Here is another example of their ineptness in the series "Timeless" it was granted 3 more Episodes almost 2 weeks ago increasing the current number of Episodes from 13 to 16 yet they still show on 13!
I don't have to intentionally look for their mistakes they just pop right up while browsing!
Yeah - they do have some odd entries. I guess I'm not as bent out of shape about those because it's clear to me what the site's purpose is and what is kind of tacked on as an afterthought. They are great at being a one-stop for news and press regarding shows I follow. They do a good job with production numbers and release titles. In the Timeless example - they're the only site that has episode 3's original name (that was only changed at the 11th hour). Their deficiency is trying to add onto that core functionality. They are clearly scraping from somewhere and mashing it into their database. I suspect the reason they don't have extra episodes after the 13 is because whatever they are scraping from doesn't go out that far. And the fact that they are using a combination of press and scrapes to populate whatever basic database they are using makes the ability to go back and edit look terrible in those 'cross-out' entries (like when they corrected the production name of that 3rd episode to the aired name). I'm not too concerned about updating future episode counts as until something has a firm airing date - I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be going into a database anyway. If I were them, I would simply stick to being a press/news related site and drop the listings stuff altogether. It's clearly something they've tried to mash into their system because they think a TV site has to have it ... and it simply doesn't fit. Sometimes it works - sometimes it doesn't. And it is clearly a mess for them to maintain. They would do just fine without the listings as they would still fill a unique niche of being a filtered news/press site.
However - my point about them isn't regarding the above. Rather, it is how they (like other sites) just don't quite work (at least for me). They give me info and news that is filtered against shows I follow as opposed to other sites where I would have to sift through press of things that don't interest me. Smiley-face sticker for them. However, they don't provide items in such a manner than I can easily use it for actionable tasks that insure I don't miss programming. Frowny-face sticker ....
It is just an example as were the others. The fact is - nothing I'm using right now nails everything all the time. Sites like this and tvdb-powered Trakt come closest - but inevitably I'll run across something on one site that I would have missed had I been using the other exclusively. Factor in the post-airing needs of a media database and future expansion/plans get complicated. For the big 'professional' sites - I call out for the world to hear that the big boys are half-assed TV sites - because they only provide listings for 1/2 of my viewing ... and do nothing for any post-viewing needs.
To be honest - I'm still flabbergasted that the main players in the TV listings game (TV Guide, Zap2it, etc) aren't all over the new sources of content and the way people watch them. It's 2016, fer chrissake. How hard would it be simply supply listings that include both traditional and online content? Perhaps networks won't supply it to them or let them use it? Everybody knows what day 'The Mindy Project' premieres new episodes on Hulu or when Luke Cage episodes release on Netflix. That can't be in my listings somehow? I don't know - but I'm amazed that a big-time corporate listings site hasn't marched both traditional and online content to the alter and married them together. That was the intent of TV Guide Watchlist (by their own promotion) - but in practice it fails miserably ... and by their own admission when questioned about it. TiVo Onepass was supposed to accomplish the same thing - and that isn't terribly reliable either .. and is even less so with the horror-show that switching from Gracenote to Rovi data has become.
My biggest problem with TV sites in General other then TVmaze or TVRage (when they were alive) is not one site provides information for every possible Network in the U.S. Some examples of failings that I can remember off the top of my head are:
tvtango - No listings for PBS or any Spanish speaking Networks
zap2it(screener) - No listings for the Sportsman Channel yet they have the Outdoor Channel. No listings for the Cooking Channel yet they have FOOD Network. What's up with that
Now when I find a U.S. show missing from this site and also when I worked at TVRage for over 10 years it did not matter that that Network was not yet listed on the site. I would request it be added and then add the show or shows that I found missing. We have a lot of shows on here in the U.S. that I added over the past year and a half that were never here and probably never be here if I hadn't submitted them. I know most of them nobody gives a rat's behind about and most of them I don't care about either but I still maintain them the best I can. Not to toot my own horn but I added more than 90% of the shows here on the Sportsman Channel & The Outdoor Channel. I probably could say the same about a big majority of U.S. Sports shows as well on the ESPN Networks, CBSSN, NBCSN and many others as well as more than 30 College Bowl games and Spanish speaking U.S. shows.
Basically my point is I use many, many sites to get my information from because one site may have this Network but this other doesn't and so on and so on and I refuse to rely on just two sites for information or trust any 100%.
PBS shows I kind of understand not having. I spoke about this in greater detail on the Edit Requests regarding Austin City Limits - but on that topic it's easy for something to be pushed out-of-sight once it drops off the last page. Member stations have complete control on when they can air programming. Outside of a couple of news program examples off the top of my head - air times are particularly meaningless for PBS programming. In the Austin City Limits example - I can give you 10 different air times in 10 minutes from both major and minor markets all over the country. Air times have meaning only if you are in the same market as the submitter. There are no 'national' listings for PBS due to the flexibility all PBS stations have in airing programming. From their own FAQ, the national listing provided to satellite companies has listings for shows only the day after they are first made available to member stations to air. For nearly all entries - there is no 'national' showing.
