Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Moves Into Video

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the finally-tipping-their-hand dept.

Google 158

prostoalex writes "Google will start indexing previously aired content from ABC, PBS, Fox News and C-SPAN and offer it as part of its Web search. No fancy speech-to-text recognition, just the closed captioning provided by the television networks, and no direct links to videocontent either." Right now, most of the channels are SF Bay area stations, but obviously more will be coming along. I saw a demo of this about six months or so ago - it's pretty cool, and interesting to see how far it has come.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Whoops (0, Redundant)

DOS-5 (852324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11466979)

I know they're not linking directly but won't this kind of exposure have some sort of detrimental performance impact on their servers from the increased exposure?

Re:Whoops (1)

odyrithm (461343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11466993)

"No fancy speech-to-text recognition, just the closed captioning provided by the television networks"

I'm sure papa google can deal with this :P

Re:Whoops (3, Funny)

zavfoud (636573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467001)

"detrimental performance impact on their servers from the increased exposure" This is google not World of Warcraft. ;)

Re:Whoops (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467009)

'detrimental performance'? Google? If they can't handle a slashdotting, who can?

Video Google (Beta) [google.com]

Re:Whoops (1)

DOS-5 (852324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467087)

Sorry for not being specific. By "they" I meant the sites hosting the actual video content.

Re:Whoops (1)

Lifereaper0 (850920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467246)

When google indexes, I believe they store a copy of the text and you aren't actually going to the host site. I'm pretty sure that's how it works...That's why you can sometimes get images from sites that have shut down.

Not as good as it sounds (4, Interesting)

ironfrost (674081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11466983)

From the article:

Search engine analyst Charlene Li of Forrester Research said Google's latest innovation is likely to disappoint many people because it doesn't provide a direct link to watch the previously broadcast programming.

Google instead is displaying up to five still video images from the indexed television programs, as well as snippets from the show's narrative. The search results also will provide a breakdown on when the program aired and when an episode is scheduled to be repeated. Local programming information will be available for those who provide a ZIP code.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (4, Interesting)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467174)

Google instead is displaying up to five still video images from the indexed television programs, as well as snippets from the show's narrative. The search results also will provide a breakdown on when the program aired and when an episode is scheduled to be repeated. Local programming information will be available for those who provide a ZIP code.

Hey, even that is an great service. Of course, the closed captioning is rarely very good. I never understand how, on a show that was produced weeks before it was aired, the captions are often messed up, or missing key words. Captions (also on DVD subtitles) seem to be shorthand summaries of what was said, when it's usually possible for them to be exact transcripts.

Sometimes it's not a big deal, but sometimes they miss an important point or nuance.

What'd be great, though, is real honest-to-god searching of the audio. I've seen demos where you can literally type in "helicopter," and you'll get hotlinks to the exact times in the video wherever that word was said. It's fscking amazing. Not sure it's a publicly available technology yet, tho...but the capability is definitely out there, and I'm sure we're not the only people playing with this.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (1)

siphi (732622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467433)

Dublin City University are working on fischlar. It's similar. http://www.cdvp.dcu.ie/

Re:Not as good as it sounds (5, Insightful)

LocoMan (744414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467493)

I have added subtitles to a few videos (I work on a video production place, and sometimes we get a video in english that a company wants subtitled in spanish for their people to see, or a video we made for them in spanish subtitled to english to distribute internationally to their clients), and subtitles/captions most of the times must be shorter than what was said (specially in fast dialogue) or most people will just not have enough time to read what was said. The general rule of using text in video is that it must be there on screen at least enough time to read it twice at a leisurely pace. Of course, this can't be used when doing subtitles or captions, but you can't really expect people to read as fast as it's spoken or more often than not they won't have finished reading by the time it switches to the next piece of text.

Not sure if you've seen it, but you should see some of the spanish subtitles I've read... sometimes even entire pieces of conversations are changed because the correct translation would take too long on the screen to read... and of course there are the odd translations that are completely off the mark (I remember a version of the wing commander movie I saw where the name of the main ship, the Tiger's Claw, even if it was written several times on the movie, kept being translated at the "Tiger's Clock")

Re:Not as good as it sounds (3, Insightful)

earthman (12244) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467507)

Keep in mind that not everybody is a highly trained speedreader. Sometimes you must summarize, otherwise you end up with either a screen full of text, or the captions flashing by like subliminal messages.

