Nostalgia. Don't you just love it? A vocal element in the forums is complaining that the latest upgrade was not asked for, not needed, and not welcome. That everything was almost perfect until last week. That developers have thrown the baby out with the bath-water, introducing an unwelcome skin, making the site more difficult to use by design, and creating a lot of bugs.

Personally, I don't recognise their descriptions of a wonderful visitor experience under v2.0. There were good bits, and there were bad bits. Tracking the site's evolution from TVTome, there have been almost annual redesigns (launch in 2005, the WEB2.0 inspired changes in 2006, upgrading the submissions process in 2007, and now this). All have seen immediate critical system failures caused by sloppy code-writing, poor design concepts that made key features more difficult to use, a month or more of workarounds first by users and then by developers, and a year or so in which bugs and acknowledged design failures are not fixed because of limited resources. By tradition, some of these remain unresolved when the next site overhaul is launched on a nervous, under-appreciated and unappreciative user base.

In terms of the look of the site, and navigation around it, we will get used to it: we always do. In terms of lost features, the people behind the site will restore some of them and not others. They always do. In terms of functionality, once fixed, the submissions process will be more complex and cumbersome than it was before: it always is.

Now, who else is looking forward to the submissions overhaul in 2009, or the new look in 2010? Will most of us be begging TPTB to go back to the fabulous v3.0, which looked great, had all the features we wanted, and was relatively bug free?

I apologise for omitting the accents from the blog title: we haven't been able to use non-ASCII characters in titles since v1.0… Plus ça change, plus la même chose…

Grumble, grumble. Things are not going well. The tech team have introduced a couple of fixes: they have removed dates of birth, home town and, finally, sex, from our profiles. Cast and crew added using the import wizard now take. The tech team are modern-day Heroes of Haarlem, with their fingers in the dyke But when they plug one hole, another springs a leak. And now cast deletions and character name edits won't take. If you try to make a submission featuring only these, you won't get past the submission form. If you submit something else (a cast addition, say, or a role type edit) the submission goes through, but the deletion or character name edit doesn't take.

Meanwhile, I need to know... I was glad to see the back of most of the contribution badges: if you have one saying you made at least 1000 contributions, why would you need the older one saying you had made at least 500? Now to get rid of the redundant Top 1000/Top 500 bages for those who have a higher achievement. Meanwhile, I need to know... Some of us have a grey box (or two!) where an emblem might go. I'm guessing these are supposed to be for show guide and people guide editor badges, but they might be the old genre badges. I've looked at the page source and it affords no clues. Anyone know for sure what they should be?

Maybe it's just me. I don't hate the white. I will get used to navigating the new forums. I'm impressed that the site offers a reasonable listings service for non-U.S. viewers who don't have access to a listings site. I simply HATE the cheesiness and the illiteracy, whether deliberately yoof/edgy or written by morons who don't know any better. I can see that this is going to be a slog for staff, given that the generally hostile reaction to some of the changes has swamped some of the observations about damage done to the site useability and functionality. We could have - we did - predict all this before the launch, even though "we asked for it", because we've been here before. Version 2.0, the "improved" submission process... Every time that the developers are let loose on the site, it's an unmitigated disaster. We are still struggling with the fallout from the July 2007 changes. If it ain't working... fix it. Don't upgrade the cosmetics and break it some more.

TV.com v3.0 I see that our personal details - given on registration on the understanding that they would be seen only by TV.com staff - are now dispayed prominently on our profile. Why? The links to subpages on the episode guides cannot be opened in a new tab or window by right-clicking. They desperately need someone on the editorial/proofreading side. (I used to do that: can I have a job?) Empty NOTES sections now read "There is currently no notes." Empty QUOTES sections now read "There is currently no quotes." Empty ALLUSIONS sections now read "There is currently no allusions." On the credits tab, the sections are labelled WRITERS, DIRECTORS and CREWS. CREWS? Empty DVDS sections on Downloads + DVDs pages read "There are currently no DVD for [show name]." Good grief. The "reorder" links attached to DIRECTORS and CREWS at both episode and summary level point to the WRITERS reorder page. The "reorder" links attached to RECURRING ROLES and GUEST STARS at both episode and summary level point to the STARS reorder page, so we can no longer sort cast and crew lists. The episode guide pages no longer displays cast or crew. So I shan't be using them any more. On the upside, the contributions emblems have been rationalised (why not the Top 100/500/1000?), the "top contributors" list now shows last online dates, my TV.com logo has a British feel, and I have TV listings. They're an hour out, but, what the hey... I can't say impressed with the new cast/crew submission forms. I'm glad to see the back of the space-wasting pic placeholders, but the import function has been broken. When importing cast or crew, the stored role types do not appear below the person name: all crew entries are defaulted to Writer and all actor entries are defaulted to Star, so we have to select the appropriate role type. Then, when a name is added, the import wizard disappears! For good measure, we have been complaining for a year that when adding or importing cast or crew, the screen scrolls to the bottom. Now it scrolls to the bottom... and the right! At the end of all that, imported crew details do not take. (You have to add them using the Add function, not the Import function.) One good thing when searching for cast or crew prior to adding someone to a show or episode is that the [details] link only appears when there is something to read in the Biography. The bad news is that the [credits] tab no onger returns any information. This is because all credits information (other than the name of the show featuring the last recorded appearance) has been removed from the front page, so the link is pointing to a section that no longer exists. You have to open the person guide in every case, then click on the Credits link. That's REALLY useful!

Stats 4 September 2008

Rank       : 85. Urkel
Level      : 85
Percentage : 20.92% (+2.15) Forum Posts : 3,205 (-)



Submissions                 Reviews
Accepted   : 59598 (+47)    Shows       :     1
Pending    :     4  (-1)    Episodes    :     2
Denied     :   193          People      :     0
Total      : 59795          Total       :     3


Edited Guides               Trusted Contributor
233 Shows                   2 Shows

There are new problems with the updating of the search engine, specifically related to the availability of newly-created people IDs. Back in the bad old days, it could take days before a person became searchable, and a lot of duplicate IDs were created because we failed to wait until a person was searchable before adding new credits. These days, a person normally becomes searchable within a few minutes of being created, but some IDs seem to take a lot longer to show.

Oddly, I have found that some people are only partly searchable. For example, if you create a John Doe (II), then search under John Doe, he might not appear, but will appear if you search under John Doe (II). Or a Jane Doeovsky might not appear if you search under that name, but if you search under Doeovsky only, there she is. Then there is the ongoing problem that some names have so many duplicates that the original does not appear among the 10 results on the cast/crew submission form.

I developed a script last year that allows us to add a credit for a person who is not searchable, and I thought it might be useful to repeat it here.

To bypass the cast/crew submission form to add a troublesome credit, you can write a script, paste it into the web browser address field, and hit enter. The basic templates are as follows:

To add a troublesome guest or crew member at episode level:

http://www.tv.com/?tar_User_Comments_mand=Attempts+to+add+ID+

[person ID number]

using+scripting+protocol.&type=9&action=set&submission_group_id=

[4 for cast, 16 for crew]

&ref_type_id=103&ref_id=

[Episode number]

&ref_name=

[show name: use a + sign in place of spaces between words]

&program_id=

[show ID number]

&show_id=

[show ID number]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bperson_id%5D=

[person ID number]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Brole_id%5D=

[role ID number: see below]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Brole_value%5D=

[Character Name or Crew Detail: use a + sign in place of spaces between words, or omit if you want to leave this field blank]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bperson_assoc_id%5D=0&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bedited%5D=false&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bdeleted%5D=false

To add a troublesome guest or crew member at show level:

http://www.tv.com/?tar_User_Comments_mand=Attempts+to+add+ID+

[person ID number]

using+scripting+protocol.&type=9&action=set&submission_group_id=

[2 for cast, 17 for crew]

&ref_type_id=101&ref_id=

[show ID number]

&ref_name=

[show name]

&program_id=

[show ID number]

&show_id=

[show ID number]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bperson_id%5D=

[person ID number]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Brole_id%5D=

[role ID number: see below]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Brole_value%5D=

[Character Name or Crew Detail]

&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bperson_assoc_id%5D=0&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bedited%5D=false&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bdeleted%5D=false

To add more than one credit at a single pass, repeat the section beginning "&person_assoc%5B99%5D%5Bperson_id%5D=" but use a different number in place of 99. It doesn't matter which number you use for each person, so long as you use a different number for person to be added, and ensure you use it throughout that section.

