While I appreciate some users' boundless faith in me, I have no answers about TVCom's current status. As far as I know of, I'm in the same boat as everyone else here. I haven't been a forum moderator for... 10 years? And staff wasn't telling me a lot back then.

I'm always glad to discuss what's going on, and give my opinion. But... that's what the feedback community for. I think. Feel free to create threads and post opinions here, because that's what the community is for.

I think.
107 Comments
Comments (107)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
May 23, 2018
Eight months later, I'm still waiting on a "Late Night with David Letterman" episode add.
1
Reply
Flag
May 04, 2018
it is very good
Reply
Flag
Apr 16, 2018
At least there's one positive effect of the fact that no community posts are promoted anymore. This post now has over a hundred comments.

Itś been almost three months since someone at CBS-E looked at tv.com.

Somebody like to venture a guess how long the site will be operational?
2
Reply
Flag
Apr 16, 2018
I imagine it can stagger along for quite while. The articles get imported automatically, the advertising comes in and stays in automatically, at least some new episodes are added automatically. Staff (or whatever you call them when they don't actually staff the site) can pop in once every few weeks/months to process subs.

As long as they spend relatively little money on it, CBSInteraactive still makes money from TVCom.
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
So at least the automatic updating is... automatically updating. Like with Ash vs. Evil Dead.

http://www.tv.com/shows/ash-vs-evil-dead/episodes/

Although "Family" is still misnumbered episode 2 since I emailed to have them change that. So there are two episode 2s as of this writing. But the new Episode 2 wasn't there yesterday.

And shows that aren't on TVCom's automatic updating radar aren't updating. Oh well. As I've said before, the automatic updating process is great... if it was perfect. It's far from perfect.
Reply
Flag
Feb 26, 2018
As the community posts on the front have not been updated since Jessica has gone and post and show updating is only automatic, it seems fair to assume the site is not (hardly?) monitored anymore and will eventually break down.

I am curious what will happen afterwards with the domain name.
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 26, 2018
Front page articles didn't update very often before Jessica left, either.
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 27, 2018
I remember it was never more then one week and it's been four weeks now .....
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 28, 2018
@Gislef: Tomorrow we can say it has been (at least) one month this time :-)
Flag
Feb 28, 2018
There was at least one period before/during the holidays where it took 2-4 weeks to update.
Flag
Feb 19, 2018
I share your frustration. It is taking *forever* for submissions to get approved. While I understand that there's a backlog, there has to be someone here to manage upkeep. For all we know, Kroeber et al. moved on to greener pastures and nobody told us. The main page hasn't even been updated for over two weeks!
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
Has anyone tried their twitter address?

http://www.tv.com/about/contact/

twitter.com/tvdotcom

I don't use twitter much, but am willing to take one for the team, so to speak. ;) If I'm reading it correctly, the last post by staff there was in... July 2017? I tried tweeting, but not sure what that did.
Reply
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
The interesting thing is that there seems to be no valid contact information for TVCom. Not just the support emails, but anything. The contact info for (presumably) sales and advertising gives you an email you have to join the group, but there's no indication of how you join the group. Plus who wants to join a group just to get advertising information? Not to mention I apparently already am a group.

https://www.cbsinteractive.com/contact

MediaSalesInquiries@cbsinteractive.com

You send an email to the email addy above, and get the following response:

"We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (mediasalesinquiries) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:

* You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
* The owner of the group may have removed this group.
* You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
* This group may not be open to posting.

If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at https://support.google.com/a/cbsinteractive.com/bin/topic.py?topic=25838."


The "help center" tells you how to set up a group, but now how to join or contact one. I'm not interested in posting to the group, and wouldn't use email to do so if I did. I think I've posted a help request on the Google group forum.

There are four California contact phone numbers. I suppose the next thing to do is call them and see if there's anyone. Anyone else want to give it a try? You can find the numbers at the link above.
More +
Reply
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
They're probably too busy making signs for the next SJW rally or attending bash the president workshops to do their job.
2
Reply
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
I'm not sure why you think this has anything to do with politics, but to each their own.
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
It's California.. everything there is politicized.
Flag
Feb 21, 2018
JFC. :(
2
Reply
Flag
Feb 20, 2018
The main page has gone for weeks without updating, before, too. If you mean the top three articles.
1
Reply
Flag
Feb 17, 2018
You put a huge smile on my face "I No Nothing". Schultz has the perfect response.
3
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
Oh, and it looks like they changed something else. Or maybe I'm wrong. Anyone?

Look at an existing episode that you watched. The little tab at the top of the page, didn't it use to say how many people had watched it? Now it just says "I watched it."

I know nothing about why that was changed, either. Again, one wonders why devote time and effort (and money) to change it. Even if they want to conceal how many people have watched an episode to hide dwindling numbers, a) the number who watched it are a collection of over 10 years, so it wasn't that informative of current trends, and b) who cares? It's not like TVCom is trying to conceal dwindling numbers, assuming that was the reason for the change. And even if they were, there are plenty of other ways to determine site visits. Like, oh, Alexa.

I don't care that much one way or another. But... so they apparently have time to make changes like that, but they don't have the time to moderate subs. "We're going as fast as we can!" Since Development seems to have spare time on their hands, maybe they should moderate subs.
More+
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
It's also possible that it's a system error. But:

a) If it is, it's a remarkably "neat" one. No stray code, no weird characters. Just the omission of data that was present.

b) If it a system error, how do we report it? Staff barely responds to emails if at all, they don't read the forums. The site's been around at least 12 years: does anyone know how to contact someone who is a Development person?

Oh, and everyone remember the hoopla and site announcements in 2016 when TVCom hit its 10th anniversary? No? Oh well.
Reply
Flag
Feb 19, 2018
The 10th anniversary was in June 2015. Still, nothing.
Reply
Flag
Jan 30, 2018
The only question is 'why' and you are correct that it shows they have development available. My guess, it was needed because of something in the TVGuuurlll-databse and the TV.com DB has migrated to the TVGuurlll DB. The blue box probably adapts itself to the number of characters it needs to show. Coding will have been about fuove minutes of work btw.

You know I've communicated with a lot off staff over the years but never with development. I wonder if staff even new names over there. As I understood 'development' is een department that works for the whole division or even the whole of CBS. It sometimes felt like productmanagement had to pitch ideas to development to get their attention and time instead of productmanagement at least having some form of fixed number of hours from development.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 30, 2018
What is TVGuuurlll?
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 31, 2018
Syrinx2 is correct. It is the sound my mouth (and stomach) makes while trying to pronounce TVGuide..........
1
Flag
Jan 31, 2018
The gilrish content that TV-Guide is, if I know my Rolamb. =D
1
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
No offense on your choices but personally I would shoot myself before I would voluntarily allow a government spying device in my home let alone pay for the privilege. But that's just me. -)

Out of curiosity... how many do you have pending?
Reply
Flag
Apr 11, 2018
Paranoid much?  :-)  Better buy more guns before they come for them gotta be ready right!  :-)
Reply
Flag
Apr 12, 2018
You trust the Trump government? And the Obama government before it?
Reply
Flag
Apr 11, 2018
Six is enough.. I don't need any more.
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
My apologies.. I wasn't aware of the website.. When I hear Alexa my first first thought is this thing.


1
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
Yea, I saw that when web-searching for the TVCom/Alexa link. Seems confusing to me to name them both the same thing, but oh well.
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
I don't know what you mean. i didn't mention anything about a government device in my home, spying or otherwise. I'm not paying anything for anything, so I'm pretty sure I'm not paying for the privilege, whatever privilege that is.

If you mean how many subs do I have pending, that's a separate question. If you mean subs, I don't know. I'd have to count them.
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
I assumed that since you mentioned Alexa that you might have one.. My bad.

And yes, i was referring to submissions.. On the top of my contributions page it tells me how many I have pending. 362, twenty pages of them.
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
Alexa is a website that monitors website traffic. For instance:

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tv.com

I'm working my way through PKD's Electric Dreams tonight, and it's unedited. So my pendings will no doubt change. Right now, it's *twiddles thumbs* I have 85 pending. It'll probably be 100 by the time the night is over. And some of those pendings are to shows with editors. Editors are still pretty prompt, those that are left and that I submit to.
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
I didn't know the number represented how many had marked it watched.. but you are correct, it is no longer there that I can see.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
Here's what it used to look like.



Here's what it looks like now.


I always wonder if they think we won't notice. Then again, nobody pointed it out until now, and I doubt there'll be more than half a dozen responses here. So maybe essentially nobody will notice.

To me, it seems not only representative of TVCom's attitude, but, well... dumb. They paid someone to make this change. It's no wonder they're losing money. "Don't pay your people to do unnecessary work" is a basic tenet of any business.
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
I also asked what I should tell people when they ask me why no one responds to their emails. The email response was... less than informative.

"It means as soon as we can."

First of all, the email they were responding to didn't ask what something means. I asked what I should say. That's why i sometimes get the impression I'm talking to a faulty machine stuck in "repeat" mode, rather than a living breathing person. The answer when I ask them to clarify something incoherent that they said is to repeat the same answer.

As I noted elsewhere, I did ask in another email what "as soon as we can" means. Maybe they're responding to that.So their response to what "as soon as we can" means, is that it means "as soon as we can". Very profound. :)

Ah, customer service and community management.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
It's also a very.. jessica type of answer. That's why I have my doubts that she's gone.

Like: "This person is violating the guidelines. What should be done about them?"

"The guidelines are different for every situation, because every situation is different."

"Yes, but I'm not asking about every situation: I'm asking about this situation. What are you going to do in this situation that I've described to you?"