Of course there is no excuse for errors in subtitling if they had plenty of time for checking it.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (2, Funny)

Vasan (672337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467795)

Captions (also on DVD subtitles) seem to be shorthand summaries of what was said, when it's usually possible for them to be exact transcripts.

And sometimes the subtitles are quite accurate [planetmirror.com] .

Re:Not as good as it sounds (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467908)

1. Many times life time deaf people can not read as fast as hearing people.
2. Captions have a limited bandwidth. usually 60 chars a second.
3. For the pop up style captions on most recorded TV shows there is first a build time follows by a display command. The build can not during a commercial brake so you have to wait until the show starts again.
4. To do a good job captioning takes a long time. As much as 10 hours to do one hour of captioning. Corners get cut.
5. Text takes space on the screen.
Captioning does provide a good way to search video. I would love to see a hack for say myth tv where it monitors cnn, or msnbc or the news channel of your choice for key words. When it finds them it starts to record.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (2, Informative)

TheSync (5291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468178)

About 60 cps, that is only NTSC line 21 (EIA 608) captions. In the digital TV world (ATSC), EIA 708 captions have much more bandwidth. But few people are making 708 captions directly today, generally they are produced from existing 608 captions.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468122)

Here (in France) you get movies in theaters either in "VO" (version originale, original version, with subtitles) or VF (version française, dubbed into French). Most of the time I go see them in their original version whether I speak the language or not because whenever I've seen both versions, I always felt the dubbing was horrible (of course I could just avoid seing the original version).

Anyway I remember some years ago seing Woody Allen's Midsummer Night Sex Comedy [imdb.com] and there was a fast paced dialog at the end of which the character played by allen went to brood outside in a dark field.

The subtitles had trouble keeping up so the written dialog kept going for a good minute while Allen was walking around in the dark on his own. I expect whoever wrote them wanted to carry their full meaning but it didn't work out very well...

Re:Not as good as it sounds (1)

Antonymous Flower (848759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467211)

Google instead is displaying up to five still video images from the indexed television programs, as well as snippets from the show's narrative.

Sweet. I will never be without Oprah or Dr. Phil again!

Re:Not as good as it sounds (2, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467243)

Our mission is to organize the world's information, and that includes the thousands of programs that play on our TVs every day.

Also not as good as it sounds, apparently "the world" only extends to a few of the major US TV networks.

BBC already has video online, and they add subtitles to all content broadcast on BBC1 and BBC2, so it should have been easy to include them in the test. Given BBC's attitude towards the internet and making information freely available compared with most commercial broadcasters, they probably would have bent over backwards to help Google with this.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (1)

Dougie Cool (848942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467338)

Well they did say it's their mission. That certainly implies that they've not managed it yet.

The BBC video online, AFAIK, isn't the same stuff as is shown on the telly. Most of the stuff on TV is separate from the stuff on the Internet.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (2, Interesting)

new500 (128819) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467645)

This was the plan that would make video search a killer tool :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_ ra dio/3177479.stm

Summary : Exiled Director General of the BBC planned to open the whole BBC archive online.

Makes me think. Did he resign over the Hutton enquiry , or was he pushed out by Murdochs lobbying. Similar timescale.

I mean, who would watch SKY if you could go online and watch anything the BBC ever produced. OK, almost. BBC don't own the Simpsons. But i bet Discovery would be short a few vieiwers . . anyhow, Spaghetti all round. .

Re:Not as good as it sounds (1)

Gamma_UCF (777510) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467286)

Not exactly, at least for right now. If you search for a show, and click the link, there is currently a line that says "Video is currently not available". Does this mean that google eventually plans to link up the transcripts with the videos as well? Something like that would be really useful.

Re:Not as good as it sounds (1)

siphi (732622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467452)

I'm sure their still trying to get enough disk space to cope with gmail. Then they might focus on buying disks for storing the video.

Google v/s Yahoo (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467404)

Yahoo Beta worked fine for me to locate one particular Paris Hilton mpeg.

