• 11Dec 09

  Absentee Landlords

  You know what really yanks my chain?

  Lots of things, actually. But my big beef for 2009 is the number of neglected guides sitting under inactive editors. It seems that some people are keener on acquiring guides than they are on looking after them.

  It's not a question of being MIA. Editors who simply stop visiting are eventually dismissed under the ReportMIAEditor protocol. Some editors are occasional visitors, not logging on often enough to meet their obligation to consider submissions within seven days, but often enough to avoid sanction. That means unseemly delays while we wait for the approval of submissions, but that's only really inconvenient when a show is currently airing.

  Some editors, whether occasional or frequent visitors to the site, seem to have stopped submitting to guides they edit, often on the day they were awarded the editorship. That may be fair enough for guides to old shows that are substantially complete, but there are many guides to currently-airing or recently-ended shows that are in a very sorry state.

  I do a lot of credit consolidation work and this prompts me to visit a number of guides each week. A surprising number of recently-added guides to recently-aired shows have no editors. Elsewhere, editors preside over guides to older shows that are no more than skeletons, despite the ready availability of the information needed to knock the guides into shape; guides to currently-airing shows that haven't had an episode guide added in months; plagiarised, mis-spelled and synopsis-free episode guides; guides for which no writer, director or cast have been added since the current editor took over. For good or ill, it has long been the case that the presence of an editor appears to act as a deterrent to potential contributors, many of whom apparently prefer to submit to editorless guides.

  The activities of some editors has certainly put me off submitting to guides they edit. Those who reject valid submissions, post or approve plagiarised synopses, add episodes that don't meet the two out of three criterion, add "coming soon" summaries, add show stars but not guests, or just the odd guest, to episodes. I've been holding back from carrying out essential repair work on many of these guides in the hope that someday, TV.com staff would enforce the Problem Editor protocol. It seems that no amount of transgression merits any kind of sanction, however.

  Happily, I've just completed the latest phase of work on guides that I edit. I've still to add some production credits to some, and to sort cast and crew lists for others, but I'm happy to let that duty take a back seat while I do grunt work on some of the neglected guides to British shows. Shows like... Can I mention them here? The editors in question know who they are, and which guides I mean. You'll see a lot more in the way of submissions from me from now. Enjoy!

  • Posted Dec 11, 2009 4:07 pm PT
  • Category: Rant
  • 15 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 22Aug 09

  I blog, therefore I am

  I don't mean to blog, but I'm bored with the old one. I don't want to post another blog about site deficiencies - there really isn't the space to list all the problems that have arisen following redesigns introduced since I last posted - but suffice to say I have a bit of time on my hands now that the addition and editing of cast and crew lists has been rendered impractical.

  I could tell you that someone at work stole my iPod. It is a 6th generation model with 160GB capacity, and they don't make those any more. I didn't want to buy a (much cheaper) 7G 120GB model, as I have more than 120GB of material on my iTunes library, so I've spent much time sourcing an unused 160GB model. I could tell you that the picture finally went on my lovely old TV (no reds!) and that I've now got around to ordering a replacement. Or that I've finally asked my cable provider to replace my set top box with a PVR, ahead of my vacation. Jobs all done, I have nothing else to do but wait.

  So, with nothing to say or do, I thought I would sing a song instead.

  Bub-bub-a-boom, bub-bub-a-boom, bub-bub-a-boom, ba-boom
  Bub-bub-a-boom, bub-bub-a-boom, bub-bub-a-boom, ba-boom
  Ooh-ooh
  Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh
  Ooh-ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
  Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh...
  Waah
  Bub-bub-a-boom, bub-bub-a-boom, bub-bub-a-boom, ba-boom...

  Hmm. That's an idea. I'm just off to catch up on some old episodes!

  • Posted Aug 22, 2009 7:23 am PT
  • 11 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 3Dec 08

  sguB weN, serutaeF weN

  It seems a long time ago now. Anyone remember the "we've been listening" propaganda in August and September? That presaged the big redesign that introduced an unpopular new look for the site, in which some features were removed, others were hidden behind tabs and sub-menus, and those features that had been working were broken.

  Eleven weeks on, most broken functions and features are still broken. It seems that the current development team may have got bored with their thankless task, because they are once again adding new features and breaking things as they go!

  Every page of every guide now has seven new video tabs. If you are interested in shows that are more than five minutes old, or from outside the U.S., that means seven new tabs each carrying the message "There are currently no videos." Thanks for sharing. Most of the guides I edit are so far off the corporate radar that the "There are currently no stories.", "There are currently no photos." and "There are currently no dvd for [show name]" already provide enough excitement.

  This being TV.com, every new feature means more missing and broken links and loss of features, and the price to pay for the video tabs is a loss of the season dropdown list. If you want to access an episode, you have to access a list of every episode. That can be a pain if you happen to be visiting or editing a guide for a show with hundreds or thousands of episodes.

  I read that someone is looking at the new problem. This being TV.com, no developer can or will simply reinstate a removed function, but we are liable to get a new way of accessing episodes or seasons in due course. Or maybe not.

  As I recall, TV.com developers fixed most of the problems with v2.5 within three months or so. Other outstanding issues were left unfixed, and are now abandoned. Progress this time has been much much slower. I worry, therefore, that the other remaining issues from v3.0 are likely to remain unfixed when v4.0 is rolled out in summer or fall 2009. This all got me thinking. If the Technical Support forum is for things that were broken before mid-September, and the Redesign Feedback forum is for things that were broken eleven weeks ago, do we need a third forum for things that will be broken post-redesign?

  • Posted Dec 3, 2008 6:37 am PT
  • Category: Rant
  • 17 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »