What are Youview doing about clipped recordings

Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
edited 17 July 2017, 11:31AM in Archived Posts
I would like some indication of what are Youview doing about clipped recordings, they have said they are "considering" manual added of start and end of programmes and there is some indicators to the reasons for the problem in

http://community.youview.com/youview/...

but no response from Youview about what they are actually doing to solve the problem
«1

Comments

  • edited 26 September 2013, 8:33AM
    "there is some indicators to the reasons for the problem"

    No need for indicators, it's the fault of the broadcasters.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Then it follows that Youview are as much at fault for employing a flawed system in their boxes without guarantees that the broadcasters will ensure that the programmes will start and finished as per the youview guide.

    Neither of which is relelvant to my question, the system does not work in its present state so what is Youview doing about it
  • edited 17 July 2017, 11:31AM
    In my experience the system does work, I've had just 2 clipped recordings, both were Homeland and Channel 4 have accepted culpability for that issue and pledged action to remedy it.

    Nothing flawed, nothing broken, just sloppy timekeeping by broadcasters.
  • MattManMattMan Posts: 277Member
    edited 22 June 2016, 4:22PM
    Martin1 said:

    In my experience the system does work, I've had just 2 clipped recordings, both were Homeland and Channel 4 have accepted culpability for that issue and pledged action to remedy it.

    Nothing flawed, nothing broken, just sloppy timekeeping by broadcasters.

    Given that I have had clipped recording from channel 4, channel 5 and BBC 2. When I have SKY you could add padding to start and end of a recording due to the sloppy timekeeping as you put it. So youview need to add this to there software and you never know it might be in tomorrows update fingers crossed.
  • Chris__M1Chris__M1 Posts: 136Member
    edited 26 September 2013, 8:33AM
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I take it that you don't watch many shows on Channel 5, 5* and 5USA, where clipped recordings are a daily event.

    5, it should be remembered, is one of the YouView partners.

    If it was a minor channel, unrelated to YouView, the "broadcaster's fault" argument would be reasonable. But if a full member of the YouView consortium can't even get it right, themselves (and haven't given any indication that they intend to), then the timing method is not something that can be relied upon, no matter how "advanced" we are told it is.
  • dvdjamesdvdjames Posts: 48Member
    edited 23 February 2017, 4:29PM
    It hasn't got anything to do with YouView. Speak to the broadcasters if you have a problem. Think of it as like complaining to YouView because you don't like the storyline in East Enders :)
  • edited 24 April 2013, 7:17PM
    Martin1 said:

    In my experience the system does work, I've had just 2 clipped recordings, both were Homeland and Channel 4 have accepted culpability for that issue and pledged action to remedy it.

    Nothing flawed, nothing broken, just sloppy timekeeping by broadcasters.

    "I have had clipped recording from channel 4, channel 5 and BBC 2."

    And in each instance it's the fault of the broadcaster. YouVIew have already said adding padding would be a huge job and wouldn't be quick. It also can cause clashes that otherwise wouldn't arise.
  • edited 24 April 2013, 7:17PM
    Chris__M1 said:

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I take it that you don't watch many shows on Channel 5, 5* and 5USA, where clipped recordings are a daily event.

    5, it should be remembered, is one of the YouView partners.

    If it was a minor channel, unrelated to YouView, the "broadcaster's fault" argument would be reasonable. But if a full member of the YouView consortium can't even get it right, themselves (and haven't given any indication that they intend to), then the timing method is not something that can be relied upon, no matter how "advanced" we are told it is.

    "At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I take it that you don't watch many shows on Channel 5, 5* and 5USA, where clipped recordings are a daily event."

    Because Channel 5 are poor timekeepers.

    "5, it should be remembered, is one of the YouView partners."

    Indeed, so why assume YouVIew aren't feeding back to Channel 5 and asking them to address their shortcomings?
  • edited 24 April 2013, 7:17PM
    dvdjames said:

    It hasn't got anything to do with YouView. Speak to the broadcasters if you have a problem. Think of it as like complaining to YouView because you don't like the storyline in East Enders :)

    Exactly James.
  • Dave71Dave71 Posts: 95Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    It may not be their fault, although I think that's a moot point for the consumer though.

    All people will notice is that YouView has clipping issues, and some other boxes don't. So if the method they've chosen doesn't work reliably enough (regardless of why that is), then they need to use a different method.

    It doesn't matter how it works, but it does matter how well it works.

    So it's a valid question to ask if anything's being done.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 345Member
    edited 23 February 2017, 4:29PM
    I agree Dave71, there has been so much debate on this forum about clipped recordings that everybody should now know that when there are complaints it is realised that the broadcasters are at fault, but also considered that YouView should allow for that and give a complete recording nonetheless. Could perhaps it not be reiterated that it is the broadcasters failings every time clipped recordings are mentioned, and also that some are lucky enough to have had only two instances, enough others have given many more examples.
  • edited 24 April 2013, 7:17PM
    Cicero said:

    I agree Dave71, there has been so much debate on this forum about clipped recordings that everybody should now know that when there are complaints it is realised that the broadcasters are at fault, but also considered that YouView should allow for that and give a complete recording nonetheless. Could perhaps it not be reiterated that it is the broadcasters failings every time clipped recordings are mentioned, and also that some are lucky enough to have had only two instances, enough others have given many more examples.

