Random and possibly unfair criticism of the LoRT show

[Aught3]

First of all I really enjoyed this weeks show. The guests were great, the topic was interesting, and I took full advantage at the chance for audience participation.

So criticism and suggestions, feel free to ignore or join in.

I think 2 hrs is too long. The show starts to lose focus towards the end and start to cover the same or similar ground that has already been talked about. Also, if you are eventually going to make this into a podcast, 90 minutes is about the limit of what will fit onto a CD (hey, some people like to listen in the car and haven't joined the iRevolution).

What do others think about this, is two hours just to long for a single topic show?

I enjoy the ability to ask questions of the guests but it's difficult to think up and type quickly when the opportunity arises. While I think you should keep doing this maybe we could have a thread where users submit possible (on topic) questions for you to ask on the show? It would at least cut down on the prep work that goes in to the interviews.

That's it for now, hope others have some useful suggestions to make.

 

[lrkun]

There are a few patterns or formats which might improve the show:

1. TedTalk format, where a speaker will be invited, and he or she will speak her thoughts on a certain topic. It can be as short as 5 minutes.

2. Open forum where the panel talks to each other about reason related thoughts.

3. Take in calls. Let the viewers participate. It's always fun when they do so.

4. A 5-30 minute show is better than 2 hours. Quality topics or issues.

5. I agree with Aught3's suggestion of including a thread where AW can choose or filter topics which he feels is worth talking about.

Note:

Random and possibly unfair. ^^

 

[nasher168]

I'll sort-of agree that 2hrs is too long. At least, it is if you want to watch the whole thing there and then. Last time, I downloaded it and listened to it on my ipod later on and found 2 hrs a good length because I could pause and come back to it. For people to watch it there and then, though, I'll agree with Aught and would say maybe 45 minutes to an hour would be a better length.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm sorry Andromeda's wake; I do have practice with accents, but you were difficult to hear and follow at times. Perhaps it was the sound, and the combination of deciphering accent, but I had difficulty following you. I consider myself relatively okay at it usually...

It was nice hearing different opinions, but having some scholarship on today's topic, I rather missed the academia of it

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I'm sorry Andromeda's wake; I do have practice with accents, but you were difficult to hear and follow at times.

I'm English and thus normally have no problems understanding what AW says, but his audio seemed much quieter than that of the other three. I had to really concentrate to make out what he was saying if I didn't want to broadcast to the street when the ladies were talking.

 

[nasher168]

Surely the solution would be to turn down the volume on the co-hosts, then turn up the volume of your speakers. That way they're all more or less equally loud, so you can still hear AW without deafening yourself.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

Surely the solution would be to turn down the volume on the co-hosts, then turn up the volume of your speakers. That way they're all more or less equally loud, so you can still hear AW without deafening yourself.

Are you suggesting I spend two hours with my hand on the volume control? seriously?

Edit: Sorry are you referring to some controls on the blogtv site? I don't usually go there. I was listening to the show on the link provided from this site which just had a stream of the show. I didn't see any separate controls.

 

[Andiferous]

Surely the solution would be to turn down the volume on the co-hosts, then turn up the volume of your speakers. That way they're all more or less equally loud, so you can still hear AW without deafening yourself.

You are assuming everyone listening (like I) is smart or technical or something. Silly. And this is meant to be constructive advice of course.

It does require a little concentration to understand you Brits at times. Not that I don't like your accent. I can understand very well, except that ... bloody hell! You guys do tend to speak fast sometimes. It's quite impressive but hard to follow. So fast sometimes, you might as well be speaking French. So I just nod and smile. But I'd rather understand you... And with the aforementioned sound issue, I knew I had no hope of comprehension.

So it's like trying to follow an interview done in a language in which you only know half the words. lol.

 

[lrkun]

Surely the solution would be to turn down the volume on the co-hosts, then turn up the volume of your speakers. That way they're all more or less equally loud, so you can still hear AW without deafening yourself.