To consolidate credits, moving a credit from the incorrect/duplicate guide to an unsearchable one, you need to use the true person association ID currently associated with the incorrrect credit, thus:

http://www.tv.com/?tar_User_Comments_mand=Replaces+credit+using+duplicate+ID+

[person ID number of duplicate]

+with+one+using+original+ID+

[person ID number of unsearchable person]

.&type=9&action=set&submission_group_id=

[4 for cast, 16 for crew]

&ref_type_id=103&ref_id=

[Episode number]

&ref_name=

[show name: use a + sign in place of spaces between words]

&program_id=

[show ID number]

&show_id=

[show ID number]

&person_assoc%5B1%5D%5Bperson_id%5D=

[person ID number of duplicate]

&person_assoc%5B1%5D%5Brole_id%5D=

[role ID number: see below]

&person_assoc%5B1%5D%5Brole_value%5D=

[Character Name or Crew Detail]

&person_assoc%5B1%5D%5Bperson_assoc_id%5D=

[person association ID number: see below]

&person_assoc%5B1%5D%5Bedited%5D=false&person_assoc%5B1%5D%5Bdeleted%5D=true&person_assoc%5B10%5D%5Bperson_id%5D=

[person ID number of unsearchable person]

&person_assoc%5B10%5D%5Brole_id%5D=

[role ID number: see below]

&person_assoc%5B10%5D%5Brole_value%5D=

[Character Name or Crew Detail]

&person_assoc%5B10%5D%5Bperson_assoc_id%5D=0&person_assoc%5B10%5D%5Bedited%5D=false&person_assoc%5B10%5D%5Bdeleted%5D=false

The role ID numbers are as follows:

1=Star, 2=Recurring Role, 3=Guest Star, 4=Cameo, 5=Special Guest Star, 11=Writer, 12=Director, 13=Story, 20=Producer, 21=Executive Producer, 22=Creator, 23=Supervising Producer, 24=Consulting Producer, 25=Associate Producer, 26=Executive Consultant, 27=Director of Photography, 28=Casting, 29=Editor, 30=Story Editor, 31=Executive Story Editor, 32=Music, 33=Unit Production Manager, 34=First Assistant Director, 35=Costume Designer, 36=Set Decorator, 37=Property Master, 38=Make-up Artist, 39=Hairstylist, 40=Production Designer, 41=Co-Executive Producer, 42=Production Management, 43=Special Effects, 44=Production Coordinator, 45=Camera Operator, 46=Line Producer, 47=Co-Producer, 48=Staff Writer, 49=Creative Consultant, 50=Co-ordinating Producer, 51=Developer, 52=Second Assistant Director, 53=Sound Mixer, 54=Re-Recording Mixer, 55=Music Editor, 56=Supervising Sound Editor, 57=Dialog Editor, 58=Sound Editor, 59=Art Director, 60=Post Production Supervisor, 61=Stunt Coordinator, 62=Script Supervisor, 63=Executive in Charge of Production, 64=Key Grip, 65=Gaffer, 66=Focus Puller, 67=Costumer, 68=Head Writer, 69=Stunts, 70=Additional Music, 71=Advisor, 72=Animatic Coordinator, 73=Animator, 74=Announcer, 75=Assistant Accountant, 76=Assistant Director, 77=Assistant Editor, 78=Assistant Location Manager, 79=Assistant Production Coordinator, 80=Assistant to the Executive Producers, 81=Assistant to the Producer, 82=Associate Director, 83=Audio, 84=Audio Assistant, 85=Backgrounds, 86=Backgrounds Supervisor, 87=Best Boy, 88=Boom Operator, 89=Camera Assistant, 90=Casting Associate, 91=Casting Director, 92=Casting Executive, 93=Charge Scenic Artist, 94=Chief Lighting Technician, 95=Choreography, 96=Color Models, 97=Compositor, 98=Construction Coordinator, 99=Consultant, 100=Contestant Associate, 101=Contestant Associate Producer, 102=Contestant Coordinator, 103=Contestant Manager, 104=Contestant Producer, 105=Costume Supervisor, 106=Dance Producer, 107=Digital Effects Supervisor, 108=Director of Operations, 109=Graphics and Titles, 110=Grip, 111=Head of Development, 112=Head Painter, 113=Host Material Writer, 114=Key Hair Stylist, 115=Key Make-Up Artist, 116=Lead CG Artist, 117=Lead Digital Effects Compositing Artist, 118=Leadman, 119=Legal Counsel, 120=Lighting Designer, 121=Line Models, 122=Lip Sync, 123=Literary Consultant, 124=Location Manager, 125=Main Title Design, 126=Main Title Theme (written/performed), 127=Make-up Effects, 128=Mixer, 129=Music Coordinator, 130=Music Supervisor, 131=Online Editor, 132=On-Set Dresser, 133=Operations Manager, 134=Original Casting, 135=Paint Coordinator, 136=Playback Supervisor, 137=Post Producer, 138=Post Production Consultant, 139=Post Production Coordinator, 140=Post Production Sound, 141=Pre-Production Supervisor, 142=Producer's Assistant, 143=Production Accountant, 144=Production Assistant, 145=Production Associate, 146=Production Auditor, 147=Production Consultant, 148=Production Sound Mixer, 149=Production Supervisor, 150=Researcher, 151=Score, 152=Script Coordinator, 153=Set Designer, 154=Slugging Director, 155=Sound Engineer, 156=Sound Supervisor, 157=Special Effects Coordinator, 158=Stage Manager, 159=Story Consultant, 160=Story Producer, 161=Storyboard Artist, 162=Storyboard Corrections, 163=Storyboard Supervisor, 164=Studio Resources Manager, 165=Supervising Art Director, 166=Supervising Contestant Producer, 167=Technical Advisor, 168=Timing Director, 169=Timing Supervisor, 170=Track Reader, 171=Transcriber/Logger, 172=Translator, 173=Transportation Captain, 174=Transportation Coordinator, 175=Visual Effects Coordinator, 176=Visual Effects Producer, 177=Visual Effects Supervisor, 178=Voice Director, 179=Teleplay, 180=Stylist

