Skip to main content

Would a magazine by another name sound so expensive? Medium launching a $5/mo member program


@realkimhansen @signlfm If you hadn't been aware, this came out earlier in the week and may be of overlapping interest:
Three recommendations to enable Annotations on the Web | W3C News
Their method of breaking down the problem and their vocabulary may be particularly useful; the overlay onto audio may be another problem altogether...

I also thought this post (with code) by Aaron Parecki, while a relatively simple concept, was exceptionally cool.


@kevinmarks @benwerd 20 years ago sources were easier because it was painfully expensive to create physical media and distribute


Jeremy, no worries, it's not openly transparent unless you look at the html source of the page directly. WordPress has a nifty feature that if you add an .mp3 URL to the text field, it will automatically format it as a player (much like embedding a youtube video), in my case I used an <audio> element wrapped around a .mp3 URL which creates a slightly different player (based on the web browser implementation of the spec) with somewhat different functionality.

As for replying to multiple sites at once on Known, on a "reply" post you'll have one URL in a field by itself, then you can click on the "Reply to a site" link under the "New Status Update" box to add another box, and so on. Thus, this particular post will send three replies. One to your response about the media player, one to your question about multiple replies, and a third which I'm sending to my original post which preceded your reply, so that it contains a full chain of the replies. There's also a "Remove URL" link in case you add too many--I don't think the post will publish if you have empty reply fields.

If you look on the wiki, there's a thing called salmentions (salmon+webmention) which programatically checks all the replies to replies and syndicates one's response everywhere so that all the posts in a chain of conversation get webmentions to have a complete record of a conversation. Few sites do this yet in practice, but if you're diligent on Known, you can effect salmentions manually.


Jeremy, this seemed a little long for Loqi to handle, and seemed worth keeping for later, so my response is below:

I understand your situation and have been following some of the discussion about content ownership and reposting. I'm all about giving credit where it's due, and bend over backwards (as far as I'm technically able) to do so. (Wait until you see some of the chicanery I'm trying to pull of for simple bookmark posts...)

It's for that reason that I provided a direct link to the podcast itself in the post as well as a blockquote synopsis in an effort to advertise on your show's behalf. Embedding the mp3 directly on my page was done as a means of helping people easily "sample" the podcast to get them hooked, in which case they would need to subscribe directly to the source. (I also did it to make it easier for me to relisten to it later if I like.) I'm still trying to get Twitter Player Cards to work properly so that could be an additional avenue for sampling on POSSE copies.

Additionally, by embedding the mp3 (I could have scraped it and then hosted it myself, but really, what's the point of that? unless I really wanted to steal it and run advertising against it for myself), your hosting server gets pinged for the "listen" or for any potential downloads because it's being served directly from your site (and not mine), which presumably most podcasters are tracking for advertising purposes. (YouTube and other video hosters do this for embedded videos.)

What I did was not much different than what Huffduffer is doing in bookmarking audio from your podcast on its site. Huffduffer isn't hosting a separate audio file itself, it's hosting a pointer to your file on its site and also syndicating it via RSS and/or Apple iTunes to others who will ultimately stream it or download it directly from your server. In fact, given this, I'm just acting like a mini-Apple iTunes without as much functionality, but I'm only advertising your podcast and not hundreds of thousands of others.

If you did have sponsors, you would presumably also give them airtime in your podcast which would then be heard as well, and tracked by your own server as a stream start or download. I suspect if you had visual advertising on your site, I could/might also embed that so you get a ping for the page load on my site as well. :)

If you're not aware or need it for clients, WordPress gives you the ability to customize your site's ability to provide oEmbeds, so with/for advertisers, you could add text, media, and even a visual advertisement to the pages for your audio podcasts. Other WordPress sites (or sites that consume oEmbed data) that include your URL in their pages then re-render it as a "player card" which presumably pings your server with a "hit" thus giving you credit for the work. Here's an example of an oEmbed for another WordPress site at the top of this post: See videos for potentially setting this up at: This type of set up isn't far removed from publishers who embedded advertising directly into their RSS feeds so that those consuming content via RSS weren't taking a free ride.

Perhaps I'm mistaken about the process, and you may be far more knowledgeable than I given your experience in the space, but I'm pretty sure that by embedding and not copying and hosting it myself, you should be able to garner the lion's share of the credit while I'm just serving as free advertising on your behalf.

As an alternate example, things are somewhat different in Marty's case of creating a separate piece of audio and copying and embedding it into his podcast as aaronpk's music didn't register a ping of any sort (other than possibly a webmention which only happened once), so aaronpk couldn't have monetized his audio the way you could have with a sponsored podcast.


@eatpodcast @jimpick @realkimhansen @abrams @Feedly Jeremy, I agree with you wholeheartedly that SoundCloud is a dreadful option overall--apologies if I gave the impression otherwise. Given it's cost and the fact that it's what I would call a super-silo make it a non-starter unless you're looking for a very sort term solution or if you're a mega-media company and have the money to burn to try to reach another tiny sliver of audience you didn't have before.

Sadly, given their position in the space, companies like Apple, SoundCloud, and perhaps a few others haven't continued building out and innovating. (Marco Arment, who you mentioned in this particular podcast, recently had an episode on being "Sherlocked" that touches on the economics of perhaps why they haven't gone the extra mile ) Given the technology they've already got, they could/should go the next several steps to leverage their position to make things easier for everyone. The search and AI portions could also be done by Google, but presumably they'd need some additional motivation to do this as it's the type of niche area they've been getting out of lately. (And could we really take another GoogleReader-type shutdown?) Perhaps it might be a rich area for a feed reader company like Feedly to get into? Or maybe Jonathan Abrams with Nuzzel has some of the search/algorithm technology to be able to extend into this area, particularly for the discovery portion which Nuzzel is quite good at for articles.

We also need a better/easier solution for the average Jane who wants to create a simple podcast without spending two weeks doing a mini-startup to set it all up and get it going with the widest distribution possible.

I'm honestly puzzled that YouTube doesn't get into the space as they've already got a huge piece of the puzzle built. Just provide the ability to strip out an .mp3 file from a video (there's a huffduffer bookmarklet that allows this: ) and make that available for download/subscription within their ecosystem. I'd suspect that with a week of coding, they could completely corner the entire podcast market from soup to nuts. One of the toughest parts of web is audio/video, and it's one of the few places that indie developers don't/can't touch because of the high technical and even intellectual property hurdles.

I do appreciate larger companies like This American Life doing things like Shortcut [ ] though it would be better if the technology was opensourced. (See also thread at: )

As an aside, I've just noticed at that Kevin Marks' ever useful will apparently "turn podcast feeds into playable HTML5 audio with microformats markup".


Does this help?

It would be nice if Known had a media interface like WordPress or other CMSs, but where there's a will, there's a way.


@EatPodcast Huffduffer search only captures content, not users. I'm at The rest:


Replied to a post on :

That could potentially work. Is there a filter or setting for that which I'm missing?

I also just tried another Draft version a bit ago and noticed that the exact interface has the two bits I thought it was missing. Apparently they don't appear for Nominate.


One of the things I notice that is missing between the Nominate and Draft functionalities is that the Draft option scrapes and properly places a featured image while the Nominate option doesn't do this and doesn't seem to add it when the piece is moved from the nomination queue into draft form. Is this a feature, flaw, or just an oversight? I can understand not saving the photo unless it goes to draft/publish as ones media folder gets filled up, but in some cases it would be nice to be able to scrape it easily when going from nomination to draft/publish.


mostlysignssomeportents: Yippie Ki Yay ornament... | Chronotope