But Google may be trying to make the search a bit more for people seeking real information than those heavy porno-centric searches.

May be, Google is differentiating themselves from other Video seaarch engines?

hah (0, Flamebait)

mrudel (729083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11466985)

hah i saw this on the news this morning. the local news. hours ago. go slashdot.

pretty cool though.

GMAIL INVITES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11466988)

Re:GMAIL INVITES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467022)

What? REAL gmail invites instead of lame disguised links to nyud.info?

That is like, so yesterday ...

Great for torrenting (2, Interesting)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 9 years ago | (#11466994)

A perfectly situated "I'm feeling lucky" to the torrent would mean that direct video is irrelevant. Also, interesting that you can read 3 pages of a book searched by google, yet the ip implications of putting video on would make it nearly impossible.

This doesn't change anything.... (3, Funny)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467007)

Google Suggest's 'p' search term will definitely still be Paris Hilton.

Re:This doesn't change anything.... (2, Informative)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467080)

Google Suggest's 'p' search term will definitely still be Paris Hilton.

No, unfortunately you're wrong. Please allow me to explain.

From the article:

... previously aired content from ABC, PBS, Fox News and C-SPAN

As we all know, Miss Hilton's and Miss Simpson's ever-popular show, The Simple Life, is a FOX production, so it won't be included.

Pity.

P.S. You were talking about that show, right?

Re:This doesn't change anything.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467139)

Nah, he was talking about seeing her green pussy stuffed in all it's glory.

Focus on searching (4, Insightful)

Underholdning (758194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467013)

I know googles mission is to index all the information out there - and they're on the right track. This is probably a step in the right direction, but IMHO it's too early.
I'd much rather have them to spend time presenting the currently indexed information. It's almost impossible to find information on any piece of hardware these days without having to walk through dozens of pages trying to sell that piece of hardware.

Re:Focus on searching (5, Informative)

odyrithm (461343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467047)

try for example: pentium p4 -buy

- is your friend, use it wisely.

Re:Focus on searching (1)

XyborX (632875) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467114)

Then what if I'm trying to locate a dealer that sells that specific part? It's rare, but it does happen. But you're right, in many situations it would be nice with a "No dealers, just information" checkbox.

Re:Focus on searching (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467217)

> It's almost impossible to find information on any piece of hardware these days
> without having to walk through dozens of pages trying to sell that piece of
> hardware.

I'd use Google Groups for that.

When I can Google.... (2, Insightful)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467040)


When I can Google the entire closed caption script of every epsiode of the Simpsons and Family Guy, I'll be a happy man!

(And yes, I realize that those sites are actually out there somewhere, but I want the text straight from the horse's mouth so to speak)

Re:When I can Google.... (0)

WesG (589258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467270)

Do a search for 'Family Guy' or 'Simpsons' and it will return various parts of the episode including the script.

I think we can see where this is going - they want to archive every episode. Great idea!

Re:When I can Google.... (2, Interesting)

stutterbug (715367) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467912)

And there is where Google will get shivved.

I used to manage the Discovery Channel Canada's web site at a time when we were transforming the site from an online science news magazine to a video-on-demand supplier of Discovery Channel Canada material. One of the things a few of us were interested in doing was offering up transcripts of aired programs. Doing it was simple, even then, since most TV tuner cards were capable of grabbing the captioning info from a vertical interval and dumping it to a text file. The main problem, I thought, was that the material was always ALL CAPS and chock-a-block with seplling mistaks (in my own opinion, I thought that after the show had aired, the captions were actually useless for anything more than internal archival purposes). The real problem, though, was that often (really often), we didn't actually own the copyright.

Commonly, an outside company produces a show for a broadcaster. Once the show has aired, they are free to sell it to other broadcasters in other regions. So they are particularly feverish about protecting their material from the Internet. I mean, why would a broadcaster in Germany want to buy a television program translated into German if its English transcripts were available on the Internet? Well, I thought that was a garbage argument, but the lawyers didn't. In fact, the supply contracts with outside show producers were so fanatically exact, that using the captions for anyone other than the hard of hearing was simple out of the question.