To find out the person association ID of a credit that has to be edited or deleted, open the add cast/crew form, and view source. You are looking for the section beginning "loadPersonAssocArray". The entries in parentheses are the sort order, person ID number, person name, character name or crew detail, role type, thumbnail link, and person association ID, respectively. The last one should be fed into the script.

Copy the required sections into a notepad application of your choice, replace the options in square brackets with the relevant data, and delete the line breaks before and after these data. Copy the whole thing into your web browser address, and hit the return key. The script bypasses the input stage of the cast/crew submission form, so searchability is not an issue. If you need help with a variation on the script, let me know the details by PM.

Check out my Submission Guidelines

Visit the Actor Duplicate Assimilation union board

Stats 2 September 2008

Rank       : 85. Urkel
Level      : 85
Percentage : 16.04% (+1.67) Forum Posts : 3,203 (+1)



Submissions                 Reviews
Accepted   : 59505 (+44)    Shows       :     1
Pending    :     2 (-24)    Episodes    :     2
Denied     :   193          People      :     0
Total      : 59700          Total       :     3


Edited Guides               Trusted Contributor
233 Shows                   2 Shows

Have you seen the new ProblemEditor guidelines? There are long-established Editor Guidelines setting out good practice and rules for editors, but some editors sometimes fall short of the required standards. It's been possible to request the removal of an editor who no longer visits the site, or to ask staff to investigate apparent gaming, but until now there hasn't been much you could do about an editor who is very poor at the job, or who is abusing his position to deny legitimate submissions or to stifle discussion in the show forums. For the first time, the site has set out a protocol to be followed if you feel that an editor is not treating submissions fairly, or is approving or making suspect submissions, or is otherwise breaking the rules.

Staff have now started working through reports. They will take a look at any and all allegations, and, if they are substantiated, they will take appropriate action, whether it be a quiet word with the editor or more rigorous sanction. Some editors have expressed concern that the process could be use to make spurious complaints about a particular editor, but we should be confident that staff will handle each report with the rigour it deserves. I think it is a good thing that we have an avenue to express concerns and a formal process for staff to follow.

