Spokes.cc - An image sharing social network for cyclists

lostboysaint

Angus Young wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

That is all irrelevant, though, given the number of people posting their footage on YouTube and elsewhere. Regardless of the merits of the footage, clearly people like posting this stuff. The only question to be discussed here is whether the OP has an attractive vehicle for this footage or not. If the quality of footage were a driver of success, youTube would be out of business, given that 90% of everything posted there is crap.

As I said in the previous post, asking for opinions can lead you all sorts of dead ends.

No it isn't, it's directly relevant. If there's that many options elsewhere then what's to differentiate, other than it's just a load of crap GoPro cycling videos instead of the diversity of elsewhere and, as has already been pointed out, that market is already saturated by Mpora and others.

It can indeed. Like "just turn out another crap video channel that competes with professionally produced ones", instead of doing something that would have real value and offer real talking points and engagement.

So there aren't a million and one places that you can find quality footage and pictures already?

Nowhere near as many, because they're all concentrating on shite GoPro footage!

And you still haven't come up with a POV video that isn't:

a. better shot from another angle
b. demonstrates exactly how "extreme" the activity is despite not being shot from a better angle.

Angus Young

lostboysaint wrote:

And you still haven't come up with a POV video that isn't:

a. better shot from another angle
b. demonstrates exactly how "extreme" the activity is despite not being shot from a better angle.

I have. You didn't agree. You haven't shown a photo that immerses you in the action better than the two examples I posted. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And that's not to mention that most people's photographs are as crap as their GoPro footage (just go look at most of the pics posted here), so if your argument is that quality will out then making it photo based gets it no further than making it footage based.

Forget about the quality of the footage or the image. That's a red herring. What will make or break is some kind of functionality that strikes a chord with people. Otherwise all you're doing is offering people server space. And YouTube have got that one covered.

JoeKersh

I'm not building it completely based on what people say, i just like to get opinions and input from others. Its too easy to channel all your time into a project to find you've lost your way entirely and you end up with a product that appeals to nobody but yourself.

As for appealing to people, i hope to build a site that is entirely user driven and allows users to very quickly and easily filter their results down to tiny levels to find exactly what they want. As far as i know nobody else offers anything like that.

I dont see why videos and images cant live on the same site side by side if done well. If you just want to look at images you can change your filters to allow that.

One thing i am going to change is the colour scheme and font sizes, i dont think it puts the media (whatever it is) in the forefront of the users vision, which is also another feature different to the cluttered mess that is mpora and vital

Angus Young

JoeKersh wrote:

One thing i am going to change is the colour scheme and font sizes, i dont think it puts the media (whatever it is) in the forefront of the users vision, which is also another feature different to the cluttered mess that is mpora and vital

One point as far as fretting over the aesthetics of the design is concerned...

Being a designer my natural instinct is to care deeply over the 'look'. But, if I take my designer's hat off for a moment, I notice that all the biggest sites, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon and eBay are all horribly designed and that's never held any of them back. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

thisismat

Angus Young wrote:

I notice that all the biggest sites, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon and eBay are all horribly designed and that's never held any of them back. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

I feel like this just may be a mixture of an established brand identity and simple user interface, big established corperations rarely overhall there entire identity because there already populated in peoples day to day life. I guess it's just a case of if it isn't broken, don't fix it. :P

Angus Young

thisismat wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

I notice that all the biggest sites, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon and eBay are all horribly designed and that's never held any of them back. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

I feel like this just may be a mixture of an established brand identity and simple user interface, big established corperations rarely overhall there entire identity because there already populated in peoples day to day life. I guess it's just a case of if it isn't broken, don't fix it. :P

But the point is, they became established (and the de facto) on the back of some of the most horrible designs ever to see the light of day (aesthetically, at least), so what it does is more important than what it looks like.

lostboysaint

lostboysaint wrote:

Why did you change your mind? Haven't you noticed that the most active forums are the ones that have very limited videos and lots of chat? Most people couldn't give a shiny shite for other people's videos and if they do then they are very easily housed in a specific area of a forum.

Just for you Angus. It's all about the ability to interact. As ythis thread, and the continued success of poorly designed forums all over the world prove.

Angus Young

lostboysaint wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Why did you change your mind? Haven't you noticed that the most active forums are the ones that have very limited videos and lots of chat? Most people couldn't give a shiny shite for other people's videos and if they do then they are very easily housed in a specific area of a forum.

Just for you Angus. It's all about the ability to interact. As ythis thread, and the continued success of poorly designed forums all over the world prove.

So you agree, then, the quality of the video doesn't matter?

Chunkers1980

It does if you actually want to watch it.

Angus Young

Chunkers1980 wrote:

It does if you actually want to watch it.

Doesn't seem to have done YouTube any harm.

lostboysaint

Hmmm, which bits work on this and why do you think that out of the 1'55" of footage there's less than 15 secs of GoPro footage? And this is from one of the masters of the exploitation of digital media.


https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152888033778225

Angus Young

lostboysaint wrote:

Hmmm, which bits work on this and why do you think that out of the 1'55" of footage there's less than 15 secs of GoPro footage? And this is from one of the masters of the exploitation of digital media.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152888033778225

You're still missing the point. As far as the success or not of the site goes, it doesn't matter.