I get your point -- I do. The last-page discussion regarding other TV sites is what got me thinking how they are not anywhere near the listings source they used to be. They are fast becoming dinosaurs. Back in the day, when the TV Guide came in the mail and my grandmother would get out her magnifying glass (the only way she could read the print in the guide) and start the yellow highlighting of programs - they were king of the hill. Hell - even with digital TV and the days when my Netflix account meant I received 2 DVD's at a time - they were still *the* way I tracked programming.
But now? They're next to useless to me. My 3 main sites now are my preferred method - but it made me start thinking of how each fails sometimes and how it could be just one site. The Holy Grail of never missing something I'm interested in. The marriage of official listings + listings of streaming or special content and media center support. Given Plex's proliferation everywhere now - maybe they are in the best position to move towards that. But they are pretty tied to the tvdb at present and the Plex DVR currently in beta is tied to traditional Gracenote-supplied TV data. So not likely in the near (or far) future.
I would certainly be interested in why the big listings sites don't do it - as it would seem to be right up their business-alley. But perhaps they are too tied to current pay-TV models to fully embrace it.
Ah well - time to move my thoughts off this for tonight. I've got a fairly convoluted ERP software proposal to look at tomorrow for something that ... in my initial analysis ... looks *greatly* over-priced by them at the moment. :-)
Hope the ramblings (which still might need to be moved to another section - as we've pushed the boundaries of topic deviation to unheard-of heights) are of use for anyone to ponder in regards to current/future thoughts about TV tracking.
eherberg wrote:
PBS shows I kind of understand not having. I spoke about this in greater detail on the Edit Requests regarding Austin City Limits - but on that topic it's easy for something to be pushed out-of-sight once it drops off the last page. Member stations have complete control on when they can air programming. Outside of a couple of news program examples off the top of my head - air times are particularly meaningless for PBS programming. In the Austin City Limits example - I can give you 10 different air times in 10 minutes from both major and minor markets all over the country. Air times have meaning only if you are in the same market as the submitter. There are no 'national' listings for PBS due to the flexibility all PBS stations have in airing programming. From their own FAQ, the national listing provided to satellite companies has listings for shows only the day after they are first made available to member stations to air. For nearly all entries - there is no 'national' showing.
I get your point -- I do. The last-page discussion regarding other TV sites is what got me thinking how they are not anywhere near the listings source they used to be. They are fast becoming dinosaurs. Back in the day, when the TV Guide came in the mail and my grandmother would get out her magnifying glass (the only way she could read the print in the guide) and start the yellow highlighting of programs - they were king of the hill. Hell - even with digital TV and the days when my Netflix account meant I received 2 DVD's at a time - they were still *the* way I tracked programming.
But now? They're next to useless to me. My 3 main sites now are my preferred method - but it made me start thinking of how each fails sometimes and how it could be just one site. The Holy Grail of never missing something I'm interested in. The marriage of official listings + listings of streaming or special content and media center support. Given Plex's proliferation everywhere now - maybe they are in the best position to move towards that. But they are pretty tied to the tvdb at present and the Plex DVR currently in beta is tied to traditional Gracenote-supplied TV data. So not likely in the near (or far) future.
I would certainly be interested in why the big listings sites don't do it - as it would seem to be right up their business-alley. But perhaps they are too tied to current pay-TV models to fully embrace it.
Ah well - time to move my thoughts off this for tonight. I've got a fairly convoluted ERP software proposal to look at tomorrow for something that ... in my initial analysis ... looks *greatly* over-priced by them at the moment. :-)
Hope the ramblings (which still might need to be moved to another section - as we've pushed the boundaries of topic deviation to unheard-of heights) are of use for anyone to ponder in regards to current/future thoughts about TV tracking.
Amen!
By the way, eherberg, I'm not sure if you've seen it but srob650 created and continues to maintain/update a Plex integration for TVMaze; you can find that here: Plex Agent & Plex-to-TVMaze Watch Status Sync (please use those threads to discuss it though). Also if you have any knowledge of developing for Plex, I'm sure srob650 would appreciate the insight.
eherberg wrote:
I suspect the reason they don't have extra episodes after the 13 is because whatever they are scraping from doesn't go out that far.
Looking back over the thread, I'm not clear: who is "they" here?
Gadfly wrote:
Looking back over the thread, I'm not clear: who is "they" here?
thefutoncritic (there was a bit off-topic about disagreement with how some TV sites work/run in general)
david wrote:
If there was a lot of demand we'd consider it, though I can't remember seeing any requests for it before.
Well, to get back on Topic, sorry about that swerve there for a few posts. Anyways I wonder if this might work here by allowing a new set of titles we could kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Say Made for TV Movies were allowed but only under a new grouping? ABC Movie or Movies, CBS Movie or Movies, TBN Movie or Movies. The same for 1 off Specials ABC Special or Specials, CBS Special or Specials, etc. Each TV Movie or Special added would get its' own Episode # and the Seasons would be Years like most News shows and a few others that don't really have a recognizable break in Seasons.
ABC Movies
2016
1 2016-11-01 Red Riding Hood & The Big Bad Wolfie - 19:00 - 120 minutes
2 2016-11-01 What the Wolfie ate for Lunch - 21:00 - 120 minutes
There would not be any problem with overlaps because you are dealing with 1 Network at a time so in my example above if the 1st Movie was 120 minutes there could not be another movie airing on ABC earlier than 120 minutes after 19:00 in this case 21:00. It could work the same way for Specials as well. Would this proposal work for the site or not David?
Thank you very much for your patience with me on this subject and your consideration, Ron.
That would still be half-assed :)
If you group unrelated movies or specials together under an arbitrary collection like "ABC Movies" or "CBS Specials", there could be hundreds or thousands of "episodes" per show and all of the functions would be messed up. Imagine the characters page for such a "show" - it would be a never ending list of characters with just a single appearance. Same thing for the crew page. What would be the main image for such a "show"? What genres would it have? What default airdays & airtime?
@eherberg Some interesting feedback there - but a bit too much to be able to respond to right now. :)
david wrote:
That would still be half-assed :)
If you group unrelated movies or specials together under an arbitrary collection like "ABC Movies" or "CBS Specials", there could be hundreds or thousands of "episodes" per show and all of the functions would be messed up. Imagine the characters page for such a "show" - it would be a never ending list of characters with a single appearance. Same thing for the crew page. What would be the main image for such a "show"? What genres would it have? What default airdays & airtime?
Main image would by the Network Logo, Genres left Blank, Airtimes either leave blank or chose an arbitrary time like 20:00 because you can still change the time inside the episode, Airdays is the easiest fix all 7 days.
I'm sure you STAFF guys could then come up with some type of fix for Cast & Crew to solve that problem? Let me see if 1 Network aired Movies back to back to back 365 days straight you could maybe have 1,000 + but no network airs New Movies that often so less just say 2 New Movies a day times 365 you get 730?
I'm not totally sure what you are saying but I think I do so please bare with me? No cast or crew would/could be added to the show itself they would all be added in to each Movie/Episode as Guest Stars & Guest Crew would that work?
The question that first needs to be dealt with is: Do david and jan want to have tv-movies on tvmaze?
I think we could open Pandora's box with it, as it won't be easy to distinguish tv movies from direct-to-dvd movies or theatrical movies or video-on-demand movies or whatever movie categories are existing.
I tend to agree with david that if it were to be done it would require a new system in order to work properly; here's just some proposals:
Equivalent of seasons would be a time period, i.e Christmas 2016 (or just 2016 for year round) - you could probably still assign a name to it - or possibly Theme being Christmas / left blank if there is none; whether this would be a text box or choosing from a selection, I'm not sure.
Guest cast would be Extras on episodic level.
Characters would simply show both main actors & extras for that particular TV movie under one page (instead of listing many actors that only appeared in a single TV Movie).
Show Status should probably be renamed to something else.
Genres may have to be on the episodic level rather than the main entry (but this would be okay as all of them would be like this).
gazza911 wrote:
I tend to agree with david that if it were to be done it would require a new system in order to work properly; here's just some proposals:
Equivalent of seasons would be a time period, i.e Christmas 2016 (or just 2016 for year round) - you could probably still assign a name to it - or possibly Theme being Christmas / left blank if there is none; whether this would be a text box or choosing from a selection, I'm not sure.
Guest cast would be Extras on episodic level.
Characters would simply show both main actors & extras for that particular TV movie under one page (instead of listing many actors that only appeared in a single TV Movie).
Show Status should probably be renamed to something else.
Genres may have to be on the episodic level rather than the main entry (but this would be okay as all of them would be like this).
Basically I have said the same thing about Seasons being Years and cast & crew only listed at Episode Level as Guest Cast & Guest Crew?
Show status would always be Running or am I mixing that up with some other Show Status?
Genres really could not apply in this example at all.
I wanted to give you all the courtesy of explaining our reasoning, but I didn't mean to start a discussion. One-off specials/TV movies won't be allowed in our current system. Only if there's a large demand, we might one day consider building support for it.
If it isn't to be discussed (that's what "I didn't mean to start a discussion" sounds like), how will it be determined that there's a large demand?
I'm fine with TV movies not being allowed. But since there's no PM system per se, the forum discussion system seems the only way to determine demand.
I didn't mean to start a discussion about allowing them in the current system as that's not going to happen. Of course you're all free to state your interest for a system that can handle them properly.
