Vinay, I expect these are wonderful videos. But many of us do not watch videos/listen to podcasts. To help us, many/most posters to Substack autotranscribe these masterpieces so that we can get their content. Autotranscription is not perfect, but it is almost so and it is always close enough to get what should be gotten. It is also inexpensive. I believe I have asked this before (and I know you never read the comments) but I am putting it out there again. Many of us love your stuff, but this would allow more of us to have more of it. Thanks
I also find video/podcasts tedious and applaud those who transcribe. OTOH, the flood arriving daily in text is about all I can handle and I know I'm not missing much.
Be aware of different learning modalities, some do best with video or audio. TL:DR is not just a meme for those who find reading (or writing) tedious.
I'm not knocking it. I'm just pointing out that it takes a lot of time to edit videos, produce it, upload it etc. It's a lot of work. It doesn't seem like it, but trust me, it is. Every pause, every plosives, every breath etc. can/needs to be edited. So adding yet another thing may reduce the number of posts. It's easy enough to ask for it, but what's being asked is a lot of work.
Don't deny the work having a few training films in my credits. But kind of akin to Chris Wallace, a newsman without an audience is pointless. Still video IS needed for a certain group, the messages are important. Hit city, here we come!
It's not as easy as it sounds. You have to extract the audio from the video. Upload it to an online transcription service (or use a local program), wait however long the program takes, then post it. But if care about the article, you almost always have to fix the errors. You say it's good enough, but others will surely complain. Especially because these services botch jargons.. And the transcription service/software isn't free. OR... You can just click on the video and listen to it.
Actually, I have been surprised at how easily most of the sites on Substack have managed to find a way to do this fairly simply. I had feared it would be as you describe, but experience shows there are better platforms out there than I wish. I peruse dozens of stacks. There are not enough hours in the day to listen/watch everyone's stuff. And it is highly inefficient minute for minute knowledge transfer. And some of us are almost completely visual learners. So the sound is not contributory.
I am glad for the aural learners that have endless time that these facilities are there. I am just always campaigning for doing modest things that make information available to a much broader audience. There really are many of us who just cannot/will not listen/watch stuff. And losing that audience is bad for everyone.
Vinay, I expect these are wonderful videos. But many of us do not watch videos/listen to podcasts. To help us, many/most posters to Substack autotranscribe these masterpieces so that we can get their content. Autotranscription is not perfect, but it is almost so and it is always close enough to get what should be gotten. It is also inexpensive. I believe I have asked this before (and I know you never read the comments) but I am putting it out there again. Many of us love your stuff, but this would allow more of us to have more of it. Thanks
I also find video/podcasts tedious and applaud those who transcribe. OTOH, the flood arriving daily in text is about all I can handle and I know I'm not missing much.
Be aware of different learning modalities, some do best with video or audio. TL:DR is not just a meme for those who find reading (or writing) tedious.
I'm not knocking it. I'm just pointing out that it takes a lot of time to edit videos, produce it, upload it etc. It's a lot of work. It doesn't seem like it, but trust me, it is. Every pause, every plosives, every breath etc. can/needs to be edited. So adding yet another thing may reduce the number of posts. It's easy enough to ask for it, but what's being asked is a lot of work.
Don't deny the work having a few training films in my credits. But kind of akin to Chris Wallace, a newsman without an audience is pointless. Still video IS needed for a certain group, the messages are important. Hit city, here we come!
It's not as easy as it sounds. You have to extract the audio from the video. Upload it to an online transcription service (or use a local program), wait however long the program takes, then post it. But if care about the article, you almost always have to fix the errors. You say it's good enough, but others will surely complain. Especially because these services botch jargons.. And the transcription service/software isn't free. OR... You can just click on the video and listen to it.
Actually, I have been surprised at how easily most of the sites on Substack have managed to find a way to do this fairly simply. I had feared it would be as you describe, but experience shows there are better platforms out there than I wish. I peruse dozens of stacks. There are not enough hours in the day to listen/watch everyone's stuff. And it is highly inefficient minute for minute knowledge transfer. And some of us are almost completely visual learners. So the sound is not contributory.
I am glad for the aural learners that have endless time that these facilities are there. I am just always campaigning for doing modest things that make information available to a much broader audience. There really are many of us who just cannot/will not listen/watch stuff. And losing that audience is bad for everyone.