Two of the things that editors are required to do is to accept "submissions to add or correct data, including credit transfer submissions, and necessary punctuation, capitalization, and spelling" and to provide "at least a brief explanation of the reason for rejection". When I got home last night I checked submission approval PMs against show guides — as you do — and noticed a familiar name was shown as retired. That led me to a guide he once worked on, and I was pleased to see that the editor of that guide had (been) retired. I submitted a credit consolidation submission to the guide, transferring a credit from a duplicate ID to the true one, in August 2006. The editor rejected the submission, without cause, and failed to provide an explanation. He also failed to respond to a PM I wrote him, querying both actions. If the new procedures had been in place two years ago, he could have been asked to shape up or ship out.

Of the several editors to have refused to accept a legitimate credit consolidation submission from me over the past three years, he had been one of the last three to retain editorship of the show guide in question. Two years on from the original rejection, I have resubmitted the rejected details, together with four other credit consolidations for the guide that I had been sitting on for two years. It's a bit late in the day, but the credits attached to the duplicate guides have finally been corrected. Like an elephant, I never forget.

Check out my Submission Guidelines

Visit the Actor Duplicate Assimilation union board

Stats 5 May 2008

Rank       : Joanie Loves Chachi
Level      : 82
Percentage : 54% (+1.73)    Forum Posts : 2,953 (+5)



Submissions                 Reviews
Accepted   : 53682 (+43)    Shows       :     1
Pending    :    19   (-)    Episodes    :     2
Denied     :   157          People      :     0
Total      : 53858          Total       :     3


Edited Guides               Trusted User
219 Shows                    1 Show

Bad news…

Stats 4 May 2008

Rank       : Joanie Loves Chachi
Level      : 82
Percentage : 47.48% (+7.69)  Forum Posts : 2,947 (+2)



Submissions                  Reviews
Accepted   : 53533 (+148)    Shows       :     1
Pending    :    24   (-1)    Episodes    :     2
Denied     :   157           People      :     0
Total      : 53714           Total       :     3


Edited Guides                Trusted User
219 Shows                    1 Show

The reason I have been so quiet on the site lately is that I decided to finally nail the guide to The Bill, the world's longest-running police procedural. As an occasional viewer who came back to the show after some years away, I noticed that the same faces kept cropping up as villains or victims. My interest piqued, I was eventually driven to build my own database of cast and crew appearances on the show, which led me to harvesting all the information I could find in a variety of websites and other sources, and it was this that brought me to TVTome (RIP) in the first place.

As the guide was in the capable hands of sierra_one, I started working on other show guides for TVTome in addition to updating my records for The Bill. When TV.com launched, I returned to those guides that I had completed at that site, addressing various errors that had cropped up as a result of the cack-handed manner in which TVTome data was migrated to this one. (Defective first and last broadcast dates, data recording which stars appeared in which episodes not migrated, summary level cast data allocated to every episode, redundant season tags, guests and stars incorrectly reclassified as recurring, key crew positions not migrated). I also embarked on restructuring the Doctor Who guide, which had been built from a north American standpoint, with each serial classified as an episode.

I started contributing on a more consistent basis to The Bill, but stopped when I came within a couple of thousand CPs of sierra_one. In common with most former TVTome editors, he was frustrated at the many technical and conceptual issues that beset the site, and finally decided to walk away, which was a great loss to the site. I first became editor of the guide by default for a week in October 2005, when one of many site glitches stripped us all of our legacy points. When I saw the garbage that one particular contributor was submitting (and that staff had been approving) I realised that I had to become editor to save the guide. Then community editor waltmor was good enough to rush through my many submissions, as I was determined to exceed sierra_one's points total rather than take waltmor up on his offer to force-retire him: I still held out hopes that sierra_one would return to us.