    "Could perhaps it not be reiterated that it is the broadcasters failings every time clipped recordings are mentioned, "

    Why should it not be said? It IS the broadcasters at fault, why should people be asked to pretend otherwise?

    Adults join a support forum, rise a concern, and then what? Not have reality explained to them? Be left thinking it's a box or platform specific issue?
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Dave71 said:

    It may not be their fault, although I think that's a moot point for the consumer though.

    All people will notice is that YouView has clipping issues, and some other boxes don't. So if the method they've chosen doesn't work reliably enough (regardless of why that is), then they need to use a different method.

    It doesn't matter how it works, but it does matter how well it works.

    So it's a valid question to ask if anything's being done.

    That is exactly the point you can say as much as you want about it being a broadcaster problem because it isn't. you may well blame them for the cause but I do not have this problem with any other recording box so the solution ultimately lies with Youview to solve it, whether that be by putting pressure on the broadcasters or adding padding it is their and only theie responsibilty to put things right for the customer.
    That is why I am asking them what they are doing about it not the broadcasters which IMO is a ridiculous request to ask the customer to do
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 345Member
    edited 29 October 2012, 5:32PM
    Cicero said:

    I agree Dave71, there has been so much debate on this forum about clipped recordings that everybody should now know that when there are complaints it is realised that the broadcasters are at fault, but also considered that YouView should allow for that and give a complete recording nonetheless. Could perhaps it not be reiterated that it is the broadcasters failings every time clipped recordings are mentioned, and also that some are lucky enough to have had only two instances, enough others have given many more examples.

    How predictable, you've ignored everything else in this post. "Why should it not be said?", because it's already been said, ad nauseam.
  • TechnogranTechnogran Posts: 152Member
    edited 2 November 2012, 5:02PM
    In my view for what its worth, as this has been a problem for a while with Freeview, I feel that the broadcasters will never pull their fingers out and get the start/end timings right whilst box manufacturers are expected to adjust for their shortcomings by adding padding.
    Its not the answer really is it, as it can cause more problems when used. The only time that a manufacturer of a PVR could be held responsible is if it was found that his equipment took a while to respond when encountering a start/stop flag.
    We are all aware (at least most long standing PVR owners will be aware) of which channels are the biggest culprits. They should be brought to task over it pronto.
  • dvdjamesdvdjames Posts: 48Member
    edited 28 November 2016, 12:27PM
    Cicero said:

    I agree Dave71, there has been so much debate on this forum about clipped recordings that everybody should now know that when there are complaints it is realised that the broadcasters are at fault, but also considered that YouView should allow for that and give a complete recording nonetheless. Could perhaps it not be reiterated that it is the broadcasters failings every time clipped recordings are mentioned, and also that some are lucky enough to have had only two instances, enough others have given many more examples.

    "it's already been said, ad nauseam." applies for this entire subject so I guess this will be the final post?
  • edited 24 April 2013, 7:17PM
    Cicero said:

    I agree Dave71, there has been so much debate on this forum about clipped recordings that everybody should now know that when there are complaints it is realised that the broadcasters are at fault, but also considered that YouView should allow for that and give a complete recording nonetheless. Could perhaps it not be reiterated that it is the broadcasters failings every time clipped recordings are mentioned, and also that some are lucky enough to have had only two instances, enough others have given many more examples.

    "because it's already been said, ad nauseam"

    So when new people join the forum and understandably raise the issue we shouldn't explain the situation to them because it was posted before? How that does that help them?

    And it must be new people raising the issue because, as you said, it's been raised "ad nauseam" by those who've been on the forum for any length of time.

    Personally I loathe those forums where people just bark "SEARCH THE FORUM" to new posters, but the flipside of people not behaving that way is that new posters should expect to have an answer, and others are free to post that answer, even if it's been given previously.
  • edited 26 September 2013, 8:33AM
    Technogran wrote:

    "I feel that the broadcasters will never pull their fingers out and get the start/end timings right whilst box manufacturers are expected to adjust for their shortcomings by adding padding. "

    EXACTLY.

    Adding padding is letting the culprits off the hook and the fingers in ears, 'laa-laa, I can't hear your answer' nature of some responses doesn't really get us anywhere.

    And as you say:

    "it can cause more problems when used"

    Once the padding starts clipping recordings or so-called soft padding fails to capture the ends of late running shows, those demanding padding will be back complaining.