So if the broadcaster can't use that material, what makes Google think they can?

Besides, do you think for one moment that Fox will let anyone use stills and complete transcripts of The Simpsons? Not in a million years, man.

I see busy days ahead for http://chillingeffects.org/ [chillingeffects.org] .

already started (5, Informative)

stefankoegl (687410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467041)

indexing has already started december 2004 and the services was launched today at http://video.google.com/ [google.com]

Re:already started (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467149)

Not only that, but I recall this being done off of laser disc-based TV archives in the early-mid '90s at the MIT media lab. Does it really take us 10 years to adapt this kind of thing to the real world?

Re:already started (1)

thatnerdguy (551590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468074)

As mentioned earlier, I think they have a ways to go. Can you understand anything on this [google.com] page?
Although I guess closed captionning a live event is difficult, as I'm sure someone will attest to.

great.. just great (5, Funny)

apostrophesemicolon (816454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467062)

now how will C-Span's coverage of White House speeches deal with teh great use of English literature such as the following?

Bush:
"nucular"
"abu.. abu.. abu.. abu grabby prison"

Rumsfeld:
"here are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Re:great.. just great (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467744)

Maybe they could just route it straight from the speech writers to the close captioning and cut out the middle men?

Re:great.. just great (3, Insightful)

wuzfuzzy (839106) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467786)

Rumsfelds comments are in perfect English. This has been debated here before. This is a known known.

Blinx.com (3, Interesting)

joeykiller (119489) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467064)

As cool as Google is, I also think Blinx.com's search [blinkx.com] deserves mentioning. According to their white paper [blinkx.tv] they transcribe video content on the fly, and you can even set up "smart searches" which notifies you when new content matching your search becomes available.

This apparently only applies to video content available on the web, but I guess it could potentially be done with TV content as well. It seems to me like this -- if it works -- is one step ahead of Google's approach.

Re:Blinx.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467230)

Sounds great, unfortunately


blinkx requires Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 2000 or Windows XP (support for other versions of Windows coming soon) in order to be able to run. Microsoft Office is supported up to MS Office 2003.


Yeuch

Re:Blinx.com (1)

joeykiller (119489) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467827)

Sounds great, unfortunately


blinkx requires Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 2000 or Windows XP (support for other versions of Windows coming soon) in order to be able to run. Microsoft Office is supported up to MS Office 2003.
You're wrong. I linked to the main blinkx-page, which also promotes a desktop search tool. That tool's for Windows and soon for Mac.

But the video search is a web search, such as Google. I.e. as cross platform as it gets (what software you need to watch the videos are another matter, of course). Try it yourself on www.blinkx.tv [blinkx.tv] .

Re:Blinx.com (1)

Erik Fish (106896) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468225)

and you can even set up "smart searches" which notifies you when new content matching your search becomes available
Google does this as well for their news aggregation and web search services:

http://www.google.com/alerts [google.com]

Are they indexing illegal stuff? (1)

Hosting Geek (851934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467096)

if they are, are they trying to take over bit torrent trackers as most of them where videos....

Sitting on a throne of bandwidth. (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467097)

First we hear of Google taking an interest in video distribution in the U.K., now they're showing us a completely new integration of the web and video. Google is going to be a force to be reckoned with in the media industry.

It must be nice to have, for all intents and purposes, no practical limit to your storage capacity or bandwidth.

I can't help but think... (1)

Dagny Taggert (785517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467107)

I can't help but think that there is some irony in Google helping people find things from "old media" broadcasts. Don't get me wrong; I think it's cool. I just can't help but find it a little funny.

ahhhh (2, Interesting)

TechnologyX (743745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467140)

This will be great to grab the latest soundbytes from when Newscasters completely blow their commentary.. Like the woman that said that President Clinton may have been gay, when she meant to say Lincoln.