"The guidelines are different for every situation, because every situation is different." *nothing ever gets done*

If it isn't Jessica answering the emails, it's someone who has been trained to give responses like Jessica.
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Jessica is very adept at giving answers that have nothing to do with the question asked. She also seems to get confused very easily.. Example: I had one episode that was listed three times (all with the same title, air date and episode number) and sent her the URL for the episode that should stay and asked her to remove the other two.. She asked me for a source.. I was dumbfounded.
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
It also means that staff would have to do something if an editor doesn't follow the guidelines. That seems to be something that staff is currently adverse to. And would take time, which is something they apparently don't have.

There also seems to be an aversion to driving editors away, with that and things like the 70 CP rule being removed. Which sounds great... but it drives off someone, the editor or the contributor. It's also a weird expression of concern, by people who don't seem that concerned about the site. I don't want people who say they care: I want people who demonstrate that they care.
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
My peeve is when they moved the threshold to 70 from 80 they should also have made those folks that were already sitting with 70-79 points the editor by default. Once I did a submission binge on a show and when all were approved/rejected I had 114 yet the person who was sitting at 72 for who knows how long became the editor. That took the wind out of my sails. Why should someone else get a promotion because of the work I did? Needless to say, I don't contribute to those shows that have the same situation going on.
1
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Or to put it another way, saying that you care is the first step in showing you are, not the last step or the only step.
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
That goes back to my earlier question: what is a valid source? Never mind that the idea of a source in such a situation is nonsensical. How do you "prove" that the same episode shouldn't be listed three times?

And the "source" is a source. Why is IMDB, or Wikipedia, or zap2it, better than TVCom's own source? And if they're better... why not use them? But what is considered a better source? Or any source?

Will a single source be right 100% of the time? Probably not. But that's why you have guidelines. The alternative is no one knowing what any valid source is 100% of the time.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
She also has a tendency to contradict the guidelines, at least when it comes to animated shows.. The guidelines state "only those characters that appear should be listed in the credits" yet she insists on leaving characters that don't appear in the credits for "uniformity's sake". If a voice actor does four different characters and one of them only appears three times over the course of 180 episodes I was told to leave them listed in the other 177 they do not appear in so as not to create a separate listing from the rest.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
So I wouldn't worry about it. :)

The advantage of not having staff paying attention is that... staff doesn't pay attention. They also don't seem interested in accusations, and apparently have no way to verify said accusations. That leads to another of those circular conversations:

"We have no way to prove what you're saying, so it's 'he said she said'."

"But I've provided you with as much evidence as I can based on what I have access to. Why is my evidence not sufficient? What evidence would you accept?"

"We have no way to prove what you're saying, so it's 'he said she said'."

I don't think 'he said she said' means what Jessica thinks it means. ;)

Regardless, if they won't accept accusations and have no way to confirm accusations... they can't suspend or ban you for doing something you shouldn't do. Of course, they can (and have in past) suspend you anyway. But at that point it's just random penalties, and has no impact on what you do or don't do. I've been suspended twice in 10+ years, and was never told why. And no one seemed to know.
Flag
Jan 28, 2018
I was already editor of the Smurfs at the time so my changes went through unnoticed by staff.

As far as the recurring roles, I have changed several to guest stars without any difficulty. I simply state that per this guide X does not meet the minimum requirement to be listed as a recurring role and I have never been rejected.
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Did staff accept when you recommended you not do?

I don't know what she said on recurrings. The bit player thing is a carryover from TVTome. I think when TVCom imported the data, the system assigned "Recurring" to actors who appeared multiple times, regardless of whether it was the same role/character or not. Whether staff will let you fix it or not, I don't know. I've never had any problems with staff or editors rejecting the fixes, but I don't do it much, either.

The other thing is, as Jessica herself noted to me several times, you can't remember everything. So you can always just say you don't remember her recommendation. Yes, this thread would tend to disprove this. But then again, jessica said staff wouldn't be reading this or any other forums at TVCom, either.

Also whether she meant "she" can't remember anything, or "we" can't remember anything, is another issue. That's why I've suggested numerous times that she update the guidelines. But "I can't remember anything" and "I won't put it in the guidelines" is the kind of mutually-opposed thinking that I noted earllier, has been a hallmark of TVCom for a while. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and all that. )
More +
1
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
I ignored her "recommendation" and did what she requested I not do anyway.

I also have a problem with her understanding of what a recurring role is. The guidelines say that an actor must play the same character at least five times. There are several shows that have a pool of bit actors, The Lone Ranger is one example.. A person might appear a dozen times or more but plays a different role in each episode. To me that is not a recurring role, but Jessica seems to think otherwise.

Flag
Jan 27, 2018
I'd also think banning someone for contributing--since points don't matter anymore anyway except to become an editor, and by all signs staff doesn't seem to care much about that, either--is kinda nonsensical. But that's just me.
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Note also that in the post linked to, Jessica says that she "recommends" that you don't do it. Not that she tells you not to do it. In theory, she shouldn't be able to ban you for not following a "recommendation". If nothing else, say that you never saw her reply.