While defects in data migration and submission processes caused problems for smaller guides, these can be overwhelming with a larger guide. The Bill guide had 1975 episodes, 133 show stars and over 7700 guest stars. There were hundreds of Notes added at TVTome that did not conform to TV.com guidelines. Many episode summaries were taken directly from the official site, and others were in pidgin English. Many episode titles and dates had been taken from contemporaneous listings, or official reference works, but many of these were incorrect. Data added in the last couple of weeks of TVTome were not migrated. Lifetime episode numbers were, sadly, misaligned. And then TV.com ran a clever script to incorrectly reclassify star appearances as recurring if an actor had also appeared as a guest in at least five episodes.

And none of the people who had been submitting to the guide at TVTome continued to do so.

So I had my work cut out. I corrected broadcast dates, split double episodes, replaced plagiarised synopses, corrected spelling and grammatical errors and typos, and renumbered episodes. (There being no episode renumbering tool at the time.) I petitioned time and again for the ability to reallocate specials to Other Episodes, and eventually got a separate guide for these, necessitating further renumbering.

There were 133 legacy star credits for each episode, although five of these had been automatically reclassified as recurring. I revisited each episode and, using information in my own database, added all omitted guests. When adding guests, I checked all likely variant name possibilities and scrutinised all possible hits. When I found a duplicate or gestalt ID I made submissions to correct all affected show guides.

Where I had seen an episode (those for the early years, and all episodes since mid-1998) I deleted those stars who did not appear, and deleted (or reclassified as stars) those incorrectly recorded as recurring. Using information I held about first and last appearances, I deleted those stars who definitely did not appear in an episode. (Although there were 133 stars, there were typically 20-odd on the payroll at any time, and fewer still in any particular episode.) The names held at summary level were composites, reflecting every rank and name change for each character, and the years that the actor starred in the show. To allow character names to be correctly added to new episodes, I had to amend the character names held at summary level, reflecting current naming conventions and removing year tags, which necessitated deleting and reinstating them. I decided to do the same for departed stars, to allow names to be corrected on older episodes as these were released on DVD. Every time an actor joined the show, I had to add him or her at summary level. Then, when we got the ability to edit star names, I revisited every legacy episode and amended star names to reflect those used in the end credits, stripping out the redundant year tags.

Most episodes had no crew details. Life being composed of a finite number of hours, I decided to concentrate on writers and directors, and added these to each episode where they were missing. There were, unfortunately, dozens of duplicate IDs attached as a result of misspellings or name variations. I corrected these at episode level, removed the aberrant entries from summary level, tidied any other guides using those IDs, and arranged deletion.

I regarded producer information as essential too — the show has generally employed three producers at a time, each working on batches (and now pairs) of episodes. Some of these had been held at episode level at TVTome, but there were problems with the migration. When, belatedly, we got the ability to edit and add producers, I revisited each episode to add those details. I also added to the summary level crew list as new producers joined the show.

As we can now decide for ourselves whether an actor played a recurring character, I revisited all episodes scrutinising recurring role credits. Where an actor was noted as recurring, I checked the number of appearances made as each different character and, if an actor had played a single character fewer than five times, I corrected the role type. Then I updated the list of recurring characters held at summary level, using a script to reclassify legacy guest star credits for pre-2005 appearances and adding those actors who have played recurring roles since site launch. Finally, I updated the summary level list of writers and directors so that these now include everyone credited at episode level.

Meanwhile, there are always new episode submissions to make or approve. I visit the ITV press office (and every major listings site) every week to maintain my own records and to ensure that new episode submissions are accurate, but not copied, and that cast and crew submissions are correct and complete.

Anyway, that's what I have been doing on-and-off since site launch. And to the exclusion of almost all other site activity since July 2007. So now I can get back to where I was in July, running through each of the guides that I edit, in order, filling in any gaps and correcting errors, as I have described above. That process will be less research-intensive for lesser guides, so I expect to be able to log fewer site hours a week and make a greater number of submissions. Unfortunately, I am using TV.com alphabetical sorting, which means I have just begun working on the guides beginning with "The". Of course, since I embarked on that task, we have gained the ability to add producer and lesser crew roles (December 2006), and wide-ranging abilities to edit cast (July 2007), so when I reach "Z" I have to start all over again…