Random and possibly unfair criticism of the LoRT show

According to the title of this thread, it's best not to take what's written here seriously. ^-^

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

According to the title of this thread, it's best not to take what's written here seriously. ^-^

I was being serious. Is there a way to adjust individual contributors' levels from this page? I didn't see one.

 

[lrkun]

According to the title of this thread, it's best not to take what's written here seriously. ^-^

I was being serious. Is there a way to adjust individual contributors' levels from this page? I didn't see one.

I don't know what you mean. What is this individual contributor's levels? Anyway, this thread is good, because it serves as a suggestion. It's just that some might find it offensive. Some ideas go against Lor TV after all. So, I'm not certain if AW will change the show, based on our rants. I do believe that there is a need for it. But, I still stress that it shouldn't be taken into heart.

There are two ways to interpret the posts in this thread. One is by viewing it as an unfair criticism. Doing so, it may seem like satire or sarcasm, albeit a joke or something light. However, if there is a good idea. It can be viewed as fair criticism. In so doing, we can find great suggestions here. Now if we find something offensive, we can always call it unfair. hehe

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I don't know what you mean. What is this individual contributor's levels?

As per my original post, AW sounded far quieter than the three women. The level of his microphone was much lower so it was hard to make out what he was saying if you didn't want to make the others far too loud. Nasher seems to be suggesting that I could change the (sound) levels of the guests compared to the host. I don't see how to do that.

 

[lrkun]

I don't know what you mean. What is this individual contributor's levels?

As per my original post, AW sounded far quieter than the three women. The level of his microphone was much lower so it was hard to make out what he was saying if you didn't want to make the others far too loud. Nasher seems to be suggesting that I could change the (sound) levels of the guests compared to the host. I don't see how to do that.

You can do so in blogTV. I don't know if it's available via this forum's chat site. We can hypothesize that it is possible and test it when there is a show. Also, it only works if the panel or other part is using blogtv. If he or she isn't because he or she chose to use skype, then it's another issue altogether. Hehe.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

You can do so in blogTV. I don't know if it's available via this forum's chat site. We can hypothesize that it is possible and test it when there is a show.

Ah... That's what I asked subsequently. I don't usually frequent blogtv so I was unaware of that option. It doesn't seem to be there on the LOR show page.

 

[lrkun]

You can do so in blogTV. I don't know if it's available via this forum's chat site. We can hypothesize that it is possible and test it when there is a show.

Ah... That's what I asked subsequently. I don't usually frequent blogtv so I was unaware of that option. It doesn't seem to be there on the LOR show page.

It won't show. It requires an on-going show to appear. Also, in our chat site, you can see at the lower right a button wherein you can choose an option and tweak it.

 

[Andiferous]

I don't know what you mean. What is this individual contributor's levels? Anyway, this thread is good, because it serves as a suggestion. It's just that some might find it offensive. Some ideas go against Lor TV after all. So, I'm not certain if AW will change the show, based on our rants. I do believe that there is a need for it. But, I still stress that it shouldn't be taken into heart.

Rants? Constructive criticism. I'm not sure where the idea of rants came from. I might have missed 'em.

There are two ways to interpret the posts in this thread. One is by viewing it as an unfair criticism. Doing so, it may seem like satire or sarcasm, albeit a joke or something light. However, if there is a good idea. It can be viewed as fair criticism. In so doing, we can find great suggestions here. Now if we find something offensive, we can always call it unfair. hehe

Offensive? What? LRkun, I have no idea what this is about.

 

[lrkun]

I don't know what you mean. What is this individual contributor's levels? Anyway, this thread is good, because it serves as a suggestion. It's just that some might find it offensive. Some ideas go against Lor TV after all. So, I'm not certain if AW will change the show, based on our rants. I do believe that there is a need for it. But, I still stress that it shouldn't be taken into heart.

Rants? Constructive criticism. I'm not sure where the idea of rants came from. I might have missed 'em.