Of course, you could get banned anyway. But if that's the case, you and I are probably better off elsewhere. ;)

Regardless, it's all a bit nonsensical. So staff doesn't "like" creating different credit groupings. But apparently they "like" not moderating subs, which is how you get credit groupings (different or otherwise) in the first place. I'd think how credit groupings are organized would be way down on the list compared to actually getting any credit grouping in the system.

But whatever you're comfortable with.
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
I wouldn't take any of staff's statements at face value. I'd submit them and see what they do. Maybe just 10-20 at first to see if they're accepted, and then do the rest.

If staff accepts them, they're okay. If they don't, it's not.

Admittedly, since they're not moderating any subs right now ("As soon as we can"!), it's a moot point. But what they actually accept/reject is more convincing ("You accepted it before, why not now?") than what they say off-the-cuff, so to speak. I don't think Jessica or anyone else there currently is any more likely to go by a 10-month-old written statement, then a published guideline.
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Is that for a show that staff moderates (i.e., without an editor)? Or for something that another editor has done that you're trying to change?
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Did anybody else receive responses to emails?
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Not me.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
Well, there was a certain burst of... automation? in the last two days. for instance, they got the last four episodes of PKD's Electric Dreams added to the system. even if they're still skipping episodes 2 and 3. :(

The bogus episodes are still listed for Electric Dreams, however.

Some premiering episodes filled in. Like this Tuesday's Black Lightning, four days before it premiered.

I did receive an email on 1/26 saying the PKDED thing would be reolved over the weekend. So I'm not sure if the above is considered the full resolution (it isn't), or if I have to keep checking.

And I actually received emails! So someone is there, doing... something.

Submission stuff in my next post.
Reply
Flag
Jan 29, 2018
Needless to say the PKDED thing wasn't resolved over the weekend. Episodes 2, 3, 5, and 6 are still under the 2009 Electric Dreams, rather than the 2017 Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams.

So I have to write another email explaining the problem. Which amounts to saying that 2017 episodes belong on the 2017 series, rather than the 2009 series. And which is what I said the first time.
Reply
Flag
Jan 27, 2018
What I wonder if TVCom (and TVGuide) has given up on competitiveness entirely. As far as new episodes, my DVR schedule is more accurate than TVCom.

I begin to understand why TVGuide has essentially gone out of business as a print medium.
Reply
Flag
Jan 26, 2018
Has anybody had it where the automated system keeps adding show cast?

For instance, on Doctor Who, for some reason every few weeks stars Matt Smith and Jenna-Louise Coleman, and guest stars Celia Imrie and Geff Francis, keep popping up as show cast. No character names: just the actors. And Smith and Coleman are of course already there as show cast.

I delete them, and a few weeks later they pop up together. I've mentioned it to staff (i.e., jessicakroeber), but "We can't find the problem" and nothing gets fixed. And a few weeks later, they're back again. It's been going for months, maybe a year, now.

So it's just not bogus episodes that get added, but bogus show stars as well.
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Also, maybe it's some weird corporate synergy/non-synergy that i don't understand. But don't you think CBS would actually want someone to write reviews of nu-Macgyver? Or Zoo when it was on? They're... CBS shows. I don't expect them to be gee-whiz-great reviews about them. The staff reviewer(s) used to lay in pretty heavily on Zoo.

I appreciate that TVCom doesn't want to seem "affiliated" with CBS, or doing special favors to CBS shows. But on a CBS-owned website, I'd rather read reviews and news about CBS shows than Roseanne, or Agents of SHIELD, or whatever. Or at least an equal number to those on other networks.

I don't write my reviews to curry favor with CBS. Heck, I'm not a big fan of nu-MacGyver. But like they say, any publicity is good publicity. There doesn't seem like there's any logic to all-but-ignoring (I'd consider auto-posting it to the front page "all-but-ignoring) :) ) a CBS show. And that's not counting all of the CBS shows that get nothing. When was the last time anyone saw a Hawaii Five-0 review? Or NCIS? Or SWAT? Or Scorpion? Or The Big Bang Theory? Or Young Sheldon?

CBS shows may not have the biggest net appeal. But looking at TVCom, you'd think they didn't exist beyond the occasional "news of the day" piece.

nu-MacGyver is a good example. Someone seems to think bringing in Bruce McGill and Michael Des Barres onto the nu show is publicity worthy. But CBS doesn't seem that interested in selling it on their own network and their own outlets.
More+
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
Ah, this is fun to react to as I've written a few posts about these problems some time ago.

