Talk:Hulu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hulu Talk Page

  • I reworded the criticism section while i wasn't logged in, 65.40.70.189 is me. This still needs citations. Mrsteveman1 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I updated the show listing to reflect current offerings. Tkasmai (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hulu was recent hacked which gave way to www.openhulu.com maybe a note of it should be made 19:44, 11 December 2007
  • I updated it to include the "Hack". 68.5.96.190 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the out of date tag because, to my knowledge, the article covers the topic in an up to date fashion, even covering current/pending events. Tkasmai (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard for sites like OPENHulu to claim they are hacks when they legitly use the embedding feature encouraged by Hulu.com themselves. I personally linked the entire series of Firefly to multiple sites and there was no issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.195.97 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with user 66.202.195.97. Fact: OPENHulu did not hack any of the available videos but merely just embedded all shows on their site so that those living outside of the United States can also watch the shows. I have taken a look at the OPENHulu site and have also experimented by embedding some shows on my own blog and the results confirm this fact. Gabbers511 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not from US, and I still can't watch hulu content embedded in places such as OPENHulu. 84.249.126.241 (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulu.com website seems to be experiencing an extreme slowdown. I wonder if this is due to the article in Time Magazine, or maybe its being HACKED again? I can't even load a video clip now. Mario2k4 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC) mario2k4

[edit] Content

To give a reader a sense of the scale of this enterprise, perhaps a section detailing the currently available content should be made available. Many of the shows that are offered are over 30 years old, suggesting the seriousness of the endeavor. This would be akin to articles about individual networks usually having a list of programming. (by User: SteveCoppock)

User PM says, "I would like to add a comment in regard to this comment by SteveCoppock above. Content that is 30 years old does not suggest in broadcast and media studies, and training the seriousness of an endeavor. Content that is 30 years old does not have as great a value as today and is by an overwhelming majority, cheaper to license to get the rights to air/show on the Internet and other portable devices. Some content that is old is in the public domain and it is free. All companies are serious in their intent. I agree that a section detailing content would be useful on this page and other web video portals, and/or search engines for media SEO. I would not feel comfortable to note that it has the "breadth of content" and term that a serious endeavor unless one can compare their content to other sites. Another term besides "serious" might best be used once the extent, quality and popularity of the content is determined. Content might be considered valuable, if it is used often by the public or generate consumer interest or advertiser interest. The latter might be described as providing a "serious" value to the bottom line of the company. The former designates a ratings based value to drive advertising or subscriptions, etc. and usually increases the sales of the media enterprise. Thoughts? User PM

Steve Coppock continues: "As this would entail a massive amount of internal links to articles about the shows, I will cut & past the currenty (as of today) list for others to begin to create links once they establish what the actual article title is. SteveCoppock (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User PM adds, in media the term content and programming are often used and perhaps there is another wikipedia page that has a section title from another video website or portal so that we can try to standardize the terminology across the wikipedia listings that relate to internet or IP video. TV professionals tend to use the term programming as to programming departments that program the shows on TV and these terms/definitions are commonly found in textbooks, association reports, annual reports, etc. Content is likely a better term since it does not confuse with computer programming. Thank you for your contribution to provide new content notices Mr. Coppock. PM

[edit] Ratings Attribution Needed

User PM comments, a line of copy on the hulu page says, "Hulu is also quickly becoming a competitor with YouTube". How do you attribute this as fact as Hulu just came out of a private beta and was not open to general public until March 12th, 2008? What ratings services are they getting this from and what are the ratings? What is the quantitative value of "quickly"?

If you are comparing Hulu to other sites/enterprises like it, one might look to the services of Veoh, Joost and others. They may best be competitors as other video sites that aggregate commercial format. The ABC video website might be a competitor as many others might fall in as a competitor for advertising dollars, sponsorships, or subscriptions. YouTube commonly presents short form content for the most part on their video portal, while these other video sites commonly have long form programming or episodes or movie length content and may have short form content as well. YouTube and many other sites are looking at acquiring content and partnerships and distribution licenses from various places. This line of copay sounds like a forward looking statement that is the hopes of the owners of the video portal. It lacks attribution, but could not be attributed if an executives said this or a press release using that as attribution.

