Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008
More and more videos are invading TV.com - in this case an odd mix of Hulu clips and episodes and the new HD videos (that are coincidentally all CBS programs).
Unfortunately, at least for now, the program guides took a hit as it's now impossible to navigate to seasons using List View and unallocated "other" episodes are floating in the data netherworld. The site is so empty of regular users that only a few posts make mention of it right now. On a slightly hopeful note, I think the season navigation will be restored, though who knows when.
I have a theory that TV.com will gradually morph into an internet video site with user comments becoming the major visitor input in the coming years - de-emphasizing the written word and the database. I don't think it will happen overnight, but that's the trend I see. As a fan of old TV that will never be released again and TV that is just not that popular with 20 year olds, I'm not really wild about it. But that seems to be where the money is. There is no doubt that TV.com has lost a lot of regular users, but I think the new strategy is to go in an entirely new direction and reach entirely different people.
Comments
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Posted Dec 2, 2008 4:46 pm PT
A shame if they go the visual route to the detriment of the data accumlated here...why include video tabs that mean nothing to most of the site guides? Not a lot of logic here...
Posted Dec 2, 2008 5:08 pm PT
I have to say both things are probably in play.
Posted Dec 2, 2008 5:53 pm PT
short atten. spans o______o
Posted Dec 2, 2008 6:51 pm PT
Often...
Posted Dec 2, 2008 6:53 pm PT
I remember your mentioning of that some time ago, but then it'd just be Hulu. We need the lists. Even then, the Full Episode tab isn't connected to any specific episode yet, so what's the use of it?
Posted Dec 2, 2008 6:57 pm PT
Yep, it will be similar to Hulu with added "info-tainment" news. In many ways the money is easier, the videos are self-funded (built-in ads), 98% of visitors want new programs and to watch things. The database here is not that good for many programs and sometimes has gone downhill due to bad editors. I've seen Hulu summaries that are better spelled than those here, even from TV.com guides with tens of thousands of CP points.
The tab is pretty useless now, but will probably be more and more used in the future.
The tab is pretty useless now, but will probably be more and more used in the future.
Posted Dec 2, 2008 7:07 pm PT
Unfortunately CBS sees this as more of a way to sell DVD's and other stuff, and not something much more. Why is IMDB so popular? Because it is a great source for movie information. TVDOT could and should have been the television equivilant.
What happens to the 20yr olds when they start reminising about the good old days of "Lost" or "Hero's"? Will they have a place to go? Or will they only be able to buy the old DVD's (or some newer technology)?
As I've said before someone should start another tv database site, if tvdot is going to abandon this route. There must be a place for tv history and delicious nuggets of information of old shows. As I said, the shows on today will be the oldies of tomorrow!
What happens to the 20yr olds when they start reminising about the good old days of "Lost" or "Hero's"? Will they have a place to go? Or will they only be able to buy the old DVD's (or some newer technology)?
As I've said before someone should start another tv database site, if tvdot is going to abandon this route. There must be a place for tv history and delicious nuggets of information of old shows. As I said, the shows on today will be the oldies of tomorrow!
Posted Dec 2, 2008 7:11 pm PT
Well, given that watching a TV show on the internet was unheard of 20 or even 10 years ago, I have no idea what the technology will be when 20 year olds are 50 (but much is now archived digitally, so there's a better chance of some format than finding lost kinescopes from the 1950s).
Maybe a major site can't really archive all TV. TV.com can feature a great guide for one 60s western, a terrible guide for another 50s comedy (with less information than Hulu), a completely destroyed guide to a daytime talk show, and a cartoon guide edited by a 14 year old who can't spell. HUGE variations in quality.
Maybe a major site can't really archive all TV. TV.com can feature a great guide for one 60s western, a terrible guide for another 50s comedy (with less information than Hulu), a completely destroyed guide to a daytime talk show, and a cartoon guide edited by a 14 year old who can't spell. HUGE variations in quality.
Posted Dec 2, 2008 7:17 pm PT
Hi Mac-Ale, I think your right. I'm feeling like all they want is ads, clips, pics and as little written detail as possible. The episode guide looks disgraceful, written summaries without the cast and crew, empty. I lost alot of episodes in the OTHER section on a few of my shows that have 20+ seasons, you see I go season by season thru old tvguides, magazines, newspapers, etc. So on Captain Kangaroo I'm only at 1961 (just finished December 1961) which is the start of Season 7 so all the episodes that people added that had no season connected to them are gone. This applies to 5 of my guides. Thank God I finally got The Bob Hope Show completed (all 46 seasons). But yes it is disheartening, I just have to hope that there are other people out there that enjoy the detail and info as much as I do.
I'm feeling like all they want is ads, clips, pics and as little written detail as possible. The episode guide looks disgraceful, written summaries without the cast and crew, empty. I lost alot of episodes in the OTHER section on a few of my shows that have 20+ seasons, you see I go season by season thru old tvguides, magazines, newspapers, etc. So on Captain Kangaroo I'm only at 1961 (just finished December 1961) which is the start of Season 7 so all the episodes that people added that had no season connected to them are gone. This applies to 5 of my guides. Thank God I finally got The Bob Hope Show completed (all 46 seasons). But yes it is disheartening, I just have to hope that there are other people out there that enjoy the detail and info as much as I do.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 4:59 am PT
The missing data must be somewhere. I "think" they will restore the season listings, there is still a space for the links. But who knows, it's hard to have the slightest idea what is happening.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 5:22 am PT
It's been eleven weeks since developers broke all site functionality. Most aspects remain unfixed as the developers continue to find new things to add and working features to break.