The first thing I would like to say is that I'm flabbergasted they upvoted it to the home page. In my communications with staff they have told me a few times that only posts that concern tv.shows will be promoted. If I had written something different and I wanted comments I needed to pm my followwers and other interested (as they said: you have so many followers and people who read your posts, that can't be a problem). Even when I suggtesed that the comments to a post like 'Functionality I would love the site to have' that I had shared and discussed with Pat and even had added a question of him, should be interesting to them did not put in on the homepage. And it was about how I had visioned how the communities would blossom with support of the community members (there was a system in the post).
The fact they put yours on the homepage is weird but must have some reason. The first question is who now has access to editorial. Is it only Jessica or are there still some others?
And the why... The reason could be someone is pissed or someone thinks there are not enough new posts on the homepage? I knwo you try as hard as you can to fill alle the pages these days yourself :-).
On the subject what is happening I belive we might never know. In the period editorial moved from TV.com to TVGuide I was still in contact witj most staff mebers and had an excellent realtion with them. That's partly why I was able to write the posts I did. But not one was prepared to give me the real story, I only got suggestions. In my opinion they were afraid to tell to much and I do understand that. Most have been let go by now so matbe in the future we will get the story of what really happened over te last years (and I am off course curious how much of my posts about it were correct).

My idea of the current state: I believe only Jessica is left as staff dedicated to TV.com. There will be other staff who maintain the site but there have been no developments over the last five years other then getting the TVGuide posts imported. There are still a lot of people maintaining the shows (like you), but you are barely supported as you mention. My guess, Jessica also does that. Her work for the communities has been minimal over the last two years (as they have almost been vacated), so she has time for other work. Looking at and promoting post was a daily job, also in the weekdns as the then editorial people loved what we wrote. That interest has gone.
More+
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Besides, having a thread on the homepage isn't that significant anyway. I've had plenty of articles on the home page: some get no comments, some get a few. None get a huge amount. That may be a lack of commentary by the thousands of people reading, ;), but hits are hits.

Likewise, there's not a lot of "official" community articles that get comments. For example, ignoring the three articles less than an hour old, of the other seven on the homepage only two have comments.

Plus if the articles really drove hits, CBS would be paying for unique content.

I think it's more that people just don't come to tvcom or tvguide. To read stuff, or much of anything. If they did, CBS would be paying to keep the sites up. I have faith in their ability to sniff out a dollar. ;)
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I have had discussions with staff about this some years ago.

I assume that like me, you do not get the number of pageviews you receive on your posts.
The most likley reason you do not get any comments anymore is that there are only a few people left who were community minded, read the community posts and commented. I was one of those and was on the site a few times a day. I now vist every few days and seldom read anything because there are no interesting staff posts anymore (and you write a lot about series I have not seen).
Pat once told me that my posts averaged about 3000 - 5000 pageviews and that the better/more interesting ones (like my European detective series) would keep generating pageviews over the years to come because they keep popping up on the top of google search. I have had posts with polls that had
Until the dreadfull day everything changed, my posts on average got between 35 and 150 comments (with the post 'Changes on TV.com' getting 640 comments and 82 hearts being an exceptional exception). But the last ones had less as already a lot of the ususal commenters had left.
And no, staff was (and is) not prepared to pay anything to anyone (except staff) for content. I seem to remember we have talked about that before (there used to be some goodies in the old days). I am sure a few of us made the site better with their content, but we wouldn't be able to uphold it ourselves. After it became clear this site had had its better days and I would not be writing (as much) for the site anymore, I was appraoched by a few other sites to write for them instead, but none of them offered any reward. We live in a world where most content needs to be delivered for free and only few staff members are paid.
More +
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I neither expect nor want pay for what I write. I'd settle for the articles being treated like staff-written articles home-page-wise. I might be biased, but at least I don't publish 2+ year old articles and expect them to be on the front page. Or anywhere else. :)

I write them because a) I like to write, and b) it's TVCom. If someone won't write "retro reviews" of TV, what's the point? Certainly staff no longer does, if they ever did.

I don't expect a lot of comments on the relatively obscure shows I write, either. I was talking about the comments or lack thereof on the staff-written articles. I don't know or care what the pageviews are on my community threads.

I still tend to think membership and viewership and hits are down because that's just what happens with TV databases. I suspect IMDB and Wikipedia have much the same problem, from what I've seen and experienced there. When you've got TIVO and DVRs and info guides on your machine and such, why bother coming to a data site that mostly tells you the same thing? Building a building is more interesting than maintaining. Most people based on interest and excitement would rather be architects than janitors. :)
More +
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
I suspect people don't talk about what is/was happening because of NDAs a desire to work for CBS in future, and/or a desire to get a good reference. CBS doesn't like whistleblowers any more than most corporations. And it's not even whistle-blowing, really. It's not like CBS is breaking the law or anything. To quote, MST3K, "They just didn't care."

Or the people are frightened of lawsuits, if you prefer. It seems to me a dumb approach: it's the Internet: stuff gets out eventually. "Information wants to be free" and all that. Plus is it something CBS would spend money suing? They won't spend the money necessary to keep the site going, much less improve it. But they'd spend money to sue someone who blabbed on the Inter about why they're not spending the money?

And in fairness, I understand CBS' viewpoint to some degree. It was probably two/three regimes ago that they bought TVTome. I think some of why TVCom is failing is because of poor management. But some of it is just because... I don't think TV databases on the Internet are doing well.