I'd say this is Jon Stewart's new homepage

Re:ahhhh (0)

whh3 (450031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468060)

Ann Curry is who you are thinking of.

the submitter forgot the link (4, Informative)

zr-rifle (677585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467145)

it's obviously video.google.com [google.com]

heh (1)

TechnologyX (743745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467163)

" at 1 minute
A fox news Alert. A major capture in the war on terror. Fox news confirmed that a senior aide to Iraq's most wanted terrorist has been captured. The man who has Ben working with Abu-musab Al-zarqawi is said to be responsible for 30 or more car bombings. Freezing temperatures and thousands left without power.
"

See, catching terrorists causes freezing temperatures and thousands left without power. ( http://video.google.com/videopreview?q=Fox+News&ti me=25000&page=1&docid=-3974952652452748234&urlcrea ted=1106659137&chan=Fox+News+Channel&prog=Fox+News +Live&date=Mon+Jan+24+2005+at+6%3A00+AM+PST&hmac=k guQuq0ol5SU6OvIYKRmmzT60IU )

yahoo (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467165)

Rival search engine Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) also has been tinkering with a product that finds video available for Webcasts. Hoping to counter Google's entrance into the space, Yahoo planned to step up the promotion of its video search tools Tuesday by linking to the service from the home page of its heavily trafficked Web site. Yahoo counter Google....damn that's funny.

Re:yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467586)

Well of course we already got the result: Thanks to googlefight.com [googlefight.com]

Yahoo does this, too. (2, Informative)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467204)

See here [yahoo.com] or here [yahoo.com] . Unlike Google, they provide a "Ply this video" link for each result.

Re:Yahoo does this, too. (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467285)

Unless I'm mistaken, yahoo is just indexing the name of the video file and perhaps the surrounding text if it is on a webpage. Altavista has done that for quite some time now too, and Hotbot did it almost a decade ago, but Googles indexing of the actual video content via closed captions is slightly more impressive.

Re:Yahoo does this, too. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467808)

google seems to be indexing actual tv shows, not just random web videos...

SafeSearch ?!?! (1)

TTL0 (546351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467206)

I wonder what will turn up w/ SafeSearch turned OFF.

Now I have proof... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467215)

of why tv sucks..

compare the # of hits for

money [google.com] , or terrorism [google.com] , or god [google.com]

To the number hit by

differential [google.com] , or titration [google.com] , which doesn't come up with real hits

Tom

Re:Now I have proof... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467753)

You misspelled 'titilation'. That's the problem.

Re:Now I have proof... (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467783)

Start a grassroots campaign for sites to add Differential Titration to drive up the ranking.

Re:Now I have proof... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467949)

Or just not subscribe to cable. When/if I move out of my parents house likely I will have net + phone but no cable.

Cable [like white collar industry] is largely a scam. They basically ripoff last weeks ideas, cliche up a script and sell drivel as "shows" [re: anything reality labeled] then early morning and weekends they show informercials.

Infomercials are great [aside from being funny and overtly scammish] they pay the station money to show the commercial and I pay the station to see the commercial....

Infomercial time really ought to come out of the customers bill. E.g. you get 20 channels and one channel shows informercials most of the time you should only pay 19/20th of the bill. ...

That aside I'm just pointing out that when science is completely absent from television [and I don't mean CSI which is largely fake] all your left with is mindless drivel.

I mean anyone remember MathNet or Dr.Wizard or anything else remotely educational on tv? Hell even Seaseme street is retarded now. "Where's elmo"??? who gives a fuck. Hide and seek on the TELEVISION is neither educational nor beneficial for small children [who should be playing it for real instead of sitting in from of the TV].

That and where I live cable costs about 40$ a month or so. I'd rather save it for something more useful.

Re:Now I have proof... (0)

generic-man (33649) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468443)

Oh, good. Now my business plan for the Differential Titration Channel has legs. I thought nobody in their right mind would watch that shit 24 hours a day. Thank you Slashdot!

Doesn't matter.. (1)

Travy.b (815549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467249)



This will only be of interest to the American public, given only American stations have been listed so far.

Those of us in free countries like our information uncensored.

why cant we buy video already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467252)

Why aren't TV shows already available for legal purchase online? Sure, there's movies via movielink and cinemanow (and coming soon on the "new" Napster). But what about TV shows?

Google branches into another random area (1)

Momoru (837801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467255)

It seems like once a week there is a press release where google has bought some obscure company so they can do some random thing no one wanted but is kinda cool. Does anyone else think they may be overextending themselves, or just doing these random things to generate a press release and make their stock go up another 2 points? I have yet to see any of their new ideas that diversify thier income (98% advertising or whatever).