    The only answer is for the broadcasters to resolve the issue at their end.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 345Member
    edited 29 October 2012, 5:49PM
    I did think that certain channels were the biggest culprits but now BBC have cut off the beginning of "Getting On" twice, so they are not immune. But I can't really agree with technogran's premise. It is a fact that most boxes do work round the broadcasters' shortcomings so for YouView to not do so is hardly going to pile on the pressure for them to rectify their failings. When the aforementioned "Getting on" was truncated for the first episode of the new series I set my Panasonic to record the second episode as insurance. It recorded perfectly without my adding padding and caused no resultant problems.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.
  • edited 29 October 2012, 6:00PM
    Mike3 said:

    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.

    "Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system? "

    An answer only they can give.

    I have previously suggested padding but I understand that it's not going to be quick - if it ever comes - and I understand that padding can cause problems of its own.

    "To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this. "

    TBH I think this debate is evidence that some people prefer to blame anyone provided they don't have to address fact, change their opinion or read/hear things they disagree with.

    An example of that is the instruction above that people who raise this issue shouldn't have it explained to them that the broadcasters are at fault!

    Coming on a tech support forum and wanting to be hidden from a factual explanation of where the cause lies? I don't have it in me to humour people like that.
  • Geraint MorrisGeraint Morris Posts: 772Member
    edited 17 November 2013, 7:05PM
    What happens with some of the minor broadcasters on Freeview? Does Quest for example send the necessary information?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 345Member
    edited 29 October 2012, 6:21PM
    Mike3 said:

    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.

    Martin writes "An example of that is the instruction above that people who raise this issue shouldn't have it explained to them that the broadcasters are at fault!"

    But even if the initiator of this topic didn't know that the broadcasters are at fault the second post was you re-iterating that they are. Thereafter anyone coming to the topic and reading from the top knows that the debate is about a way forward despite the broadcasters shortcomings. That is why it gets tiresome to be reminded again.
  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Posts: 782Member ✭✭✭
    edited 17 February 2017, 1:01PM
    Can't speak for Quest but it is part of the Acurate Record specification to cater for situations where no AR info is available. In these cases the EPG info is used and IIRC a little padding is added at either end. The EPG however is only accurate to whole minutes whereas AR works to the second.

    Recorded programs from broadcasters not providing AR information are therefore more likely to suffer from clipping.
    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • edited 29 October 2012, 6:29PM
    Mike3 said:

    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.

    Sorry Cicero but I'm struggling with your logic here.

    "But even if the initiator of this topic didn't know that the broadcasters are at fault the second post was you re-iterating that they are."

    My response was to the initiator, people who ask questions deserve answers and as an intelligent adult they deserve an answer grounded in reality.

    If others want to then debate I'm happy to respond but I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that I'm the bad guy for answering the OP.

    If people don't want to read the same discussion again they can always opt not read threads where the same discussion is likely to take place, IO that's better than everyone else failing to answer people with facts.
  • Geraint MorrisGeraint Morris Posts: 772Member
    edited 17 February 2017, 1:01PM
    To be fair to those broadcasters though they don't typically show any live programmes that can affect the schedule so probably isn't an issue
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 345Member
    edited 29 October 2012, 6:35PM
    Mike3 said:

    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.

    My logic is fine, I wasn't referring to your initial response, but the originator countered that in terms of YouView giving accurate recordings notwithstanding, but you counter that with "Nothing flawed, nothing broken, just sloppy timekeeping by broadcasters."
  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Posts: 782Member ✭✭✭
    edited 28 November 2016, 11:55AM

    To be fair to those broadcasters though they don't typically show any live programmes that can affect the schedule so probably isn't an issue

    Good point - as long as they managed to sell all their commercials space :-)
    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Mike3 said:

    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.

    The point I am making is that although it may be the broadcasters fault for not sending the signals at the correct times but Youview should shoulder it's fair share of the blame for not ensuring that this method was workable before releasing their software without any backup for when it doesn't work. To point he blame squarely at the feet of the broacasters is missing the point Youview knew the problems with this method and chose to ignore them.
    I dont have these issues with any of my other boxes and that is why mine was returned and I am back on my old recording box until Youview get their finger out or I decide to swallow my pride and return to SKY
  • edited 24 April 2013, 7:17PM
    Mike3 said:

    Martin, you will get no arguement from me that the broadcasters are to blame for not sending the signals at the correct times, the problem lies with the fact that we all know that they have always been guilty of this so why did Youview in their wisdom not allow for some padding within their system?

    The employment of padding is simply because most manufacturers recognise that this problem exists with broadcasters and human error and have addressed it Youview have appeared to decided against having a plan B and ultimately suffer the consiquences

    To employ a system that is totally relient on more than one 3rd party input of this kind is foolhardy and the fact that this debate is taking place is evident of this.
    I also note at this point there has been no input in this from Youview to offer any solution.

    Yes, it's called discussion. It inherently takes place on forums.

    I'm not going to ignore people's responses just because you might not like what I have to say.
Sign In or Register to comment.