flickr vs. YouTube
September 25th, 2006 | 
Author: The very name of my favorite photo-hosting web site (flickr.com) brings to mind the sound a film projector makes. Movies are called flicks or flix sometimes. But flickr.com only hosts still photos. I wish flickr.com hosted video, too. I’ve uploaded a couple videos to YouTube, but I like the community aspect of flickr.com better. YouTube allows comments and has a groups feature, but it’s just not the same. I want all my media eggs in one basket.
YouTube.com lets you embed a link into your web page, so I’ve done that on my bike blog with my helmet cam videos. The 2 videos I’ve uploaded so far are crude, and I don’t know how many people outside my family would enjoy them, but here they are:
www.bikeblog.us/category/video/
One is just the raw footage from the helmet cam, the other I spent way too long in iMovie for the results I got.
Do any of you share videos online, and what do you use?
Posted in 
Google now has video…have you tried there? I don’t share videos, just pictures, so I’m not sure…oh and there is this website called grouper.com I think. I’m really just leaving a comment so you know that I actually read your blog.
Wow, someone reads my blog??!!??
I’ll check out google video and grouper.com. But I’d really like flickr to start hosting video.
Thanks, Christine.
So what’s your method of sharing photos? Do you have a flickr.com account?