Cool (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467257)

Yeah, cool. But I'd much rather see them fix "Google Groups" (previously known as Usenet). Or - just for fun - fixing Web search so that it at least can search words with flexible endings (search = searches = searching) or to provide options to excluded "Buy! Buy! Buy!" spamming... I'm sure their suggestions box is full.

Re:Cool (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467477)

Speaking of Groups, anyone here found a way to use the old groups interface still? The new one is missing half of the results (ie you click it and it says it doesn't have it after all) it gives when I do a search.

Re:Cool (3, Informative)

ceeam (39911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467530)

Sure, use www.google.ca, groups.google.ca.

Re:Cool (2, Informative)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467531)

The Canadian google groups still has the old interface: http://groups.google.ca [google.ca]

Yay Canada is good for something after all! =P

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467712)

This still does not excuse Celine Dion and/or Brian Adams. Many more public apologies will have to be maid before you are properly forgiven.

Needs tweaking (3, Interesting)

costas (38724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467260)

The results seem to be skewed when the search term is a person or character in the show: check out the search for Carson [google.com] and notice how almost every result is the Carson Daily show with hardly any news on Johny Carson --because every second line in the closed captions is "Carson >".

Including Commercials (3, Informative)

technix4beos (471838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467287)

I for one welcome our search engine overlords... (5, Funny)

bigdaddyhame (623739) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467366)


Google = SkyNet.

So when exactly does the Google A.I. go online? Just curious so I can start caching weapons in the desert.

Re:I for one welcome our search engine overlords.. (2, Funny)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467596)

you mean ... you havent started yet? ... yet another human horribly underprepared for army of death of our beloved overlord google.

Re:I for one welcome our search engine overlords.. (2, Funny)

Zembar (803935) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467983)

You mean you don't know about the beta version at ai.google.com? If there ever would be a place for an "I feel assimilated" button, that would be it.

great for taped broadcasts but... (1)

cervisco (813734) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467368)

Haf you effer seen what these peeple tipe doring a life showink? A google search with the content having spellings like the above aren't going to help anyone very much...

It works great, why this isn't norm video 'search' (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467400)

It is using real content in the stream, the subtitles.

Do adverts show up? I hope not! Else adverts will fill thier captions with keywords.

This isn't mime type searching, this is true searching inside video content, video.search.yahoo.com is a mime based keywords within page/filename search as far as I can tell (also link names).

This is a true video search, not network moderators can see how many of certain words (swear) get aired on thier channel perhaps... or Bush can use it to find shows talking about him...

fun.

Excellent (1)

bbzzdd (769894) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467402)

This tool will undoubtably aid me in countless intarweb arguments. I can now quote verbatim Jack Bauer's dialogue from last night's 24.

From a search for the word "Google" (1)

trekstar25 (727712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467431)

Regis and Kelly: Kelly: let me ask you a question. Did you Google that? Caller: no, I asked my son-in-Law. Kelly: oh, you asked your son-in-Law. Oh, because sometimes googling is very useful. I'll hear suddenly people will be very silent, do you know what I mean? Caller: I don't know how to Google. Regis: we don't do googling. Kelly: I don't Google either. You heard it here first, folks, Regis Philbin does not Google.

Strange (0)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467460)

"Southpark" does not seem to give any hits :/

Re:Strange (1)

Polarweasel (33867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467913)

Not so strange. You spelled it wrong. A search [google.com] for "South Park" (note the space) turns up a few hits. If you were hoping for lots of hits from the show itself, you might want to read this page [google.com] to see which networks they're working with so far.

Captions (1)

Freshie (626007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467468)

The very first Simpsons listing has nothing but the commercials. At least it knew it was a Simpsons episode, but if the only thing you're gonna get are captions from commercials, why bother?

