wished to), follow the Web 2.0 trend and let other people
remix the list of panos to their hearts content? Mashup of travel guide
books from Amazon related to the locations of the panos? A playlist of song
titles inspired by the descriptions of the panos? A page with news headlines
from the locations of the panos?
What becomes more powerful is to reverse the situation and allow other
people to mashup the WWP data. An aggregated news site could then
automatically look up location info in the XML and add links to panos
related to their story. A site could grab geotagged Flickr photos and WWP
panos. A travel site could link to your pano because their CMS automatically
found it and suggested it to an author. If the terms of use specify that the
data must include a credit to the WWP, and it can only link to a pano page,
rather than the media directly - it succeeds in generating more awareness of
the medium. Have Amazon and Flickr succeeded in generating more or less
awareness of their products by opening up their APIs? The BBC's Backstage
project to open up as much of their data as possible through APIs (which I
have participated in, and incidentally gets my Google vanity search a higher
ranking than the WWP!) has similar licensing terms and has been very
successful.
Would an eco-system of WWP related sites (each based on the same content but
adding their own twist or their own value) be beneficial? I personally think
it would, as long as it is done on fair licensing terms. For example if I
produced wwp-comments.com which would allow visitors to make comments on the
panos they have seen (by linking to the WWP site), then the license terms
which allowed me to use the WWP data freely and non-commercially would say
that I would have to make all comments generated also freely available
through XML, or similar, so they could be incorporated back into the WWP
site, or anyone else that wanted access to them.
But anyway, that is a side issue and no doubt one for another day!
So - in summary, I'm against this proposal as it stands at this moment, as I
believe preserving the appearance of non-commerciality is more valuable than
the benefits that are being offered.
If FSQTVR wish to approach any WWP participants and invite them to appear in
a WWP gallery within the FSQTVR site, this is their prerogative, and it is
up to any individual participant whether they accept or not. The whole
premise of allowing photographers to retain full control over their
copyright makes this acceptable to everyone. This would be, in my mind, the
fairest and most acceptable way of maintaining that separation of interests.
~nick~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]