19

Arqade has the ability to embed YouTube clips within a post as long as the YouTube video appears on a line by itself (example).

Searching about, I found 162 posts that reference "*.youtube.com" and another 21 posts that reference YouTube's URL shortener, youtu.be.

Would it be possible to get this embedding functionality here? It shouldn't be any more disruptive than post imagery, which is pretty well accepted here.

| |
  • 1
    It is referenced often enough, but specific examples of posts that would benefit heavily from embedding would help here. – Shog9 Sep 10 '12 at 20:03
  • @Shog9 here you go. Any post that links to you YouTube would benefit from YouTube embedding, just like on Arqade. – user366 Sep 11 '12 at 0:58
  • No, I don't think so. Picking one off the top of that list, this question is better off without embedding - a big honkin' video in the middle of that question, for auxiliary information, is just distracting. More examples of posts that would be worse off for embedding: scifi.stackexchange.com/q/5483, scifi.stackexchange.com/q/7019, scifi.stackexchange.com/q/20513 – Shog9 Sep 11 '12 at 15:32
  • @Shog9 That's your opinion, sure: obviously I disagree. I don't understand what the problem is; Arqade wasn't subject to your guessing what posts you would like to have YouTube embedding on: they just got it. – user366 Sep 11 '12 at 16:08
  • This is really just a sanity-check: there are thousands of links to YouTube on SO, hundreds on sites like AskUbuntu and Skeptics; there are all sorts of situations where linking is preferable to embedding. So why enable embedding? You're saying it isn't any more disruptive than static images, but many - perhaps most - of these examples don't have any of those either, so the real comparison isn't to embedded images but to text. – Shog9 Sep 11 '12 at 16:54
  • @Shog9: I've provided at least one situation where it would be useful, and 3 people agree. What's needed for a consensus on it? – Jeff Jan 19 '13 at 2:59
4

My belief is that YouTube embedding would improve my answer here, as the linked video is a short, concise description of exactly what I said in my response, and my answer simply expands upon it.

The 3-minute video is a more potent response than simply reading about the brief scene - showing, rather than telling, but does not fully encompass my answer.

I'm sure there's situations where an embedded video is NOT appropriate, but in this case I believe it would be.

It's also easy to see how short YouTube clips of source material can be useful to settle disagreements about what happens in particular scenes.

| |
  • +1, as I can recall a Terminator one that would've also certainly helped resolve a comment chain, and I definitely would've liked it in one or two past Star Trek ones... – Izkata Jan 17 '13 at 3:52
  • A new challenger appears.... – user1027 Jan 19 '13 at 3:17
  • @Keen It's restored to my latest edit now, but it looks like it was used to test YouTube embedding at one point. Here's hoping it worked as well as I expected it would! – Jeff Jan 19 '13 at 14:36
  • 2
    Thanks - should be enabled now. – Shog9 Jan 22 '13 at 23:41
  • In case people are embedding 1min+ clips just to show a few seconds in the middle of it, one can add #t=*m*s to the end of the URL they're linking/embedding to jump to a specific point, ie: h-t-t-p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0#t=4m45s to jump to the 4-minute, 45-second mark of that specific clip. – Solemnity Mar 7 '13 at 8:29

You must log in to answer this question.