I think if the situation took place now, even if they didn't know what they know now, CBS wouldn't buy TVTome's data or try to make a go of a TV data website.
More +
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
I suspect they upvoted my post because of a) force of habit, and b) the title was from a tv show and they thought it was tv-show-related. Like you, my impression was that they only promoted tv-show-related threads. I doubt it was promoted due to content.

My other guess would be that Jessica is still at tvcom, but just doesn't have the time to moderate stuff. Whether she's the anonymous "TVCom_Editorial" as well, who knows? In the past, TVCom_Editorial used to promote threads at the same time jessica approved subs. About noon eastern/9 pacific, so about the time people would roll into work on the West Coast.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
TVCOM-editorail was used by a few staff members who were all able to promote posts. Some lived in the New York area, some in the San Francisco area. So it was just dependent on who looked first. But some of them also looked at the posts in the weekends because they believed in the systeme and wanted to support it. Debbie was the last to go. Some posts by people they trusted (like you and me) were promoted almost immediately, other ones had to be looked at before promoting. I even had a former staff member (I believe in the New York office) that would promote posts for me if needed. They had not stripped him of his authorizations....
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I imagine this thread got promoted because a) I am one of the "trusted" users--which typically means "We'll just do Gislef's stuff and others automatically because it saves us time--and b) It looks like a Hogan's Heroes thread.

Disclaimer: I have no intention of doing a Hogan's Heroes thread. One McHale's Navy thread was close enough for me. :)
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
I noticed something new, so maybe I'm completely wrong.

The time you wrote this comment is 'in the not to distant future'. I had not seen that before.


1
Reply
Flag
Jan 26, 2018
Jen Trollo was the former name behind the tv.com-editorial but I guess the staff shared the account.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
The forum timings and appearances/disappearances have been wonky for years. As I mentioned elsewhere, there's a bug that when I click "Submit", what I just submitted doesn't appear. I have to Ctrl-R the page. Sometimes I get multiples, sometimes I get nothing.

Remember when communities were the "wave of the future" for TVCom. Now they often don't work.
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
Might be, the site is autobot-affiliated and the MACHINES have taken over?
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
Yup, but we still have the last best hope for mankind with out site manager.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
We have a site manager?
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Sorry, I guess my attempt at sarcasm failed. I'm just at a loss as to what the manager actually manages. Other than changes that were noted before the holidays I haven't seen any evidence to speak of that anyone is even in the office these days.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Oh, I'm sure they manage lots of stuff having to do with the site but not us. GoogleAd advertising, for instance. Those are the people who pay the bills. It's not like we can offer TVCom money. Although we've never been offered an opportunity too, either.

I always wonder if they tell the advertisers what they do (or don't) tell us. I can imagine how an advertiser would react if they asked when their ads will be up and were told "We're working as fast as we can." But like I said, either they say something different to the people who pay the bills, or the people that pay staff's bills directly. That's not something in data management that you tell your boss, and expect to keep working.
1
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Well, they did manage to add 67 episodes to the final season of Night Court.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Well, I suspect "they" didn't. And it's part of the automatic process. Whether a "manager" assuming that an automated system works perfectly when it's implemented is "management" is another story.

Again, if I were looking for a site/community manager, I'd check those things by actually going to the site, reading around, checking those things, etc. But that's just me.
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
Yes, Jessica's formal positron is site manager. I have received a few pm's from her telling me that my interpration of what she would be doing based on that title is wrong, but her formal title is site manager.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I don't think we have a community manager, either. My intent was less to argue over the term, then to point out that whatever it is, we don't have it. Although I'd probably agree with you that "site/community manager" should be doing certain things based on the title. Like... well, "managing" the members of the site/community. And that "interpretation" isn't what CBS, TVCom, and jessica used.

It's not just our interpretation, either: it's what she puts out there on her official work bio. Wouldn't anyone reading it and wanting to offer her a job come to a similar conclusion?

If, for instance, she created the concept of and the implementation of the communities (which she takes credit for at one site), shouldn't she "manage" those? I'd agree that doesn't necessarily make her the "manager" of the people on them. But in recent months I've never seen her manage them at all: their content, the staff writers who (used to) contribute to them, and so on. Again, if I were hiring a community manager, I'd want some evidence that she actually did managing of TVcom.

We should be so lucky that we can write to, and get a response from, an anonymous PM account. It's an anonymous email account. :) But the fact that it's anonymous is my pet peeve. How can you have an anonymous-to-the-community/site community/site manager? I've worked in the Internet community/site management business. "Contact Us" is pretty standard, and speaking to an actual person when you do is standard as well. If you're in customer service, giving your name is pretty standard. That's why you see employees wearing nametags at fast-food places, and why they (typically) give their name when you call in.

Again, it must be a West Coast/US thing...
More +
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
Ah, you are right, she is the community manager. I shall whip myself with a wet noodle.