A quick review of the statistics on Alexa.com note the site's popularity is growing. However, for the website to be a success, advertisements might be key or the key, and statistics are normally considered of more validity provided by the likes of Nielsen, and/or those doing a survey based study and an actual use study with clients engaged in media. One must also consider if the website can scale to handle the numbers of that of YouTube, and those statistics may come from those firms who monitor video quality, responsiveness like that of KeyNote Systems. I am not involved with either company. Both Nielsen and Keynote have competitors and I use these purely as examples of just a couple of the companies that are known by those engaged in media, internet broadcasting, webcasting, and streaming media. In addition, when one signs up to a service and provides data, that information is of value to monetize the video portal/aggregation service, and the number of subscribers to a website are often looked at as a number of interest to judge against the popularity of other sites or competitors.

Perhaps this statement should be removed or attribution added in a short time frame. User PM

[edit] Atrribution Needed for "expected by some"

User PM comments, "Who does "expected by some" mean in the copy on the Hulu page, "Hulu is also quickly becoming a competitor with YouTube and is expected by some to become its competitor"? One might say all video related websites are competitors to YouTube. Was there an analyst, financier, and/or journalists etc, that were quoted prior to today in regard to this. If so, perhaps the original writer could provide this attribution. If not, one might consider this a public relations marketing copy statement at this time. Pmiles (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the editing on the Talk pages, so any feedback or Wikipedia instructions would be appreciated if I am not following the format. Pmiles (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)User PM

[edit] Censoring

Apparently the films being offered have been censored, so a link to an article that acknowledges this will need to be found. SteveCoppock (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"They look good and stream well however I noticed that Hulu censored the ... It makes me wonder if Hulu will be censoring all of the content on their site. ..." http://socialnext.typepad.com/socialnext/2007/10/hulu-censoring-.html
"Adrants critiqued Hulu's censoring of profane content and language in films, observing the experience makes it similar to network television." http://www.marketingvox.com/tech-bloggers-go-gaga-over-hulu-034116/
"#3) watching any movie on their site is an exercise in futility as they are censored beyond belief." http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Hulu-Adds-HD-Gallery-90097 67.131.209.57 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Lineup


[edit] Mirror section

I think we should get rid of the mirror section of this article, it is irrelivant now that the site is public. --Ncusa367 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed about the mirror

Seemed irrelevant to me and not encyclopedic. 68.226.119.187 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic (good or bad) means sourced and ”Verifiable”.--Hu12 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a no-longer-updated copycat site is verifiable, but is not exactly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox spacing bug

The infobox on the top right causes a blank line of white space near the top of the article. The problem is a bug when no |screenshot= is specified. Would be nice to have a screen shot. See Youtube for example. The screen shot is the roll-down at the bottom of the infobox. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article has become an ad

I am adding the written like an advertisement tag to the article. If you compare the version of March 11, 2008 to the current version, then the difference in tone and abundance of peacock terms are striking. It happened in several stages, mainly due to edits by 68.174.101.64 (talk · contribs):

  • March 11 tranche of edits - added peacock quote by NewsCorp pres. The quote is not bad in itself, but the context could be reworded.
  • March 18 tranche - deleted controversies. Then editor Hu12 reverted the deletion, saying "unexplained removal of sourced content".
  • March 19 tranche - updated from "expected to offer" to "platform that offers a continuously increasing array of exclusive, premium-quality TV shows", and more sentences that read exactly like ad copy, mixed with factual info. Some is not even factual: "continuously increasing" is wrong so far.
  • March 19 tranch #2 - added another peacock term.
  • March 20 edit - deleted the same controversy as March 18, this time with an explanation. The matter concerns the beta period, so is probably stale, but might be of historic interest. This time no one reverted the deletion. Two refs, probably to blogs, are gone.
  • March 22 tranche - added a "Reviews" section, with a long list of excerpted praise quotes. Identical to how you would blurb a movie poster, for example.
  • March 17 tranche - increased "Reviews" blurb text by 40%.