In the meantime, if you have managed to read to the bottom of this blog, I should point out that I have no interest in the guides to Auf Wiedersehen Pet, Danger UXB, Family Affairs, Heartbeat, London's Burning, Soldier Soldier, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, The Royal and The Troubleshooters (1965). Some of these were acquired to prevent a certain contributor (now banned) from wreaking further chaos, and the rest I acquired by accident when an incumbent retired. I don't want the guides, but don't like to retire. But if you are interested in working on any one of these, I can direct you towards some useful source material that will allow you to make enough in the way of useful submissions to outstrip my CP total and acquire the guide. And if you don't fancy my cast-offs, have you considered Dream Team? There are a couple of thousand CPs to be racked up just from correcting the cast lists, standardising title formats and removing plagiarised synopses. And everything you could need to know about the show is available on the official guide.

Check out my Submission Guidelines

Jump to the Actor Duplicate Assimilation union board

Stats 18 April 2008

Rank       : Joanie Loves Chachi
Level      : 82
Percentage : 13.66% (+2.71)  Forum Posts : 2,880 (+9)



Submissions                  Reviews
Accepted   : 52875 (+23)     Shows       :     1
Pending    :     1  (-1)     Episodes    :     2
Denied     :   155           People      :     0
Total      : 53031           Total       :     3


Edited Guides                Trusted User
219 Shows                    1 Show

Further to my last blog, after a singularly forceful campaign in the forums, in blogs and a flurry of PMs, staff have decided to do away with the duplicate U.S.-specific guides (Threat 1). As a compromise, UK guides will instead be amended to reflect U.S. networks and broadcast dates. We will, however, be allowed to record the original broadcast date in a Note attached to the episode. Staff are deciding which guides should be amended in this way, and will be contacting the relevant editors in due course. Editors who think that a guide that they edit might be affected should contact staff. And we are invited to inform on non-compliant editors!

We are assured that this is an interim solution. Staff are exploring other options, and will consider making the guides more flexible. Regrettably, the site's developers are somewhat limited, so we cannot expect any developments in the near future!

I regard the interim solution as wholly unacceptable, but some questions remain outstanding.

Will the editors of these guides be instructed to alter the network and dates in the summary and the dates on individual episodes, or will TV.com staff use their super-user status to make the changes? Will the changes be restricted to first-run shows that are about to air, or are currently airing, on any U.S. network? Or will they apply only where the network is able and willing to apply financial leverage?

Do we have to amend the broadcast dates of those episodes that have already run in the U.S.? Will contributors be allowed to revert episode dates to the original dates once a U.S. "season" has ended? Will contributors be allowed to revert network and dates on the show summary when the show has ended in the U.S.? How are we to handle those shows that may be broadcasting first-run episodes from different series/seasons in two territories, or running in one territory while on a break in the other?

In my experience, many users feel obliged to correct or update our guides to reflect what they believe to be the true position, as indicated at IMDb or Wikipedia. The interim measure will see us carrying broadcast dates that are out of step with every other major TV-data website. Broadcast dates for the originating network, held as Notes, may be bumped off the main episode guide page. This will cause confusion, and a flurry of submissions.

Stats 17 April 2008

Rank       : Joanie Loves Chachi
Level      : 82
Percentage : 13.66% (+2.71)  Forum Posts : 2,860 (+8)



Submissions                  Reviews
Accepted   : 52847 (+61)     Shows       :     1
Pending    :     3 (-16)     Episodes    :     2
Denied     :   155           People      :     0
Total      : 53005           Total       :     3


Edited Guides                Trusted User
219 Shows                    1 Show

A while ago I noticed that we had duplicate guides for Five Days. This is a BBC-HBO co-production. The original guide had been renamed Five Days (UK) while a guide to the same show had been created with details of the U.S. airdates. Staff had approved the new guide, and added one of those "If you like Five Days, you may also like these shows:" links pointing to the original guide. The duplicate guide had cast pictures attached too. Obviously, I thought, someone on staff thought that these were similar shows rather than the same show. I submitted requests for the deletion of the duplicate show guide, and for the deletion of the duplicate person guide that someone on staff had created to go with it.