And no, it might not be up-to-date. Last time I pm'd with Jessica in het community manager role was last august. The fact that she asked people not to write to her anymore but to an anonymous pm account might give some clue that even her role has changed and the site has no dedicated staffanymore but is onkly maintained by functionaries who also have other responsibilities. Just like f.i. ICT has been ober the last ten years.
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I thought it was "community manager". That's what she lists on her online resumes.

Also, how up-to-date is your information? My question was phrased in the present tense. :)

I also bet she didn't tell you what her job as a site manager _was_, except in the vaguest possible terms. Again, the CBS corporate mentality of non-transparency.
1
Flag
Jan 23, 2018
Okay, that's weird. "TVCom_Editorial" just upvoted this thread. I... have no idea why.
Reply
Flag
Jan 23, 2018
That is odd.. I wonder what that's all about.. A sign of life from within?
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 23, 2018
Well, like i said, last week I did get an email from whoever answers emai. And while the upvoting doesn't take place business-daily like it used to, at least it has been happening about once a week.

Now, if the person moderating non-editor subs would do so at least weekly...
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
Could we look at tv.com as two separate entities? One side is the series´casts and air dates, run by staff and editors from the user pool. The other side is the communities, where the users are the creators and staff only chime in once in a while.

That´s in effect what´s happening now.

The first side is just a mirror of tv-guide which doesn´t have the same data as tv.com - hence the mash-up and misses in format.

Could it be that the community side of tv.com will be what will be left standing when the dust settles?

Just a thought that hit me.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 22, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 22, 2018
One other thing is that in theory I agree with a lot of what TVcom has proposed. Communities were a good idea. Implementing an automated episode-adding system was a good idea. Responding to issues via email would be a good idea, if it makes things easier for staff. removing the 70 CP thing for editors to keep shows was a good idea: that's how it worked at TVTome, originally.

The problem is that the implementation typically sucks. Communities, require time, money, and material provided by staff. An automated episode-adding system would work if it wasn't filled with errors and kept readding the same wrong episodes after they were removed and if correct episodes were added in a timely and consistent manner.

Email feedback would be good if staff responded to the emails in a useful manner. Putting an editor in place that knows what they're doing is a key component of making editors harder to remove.

The ideas are usually good, but TVCom never sticks the landing. They create stuff that take follow-up work... but then don't want to do the work. Or they want to, but the budget gets cut and they can't. Create a system that will work without future input, and they'll be on the right track.
More +
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
Let's be honest. TV.com at this point is not being developped in any way. Every or any good suggestion in the past will not be implemented anymore. The budget for TV.com has been minimised. Input is either member input or automated from TVguide. The communities are virtually dead. As long as the costs are lower then what CBS (Or CBS-E- management = the former TVguide-management) thinks the revenues are, the site will be alive. It has turned into a clickbait site, like TVguide. But because of its past it is a strange combination of tv information, old communities, posts/articles for highschool girls and that combination will be deadly some time in the future. The site shows no vision at all where tehy want to go to, what they want to be, who they want to address. And sites that are confusing to everyone will die in the end.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
Heck, look at community names. Sometimes TVCom can' even be bothered to come up with names for them beyond the obviously bleh.

Take here for an example. A lot of thought went into titling that community, right? :) I did try to come up with suggestions. That went nowhere.

Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
I hope not. Because... communities: the great failed TVcom experiment.

They were basically intended to "improve" tvcom. But they were never really better, and whatever advantages they provided...

a) What benefits they offered over TVcom forums never outweighed what was lost.

b) Communities were basically an attempt to cash in on the popularity of social media like Facebook. Except Facebook was and has remained superior to tvcom communities.

Communities like just about everything else require time and money by the CBS and TVCom The Powers That Be (TPTB) . You have to have someone who would create new communities. You have to have someone who would add functionality to keep up with the functionality of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Remember when we were told that eventually every show would have a community? What happened to that assurance? :) I can edit a Facebook post. Can anyone edit their comments in communities?

TVCom Communities were never going to be "cutting edge", but someone had to be there to keep them up with the cutting edge. And of course there were things like the fact that columnists were no longer paid to write exclusive material for communities. At best, they got a small royalty when their TVGuide articles were 'ported over to TVCom. Staff doesn't use the communities: why should users?

I could have (and think I did) predict that communities would at best provide at best a brief rise in site hits.

At least the TVCom database is unique. Communities are just... TVCom-specific Facebook without the functionality.

So if TPTB decide to lose the database and stay with the third-hand communities, I'm outta here. The database is the only thing keeping me here: otherwise I'd go to Facebook and chat about the shows I want to chat about.
More +
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 31, 2018
Completely agree with your last paragraph. The database is all I care about. I followed it here from TVTome and have dedicated a ridiculous amount of time and effort curating it. I've only ever used the add-ons (forums, community, PMs) to flag / discuss / collaborate / bitch about issues relating to the database. Had IMDb or Wikipedia got their acts together before I'd submitted a million items to the database I'd have walked years ago.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 31, 2018
The thing is that TVCom communities are inferior to what's out there. If I want to talk about a show, even a relatively obscure one, I can find a couple of Facebook communities about it. And Facebook has better tools. And things like notification.