Aside from minor reversions, the above edits stand and have been an overall disaster for the tone of the article. We need to work on:

  • Extracting the factual material and removing the ad talk.
  • Cutting down the reviews and reading them to find what balance was intended by the reviewers.
  • Checking for contrasting reviews. I have at least one to start with: "Hulu: Half finished", March 12, LA Times, though it is an LAT blog. OK if complemented with other sources.
  • Compare to competing services.
  • Likewise, add historical context. Right now a reader coming to this article does not get a global view of where Hulu fits into the media landscape.

Any ideas? I will start with the written like an advertisement tag and work on the above as I have time if the consensus is good. - Colfer2 (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove ad speak, step 1

Any help fixing this article back to its comparatively good, WP:NPOV state of a few weeks ago would be appreciated. As a first step, I am working on the terrible "Reviews" section. The sources were quoted in an even more biased way then I expected. Every article so far has "on the other hand"-type qualifications, sometimes right before or after the blurbed text. So this is what I did:

  • Expanded the quotes pulled from the first few sources. They are probably way too long, but it gives you an idea of the previous bias. They have interesting ideas that could be worked into various parts of the main text and cited, instead of quoted directly.
  • Commented out the remaining blurbs that have not been vetted for bias yet (that is, fixed). With the expanded quotes above, the section ends up being about the same length as before.
  • Work-in-progress, pitch in.

-Colfer2 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of Colfer2's couterbalancing edits in the "Reviews" section, I have gone ahead and removed the "ad" maintenance box at the top of the article, as the new, negative reviews no longer make the article sound so particularly one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the section looks POV. I would like to remove the "Reviews" section altogether. I've never come across an article about a commercial site or product with a list of reviews before. It makes the article even more like an advertisement and it's simply unneccessary. We could rewrite the "reviews" section into a "critical reception" section and quote from them somewhat, but an entire section of lengthy quotes is not what Wikipedia needs. Graymornings (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove ad speak, step 2

Thanks 68.174.101.64. I rewrote the intro and most sections. Still to do, if anybody wants to:

  • TV Shows
  • Movies

I tagged both those sections advert. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. White 720 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Kilar

Today I reverted a bunch of promotional text (diff) added by 68.174.101.64 (talk · contribs), including such things as the pronunciation of Jason Kilar's name, and peacock phrases like "he demonstrated the simple and streamlined look and feel of the site" and "the presentation was aptly titled 'TV 2.0.'" Some useful things could be gleaned from it and the Youtube of the presentation linked ("Jason Kilar's 2008 NAB Show keynote: "TV 2.0: Video When, Where and How you want it"" (Video). ) But the text about it added to Wikipedia was overwhelmingly ad speak by an anonymous editor, so I reverted it. The useful aspects I think would be:

  • comparison to Youtube, copyright, etc.
  • the term 'TV 2.0' if used in unbiased sources.

The anonymous editor has already commented on my Talk page, as follows:

“ Why did you decide to revert my addition to the History section about the Hulu keynote presentation and demo at the National Broadcasters show? I think this is relevant to those looking to research the company and (yes) its history. It was a landmark event for the site, as that is where many distinctions were drawn between Hulu and the other online-video/video-on-demand sites, and it also outlined Hulu's relationship to (or rather up against) YouTube. ”

Other opinions? -Colfer2 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that anonymous I.P. 68.174.101.64 is the same one that contributed all the adspeak we are still unwinding, documented by the diffs above, at Talk:Hulu#Article has become an ad. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of the reviews section

I removed the "reviews" section, since it was being misused for quote mining. If you want to write about public opinion, do so in a "reception" section with proper sources both in favor and against. The text removed is below. — Kieff | Talk 09:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I thought I had fixed those quotes, which initially had been mined for the good parts as you say. I think reviews are helpful, but of course they have to reflect what was actually written, and among reviews the balance of opinion as well. The editor who turned this article into an ad really caused some problems. Deleting useful information may be an overreaction though. Assessing Hulu - does it work well? what's on it? how was it received? how popular is it? - are essential to describing what it is. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)