Last week, when the search engine was broken, I stumbled across a brand new guide to The Sarah Jane Adventures. This duplicated the original guide, now renamed The Sarah Jane Adventures (UK), but with U.S. broadcast dates. The only contributor to the duplicate guide was a staff member. Everything in the duplicate guide had been copied and pasted from the original guide by a staff member, who is apparently unfamilair with TV.com guidelines on the formatting of quotes. Again, this new guide had shiny new official pictures attached.

The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that this was all about CNET chasing the money. What had seemed, with Five Days, an innocent mistake, now seemed to be about TV.com principles being sacrificed so that HBO, or the Sci-Fi network, could have a shiny new guide labelled as a brand new show with U.S airdates for a U.S. audience.

And it has happened again. Secret Diary of a Call Girl has been created for the U.S. broadcasts, and the guide populated with information copied wholesale from what we must now call Secret Diary of a Call Girl (UK). (The data on the duplicate guide have been submitted by a relatively new contributor, who may not be familiar with our rules on plagiarism, but they were approved by staff, who should be.)

danmod hasn't responded to an intemperate PM I sent, but in UK shows on TV.com danbambridge reports this message from a staff member:

"I asked the data team about the duplicate SJA guide (and about the duplicate guides in general) and I did get an answer. We're a US-based site, and all of our dealings with the networks have to be with the American side of things. We need to reflect that SJA airs on the Sci-fi Channel, and not on CBBC. Yes, having CBBC listed is just as accurate, but when TV.com needs things like pictures and video clips for shows, we always deal with the American networks.

By the same note, Secret Diary of a Call Girl (which also has two guides on TV.com) will air on HBO here. Therefore, HBO is entitled to have a guide created specifically for when Call Girl airs on that network. You can see that the guide that has an associated image is the one created for the HBO airing because HBO (not the BBC) gave TV.com the right to store & display that picture (and I assume more images will come as the airdate gets closer)."

So there we have it. I had thought that this was a guide to English-language shows the world over. I thought that the site was about comprehensiveness and accuracy. Apparently I was wrong. The site is U.S.-based, and only needs to give the U.S. networks and U.S. visitors what they want.

Now, the site already provides a TV listings service for U.S. visitors, so they aren't liable to miss the show, if properly publicised on site. If having a U.S. spin on a show is so important, why not start to address some of the many requests users have made own the years for a facility to reflect, separately, original and rebroadcast information within a single guide?

And what kind of line is that about the provision of publicity stills and videos? As ever, a staff member opens her mouth and puts her foot in it. A single guide sufficed for the C4/HBO broadcasts of Elizabeth I and the HBO/BBC broadcasts of Rome. Many of the UK guides to UK shows have publicity stills and video clips attached, without the guide being hijacked or duplicated. Most of the stills in the three duplicate guides come from the original production company, while half of the Piper pictures are non-show related and labelled (c) Jemal Countess/WireImage.com. What have HBO/BBC to do with this show anyway? It is broadcast on ITV2/Showtime!

This may not seem that big a deal to the majority of users and contributors, seeing the world from a U.S. perspective as you all apparently do. But consider this.

What kind of message does the new approach, one that encourages duplication, and entertains plagiarism, send out? What about the hard work put in by the original contributors to the original guides? What sense of community do we foster, when there are separate forums for discussion of these shows?

The new policy isn't even consistent. At this stage it's only those imported shows that get a big publicity push from a relevant network that suffer the indignity of duplication. Those guides to shows that have already aired in the U.S. won't be affected. Those guides to shows that end up on BBC America won't be affected. Those guides to shows that are carried on strands in PBS and elsewhere will only see duplication of individual episodes, as now. Personally, I hope that the U.S. will tire of these British accents, and opt to go down the Red Dwarf/The Office/Life on Mars route of Americanised remakes.

Anyways, I'm not based in the U.S., and I'm feeling really really sick about all this. Once upon a time, someone thought it would be a good idea to set up a single comprehensive guide to TV shows, where fans could collect and post information about their favourite shows, so we would have a one-stop resource for all the information we required, instead of trawling the web looking for individually commissioned fan sites. And then CNET bought TVTome. After three years of pushing a ball uphill, overcoming every technical impediment and community issue that the site could throw at us, TV.com has decided to kick us, and UK-based viewers and contributors in particular, in the teeth.

I really don't know whether I want to continue playing in this new environment.