I'm sure the drop down will be back (but I used to say that about pre-1901 dates: remember them?) In the meantime we have to suck it up: a pain when you edit guides with hundreds or thousands of episodes as I do.
I can see that the whizzy new functionality would be quite cool but news, galleries, videos and downloads are never going to appear on the kind of minority interest guides that I edit, so every action by developers both removes features I like or need and adds blank tabs that serve only to remind me how irrelevant pre-2005 UK shows are to TPTB.
On the upside, this is the first U.S. holiday I can remember where the developers didn't try to break things before going off on a long weekend.
I'm sure the drop down will be back (but I used to say that about pre-1901 dates: remember them?) In the meantime we have to suck it up: a pain when you edit guides with hundreds or thousands of episodes as I do.
I can see that the whizzy new functionality would be quite cool but news, galleries, videos and downloads are never going to appear on the kind of minority interest guides that I edit, so every action by developers both removes features I like or need and adds blank tabs that serve only to remind me how irrelevant pre-2005 UK shows are to TPTB.
On the upside, this is the first U.S. holiday I can remember where the developers didn't try to break things before going off on a long weekend.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 5:59 am PT
I really think CBS doesn't care about archive functions anymore. They may not delete them, but they will never promote them. I find it a real bummer, but then, like I intimated above - the editor system has not promoted a standard of excellence across all guides after four years and 5 million submissions. For every guide that's useful here there are more that are amateur or wrecked.
Let's take a "hypothetical" daytime talk show as an example. If the guide is nothing but misnumbered and messed-up episodes with lifetime numbers and airdates that make no sense (or, alternatively, no episodes have been added in over a year) - videos CAN'T be linked to these disasters.
Let's take a "hypothetical" daytime talk show as an example. If the guide is nothing but misnumbered and messed-up episodes with lifetime numbers and airdates that make no sense (or, alternatively, no episodes have been added in over a year) - videos CAN'T be linked to these disasters.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 6:19 am PT
I do find it all rather sad, standards of professionalism should have taken priority over level systems and emblems during the TVTome transition.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 6:21 am PT
If it's for talk shows like The Today Show, those video segments on Hulu disappear after a week, so it probably isn't worth the effort to link them. But for something promoted heavily like Novel Adventures, I don't know why they don't practice on that guide first.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 7:12 am PT
I don't watch any daytime TV and am prevented from talking about the most messed up guides because of protocol here. But even looking at guides that are semi-maintained recently (like "The View'), the last episode listed is two months old. So the archive function of the site is really not there.
Visitors might want to see curent clips, I doubt more than 1 person in a billion wants to look at incomplete lists of episodes that are only updated by the editor a few times a year at best. That's why I think TV.com is getting away from the old model.
Visitors might want to see curent clips, I doubt more than 1 person in a billion wants to look at incomplete lists of episodes that are only updated by the editor a few times a year at best. That's why I think TV.com is getting away from the old model.
Posted Dec 3, 2008 7:55 am PT
I just wish they could link information more cleanly. They did it with the TV listings, so why not with the videos?
Posted Dec 3, 2008 10:24 am PT
It makes me a little heartsick, but you're likely correct. I effectively abandoned IMDb because of the features here, the community and what felt like a commitment to build a comprehensive (even in varying qualities) site. If that site becomes the only dedicated archive, then I may have to revisit my decision.
Posted Dec 4, 2008 2:34 am PT
If they are going to feature more videos they'd better fix them. Most of the time I can't load the videos here. A while ago I wanted to add guests to a daytime talk show guide, since I had a few old TV Guides, but I didn't know where to begin. There were only a few episodes added, and no season breaks. I PM'd the editor asking how I should handle it, but they never ansered.
Posted Dec 4, 2008 11:36 am PT
TV.com should have made a decision about daily news shows and talk shows years ago. The only purpose they serve in so many cases is for people to stop by and fiddle around with blank episodes and never come close to ever filling them out like an archive. Many have been gamed relentlessly and then left in a wrecked state.
Posted Dec 4, 2008 12:52 pm PT
Daily news shows can be a pain, but the video feed has helped immensely in getting that archived. It's rather cool to see that some actor had a brief guest spot on a national news show and then become famous later. IMDB still does that, and rather nicely. But I agree those filler placeholder episodes are totally useless and have haunting memories of that big gamer who screwed over the Larry King Live guide.
Posted Dec 4, 2008 2:26 pm PT
Viral videos are the way to go, but even then it is nice to have that structured in the context of a guide, which is about tv.com's only advantage over Hulu and Youtube.
Posted Dec 4, 2008 2:27 pm PT
I would love to see who was on the "Today Show" everyday in the 1950s, but I doubt that will ever be archived. I agree that structured content would be good, and if you are keeping "Today" up to date, that's great. But the VAST majority of daily shows are a structural mess and it's better that they aren't linked to videos. I don't think CBS will wait for a 100 new responsible editors to get these guides in shape. I wouldn't touch the current (five popular current daytime shows) TV.com guides etc.. with a two mile pole even if I did watch them. It will take years to repair that damage and I doubt CBS thinks it's worth it to wait. VERY bad editors (some still with us) need to take some blame along with the new brooms. The "good old boy/girl" editor system has allowed tens of thousands of useless submissions to be made over the last 4 years and some currently running shows are disasters.
Posted Dec 4, 2008 2:51 pm PT
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Friends
My Friends
Hoeech