User talk:Ian Furst/welcome

Links

What about linking to WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Jmh649, I'll add that in too. I didn't even realize it existed. Ian Furst (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nice!

This is a great idea. In the context of classroom projects, the most likely place someone would see it would be as part of a medicine-specific content in Wikipedia:Training/For students, after the user has a already gone through a lot of the more basics. (Currently, we have medicine specific section in the training for educators, beginning here. But I think adding one for students as well would be good.) For that sort of situation (and to make the script as generally useful and focused as possible), I'd suggest removing the third paragraph; many or most people who see it will probably already have been exposed to some of the basics such as account creation.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Ross (WMF) good idea. I'd still like to leave something about the tea house. I'd been registered for years before volunteering on WPMedicine and never knew about it. Ian Furst (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long week on call

The plan was to have this done already but it's been a long week on call. I should get to it thru the weekend. Ian Furst (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

original research

This is quite good! One potentially confusing bit is where you discuss "original research". You basically use it as a synonym for 'primary research study' (of the type discouraged by WP:MEDRS), rather than the general WP:OR concept of "original research". (Even aside from the overlap with the standard Wikipedia jargon of "original research", it's a term that doesn't line up with the meaning here: a meta-analysis, for example, is itself also a form of original research.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Ross (WMF) I've made a small change in that paragraph (see script) that better reflects the rule. Ian Furst (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Ross (WMF) What's your opinion on the speed/length? Too fast, too long, too short? Ian Furst (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a little on the long side, but not too bad. The speed seems just right to me, although I think it would be more engaging with a more energetic delivery.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K, will try a little less monotone. I've tried to change an element on the screen every 3sec or so to keep the viewer watching. Will think about other ideas. Ian Furst (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the visuals a lot! Very nicely done. What software do you use to put it together? One thing visually that might help would be to add some visual emphasis and/or isolation to the shortcuts you're using. You say things like "found at MEDMOS" (ie, typing WP:MEDMOS into the search bar), but for a newcomer, it will be hard to pick up on what you are showing there.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe suite (audition, premiere pro and PS + captivate). Will add visuals for the links. Ian Furst (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but

I'm sorry, but, for me, the sound is almost unintelligible now. I shouldn't think the problem is on my side, as I see /listen to/ a lot of other videos. But, why hasn't anyone else mentioned this...? --Hordaland (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hordaland Thanks for the heads up Hordaland. I'm not sure what's going on. I'm using a very high quality mic and quiet room (but I've still got a voice made for conversation and a face made for radio). I may just need to get a professional voice-over once the text is OK'd by people. On my speakers the sound is fantastic, but on my wife's laptop and my work computer (which just has the little "as is" speaker) its relatively quiet. If I crank it on the video editing software it seems too loud, but maybe that's what I need to do. I'm going to ping Blueraspberry and The Interior - let's see how it is on their computers. Ian Furst (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some more on this Hordaland. When I increased the sound, it became distorted but I think I've found a way (using "normalize") to crank it without the bad distortion. Will give it a try after the weekend. This is what happens when a surgeon tries to do a video - should be lots of technical glitches. It'll get better. Ian Furst (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly good enough to share with new users for testing and feedback before committing to anything more complicated. Also, I am "Rasberry" without a p. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Just tried again. It's as before. I don't have to turn the volume up, rather a bit down. It lasts precisely 3 minutes and shows "Date: 11 May 2014, 17:59:22". (It's in any case better than a video expert trying to do surgery.) --Hordaland (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm.... not sure about that. Might be too much base in it. I'll play around. thanks again. Sage Ross (WMF), how's the voice for you?Ian Furst (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty muffled-sounding for me (and perhaps a little worse in the second version than the first).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wish I had better advice, I haven't done much sound editing. Sometimes the original track is just too quiet to amplify without bumping up the background noise. What's your setup for recording? The Interior (Talk) 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{U}The Interior}} pretty standard. quiet room with a high quality usb ribbon mic. I put it in Audition, take remove the background noise then just cut and paste. I've found a video that gave some advice on this problem, I'm going to try some of techniques on Monday. http://youtu.be/m8Nh45_E3Rg Ian Furst (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]