Plus remember when we were told every show would eventually have a community? I bet TVcom doesn't want us to remember. ;) It may have been unreasonable, but at least each show had a forum.

With all of the bad episode data coming in from "the source", what spare time I have via email is spent telling staff to fix those. I don't have the time to check for communities and play an endless game of "Mother, May I?" (Or, "Mother, Would You?").

Isn't staff supposed to play some part in creating forums? If they can't see what shows get traffic and should have forums, how are we? "Big" shows like Young Sheldon and Black Lightning don't have communities. And of course, we don't know what criteria TVcom uses to decide what shows get communities, either. And the "TVcom writers" can't or won't write material for half the communities anyway.

So without the database, to me TVCom has... well, nothing.
More +
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
Oh, and look. As of this writing, the submit button isn't working. When I click on it, nothing happens. Sometimes it posts the article but doesn't tell me. Sometimes it just doesn't post it.

How long have the communities been around? And how often do things like this still happen?

And if I try to explain what happened, a) I have to go offsite to my email account, b) The anonymous person I'm explaining it to isn't a technical person so they don't understand, and c) By the time they see it (which is now going on a month), the problem will either have resolved itself or Development will already have fixed it and not told them.

All hail communities!
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
FYI, I don't get paid anything for the exclusive content I write for TVCom.

And I've been told not to repost material from the database. Because TVCom doesn't like it. The list of the things they don't like seems to far outweigh the list of things they do like. Or at least like enough to put some money into.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
Hmm... 18 days since staff has been back from break and not a sound. Did they all get a pink slip for Christmas? I'm starting to wonder.
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
There is only one operational and dedicated staff member left, so if she's busy with other things she will not react. Also, a few weeks ago she told us to use the general pm e-mailaddress and not use her own address so even she might be doing other things these days.
Reply
Flag
Jan 24, 2018
Do you have insider knowledge? How do you know there is only one? Even if true it shouldn't take three weeks to get submissions approved/rejected. That should be one of the top priorities for staff. It would take her all of five minutes to post a message letting the rest of us know what is going on so we're not all here sitting in the dark.
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I used to have insider knowledge (I suppose I was the best informed community member), but not asnymore. All staff members have left tv.com and only one had stayed, that's why I was sure there was only and still one. She is till around, but her role might have changed some time ago back.

I see you are an editor and I do not remember you being an active part in the communities. I do not know if you ever read any of my posts on what I think happened on the site, but if not, you can find them here: Changes on TV.com, Time for action and What happened to tv.com in the last months. Alle from June to September 2016. Or rad this one: "Communities do not exist anymore for mobile or tablet users' where another part of the proces becomes clear. The promise by Jessica it would be fixed has of course not been realized.
Reply
Flag
Jan 25, 2018
I admit to being very ignorant when it comes to the inner workings of this site. My niche is the first 40 years of television and communities for those shows are all but dead. I shut off my cable TV in 1995 and literally have viewed less than 50 hours of television that has been aired since then.

My reason for even coming to this site in the first place was to add information where I could. My personal TV collection consists of nearly 500 titles of which 97% are over 35 years old. While the rest of the country is watching Real Housewives of (pick a town) and other reality crap I'm watching Amos N' Andy, Topper, Annie Oakley and a multitude of others from the early days of television. I have ZERO interest in just about everything that has aired in the last 25 years.

Needless to say, the only posts until now that I've paid any attention to were announcements from staff. The vast majority of posts deal with subjects that I have no interest in or do not apply to me. Maybe I should change my name to Gronk since I am so far out of the loop.
More +
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
Oh for a bit of history:

I am not, and never have been, a staff member.

I was one of several volunteer forum moderators at TVcom 10+ years ago. That position was eliminated, in part because they were in the process of getting rid of forums at the time. And in part because at that time there were a lot more staff members than the site started with and they called for volunteers, and they (supposedly) no longer needed volunteers for forum moderation.

There were also some claims that forum moderators weren't doing much. That was primarily because the "secret" moderators forum had gone public due to (yet another) site glitch. It was hard to do much when a lot of what you did was no longer confidential.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
If nothing else, posting in the moderator forum when Development made it public (or at least let it stay public) would have been a violation of my NDA.
Reply
Flag
Jan 20, 2018
I have my own thoughts on this and it goes deeper than TV.com. But since this isn't a political forum I'll keep those thoughts to myself.
Reply
Flag
Jan 21, 2018
Talk about whatever you want. It isn't really an "anything" forum. :)

I find the whole thing interesting from a political standpoint. You hear folks like CBS calling for more transparency from the presidency. And talk as if they're a public service. And yet at the same time, CBS seems dedicated to... a lack of transparency.
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 22, 2018
Well, it's an "anything about tvcom" forum, at any rate. But as long as you tie it into tvcom.
Reply
Flag
Follow this Topic
Members
110