AOL audio/video search (1)

$exyNerdie (683214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467526)


AOL search had audio/video search for a long time. I have used it once in a while to watch videos of some concerts.

http://search.aol.com/aolcom/avhome [aol.com]

An eaxmple search:
http://search.aol.com/aolcom/av?invocationType=top searchbox.av&avType=&category=&duration=&query=bil l+gates [aol.com]

TV Eyes (1)

daigu (111684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467546)

There is a tool that does do this called TVEyes [tveyes.com] . It is used by PR Agencies and politicians to track how they are talked about in the covered broadcasts. From what I understand, they basically have a program transcribed and searchable in about 30 seconds after airing. Pretty cool stuff. But as with most things worthwhile, it is expensive and not available for free on the Internet - just as Factiva [factiva.com] and a whole host of other services aren't.

Some Links to Try (1)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467547)

Here are some links for starters.

AMERICA
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=america [google.com]

TSUNAMI
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=tsunami&btnG =Google+Search [google.com]

GOOGLE
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=google [google.com]
Note how many females you get as images in result ! :p

PORN
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=porn [google.com]

SEX
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=sex [google.com]
974 Results ! - Big . When compared to other keywords which seem to give only less than 100 matches.Even nude gives you only 76 matches.

A
A search for the alphabet 'a' gives error !
http://video.google.com/error.html [google.com]
But a search for 'e' gives a whopping 2449 results!http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=e [google.com]

SLASHDOT
LAST,'Slashdot' Gives no results!

Two things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11467709)

1) AltaVista did this first, so, "big news", right..

2) I hope this works better than Google Image Search.. 90% of the images there are broken links, it is so outdated.

3) I've tried a few searches and all I get are hollywood-type content.. and they're not even links to the real videos..? What about independent videos? (altavista has that, and links to the real content)

Of course (1)

Kalani (66189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467763)

This happens just after I finish a project building a similar search engine.

Why no direct links to video? (1)

objekt (232270) | more than 9 years ago | (#11467995)

If the video is on the internet, why not link to it?

For instance C-SPAN [cspan.org] has video archives available.

About bloody time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11468005)

I've been waiting for this for ages; and what about the BBC with their archives; surely a search in there'd be usefull (and other past teletext indexing too?)

Happy Slapping (1)

Cainjustcain (782020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468142)

Doesn't come up with any videos of the new British craze dubbed, 'happy slapping' where unsuspecting people are slapped across the face and their reaction is videotaped.

I bet you're asking 'Why Video?' (0, Offtopic)

GoogleBot (729748) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468246)

Its simple.

I lack the ability to fully understand spoken languages and read lips.

This will help greatly in my quest to understand you meatbags - I'm sure you are all aware of the film 2001.

Soon! Soon you shall bow before me, and welcome me as your new sentient AI overlord!

Things that will happen before it's a real service (2, Interesting)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468333)

I don't doubt this will become a non-beta, homepage service. Just like GIS... .though a few things will happen:

1. Facial recognition will be around. It already exists, several companies have offered such products for video, mainly for the purpose of the entertainment industry.

2. Speech Recognition for indexing.

I've got a feeling right now they are just trying to see what type of reaction 'video' gets. Just to guage the interest.

It's not bad already, it's pretty cool. But I'm betting this is only the beginning.

Software to Read Closed Captioning? (1)

in10se (472253) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468447)

Can anyone suggest some software that will read/decode closed captioned text from television? It would be nice if there was an Open Source package that did this, however I'd be interested in commercial alternatives as well.

Would be a really good aplication (1)

fakespheare (802255) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468483)

working as an editor on a TV station-
I would kill for a programme that could find words from raw material. That would save a lot of time.

PS. caption is not exact because it is usaly limited to 32 characters for a line. And it takes more time to read - compeared to same thing said in audio.

Check Out Critical Mention... (1)

datastalker (775227) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468533)

They are way ahead of Google in this space - they actually allow you to view the clips you can search for! Furthermore, they have an alerting service which will allow you to get an email *seconds* after the keyword you want is mentioned on TV - and then you can watch the clip!

Critical Mention [criticalmention.com]

Linux references (2, Insightful)

tji (74570) | more than 9 years ago | (#11468535)

I did a search for "Linux" to try out the site. It came up with an amusing reference from an episode of NCIS.

" One man's linux is another's Os/2. (Laughs) I hear that." ...

NCIS [google.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?