There are two ways to interpret the posts in this thread. One is by viewing it as an unfair criticism. Doing so, it may seem like satire or sarcasm, albeit a joke or something light. However, if there is a good idea. It can be viewed as fair criticism. In so doing, we can find great suggestions here. Now if we find something offensive, we can always call it unfair. hehe

Offensive? What? LRkun, I have no idea what this is about.

According to the title of this thread, it can be called ranting, because a poster will be providing a random and possibly unfair criticism of the lor tv show. After a reading of a the title, the word random and possibly can be considered as a qualifier wherein if a post is not in accordance with your way of thinking, you can consider it random, in so doing, you won't be offended. However, if there is a good idea and you think it should be applied, then you can interpret is in a way that it is not unfair, nor random, but a good advice.

 

[AndromedasWake]

I don't think this is a ranty thread at all. This criticism is exactly what I need to get the show right.

Today's show probably will run to 2 hours, after which shows will be shorter and perhaps start an hour later.

Volume will be improved today too. I also want to figure out an improved format to include a discussion on current events, a main discussion and some way of taking community questions. If anyone has any suggests about how best to portion the time over, say, an hour I'd really appreciate them.

Keep it coming.

 

[Inferno]

Volume will be improved today too. I also want to figure out an improved format to include a discussion on current events, a main discussion and some way of taking community questions. If anyone has any suggests about how best to portion the time over, say, an hour I'd really appreciate them.

Listen to "The skeptics guide to the Universe". (1:20 hours every time) Their setup is (loosely, depending on how much news there is) 10min news, + a total of 10min discussion of that news, 30min interview of a "famous" person and 10min "true or false". (In that last bit, they present 3 possibly true bits of fact of which one is actually false. The panel, which is generally the same, then has to figure out which ones are true and which are false.)

I like that format quite a bit actually because it gives you the opportunity to hear one person and really explore their thoughts, whereas now this is only possible if you have a total of 2 hours. (120min / 4ppl = 30min)

Instead of the last 10min "true or false", you could take community questions (per mail?!?) and maybe you could shorten the news to 15min total. That would leave you with 35min for a chat with one person of your choice, on a topic you've agreed beforehand. The rest of the panel (one or two well-known people) could then throw in some questions and their thoughts on the subject, but priority remains with the Interviewee.

 

[Zerosix]

Volume will be improved today too. I also want to figure out an improved format to include a discussion on current events, a main discussion and some way of taking community questions. If anyone has any suggests about how best to portion the time over, say, an hour I'd really appreciate them.

Listen to "The skeptics guide to the Universe". (1:20 hours every time) Their setup is (loosely, depending on how much news there is) 10min news, + a total of 10min discussion of that news, 30min interview of a "famous" person and 10min "true or false". (In that last bit, they present 3 possibly true bits of fact of which one is actually false. The panel, which is generally the same, then has to figure out which ones are true and which are false.)

I like that format quite a bit actually because it gives you the opportunity to hear one person and really explore their thoughts, whereas now this is only possible if you have a total of 2 hours. (120min / 4ppl = 30min)

Instead of the last 10min "true or false", you could take community questions (per mail?!?) and maybe you could shorten the news to 15min total. That would leave you with 35min for a chat with one person of your choice, on a topic you've agreed beforehand. The rest of the panel (one or two well-known people) could then throw in some questions and their thoughts on the subject, but priority remains with the Interviewee.

Yeah, the SGU is a great example of how to present these types of shows. Have a word with Rebecca Watson as she's been involved in quite a few of these.

I also recomment listening to Skeptics With A K and Science Sort Of.


Possible show segments:

- News
- Interviews
- Panel Games
- Mail Bag
- Forum Feedback
- Voice Mail or Viewer / Listener Call in
- Recorded Speeches / lectures*
- Thought for the day / week (something the listeners can respond to)

* The SGU used to have a Randi Speaks section where James Randi would talk about a certain subject regarding either himsefl or scepticism. Maybe have a AW speaks, then create a thread about it on the forum which the users can reply to, then report the responce in a forum feedback section the next week.