Manually add to start/end of recordings

1151618202125

Comments

  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Member, Super User Posts: 864 ✭✭✭
    edited 28 November 2016, 11:55AM
    Anaglypta said:

    And just to highlight another problem, the title of this thread is:-

    Manualy add to start/end of recordings

    Oh bugger now I've got to unfollow again!

    :-)
    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • PPP QQQPPP QQQ Member Posts: 857
    edited 15 March 2013, 1:38PM
    Roy said
    ...on PMs,... what I've read in Keith's links makes me realise that many companies using GS feel hamstrung without them, when they need to go into the specifics of a user problem, but not in public.
    What's wrong with email?

    Stickies - before I saw the links Keith posted, I was supposing that G-S/YV might be wary of Stickies because they might lose information about how many people were suffering a particular problem (if most people just read the Sticky and went away without registering). But the lack of Stickies does seem to be frustrating to clients as well as users.

    Highlighting recent posts just seems to me a kludge to try to get around the deficiencies of the "comment" thing. I think it's unhelpful to have two different kinds of post in a forum, especially when the comments get folded into invisibility. Users don't know whether to respond by "comment" or by "post". The natural tendency is to use "comment", because it tends to be the nearest available method, but the result is that whole sub-threads, often the very remarks that one wants to read, get "disappeared", which helps no one.

    I think it was Amazon who introduced this "comment" business, in their customer review threads. At least that's where I first saw it. If you can persuade Get Satisfaction to revert to a normal threaded system, with, as gwatuk suggested above, not only a "star" button but also an "off-topic" button and maybe a "give it a rest" button, that would be very welcome, as far as I'm concerned.
  • AnaglyptaAnaglypta Member, Super User Posts: 864 ✭✭✭
    edited 17 February 2017, 1:01PM
    "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
  • PPP QQQPPP QQQ Member Posts: 857
    edited 15 March 2013, 2:03PM
    :-)

    Rather large for a button though.
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,527 ✭✭✭
    edited 6 March 2017, 10:48PM
    Aisha

    What's wrong with email, as far as I can see from the PM thread on the G-S forum, is that
    (i) you need the forum member to consent to the company whose forum it is that they can see that email address, and not all of them do;
    (ii) the companies do not want to expose regular internal email addresses to customers, who then write to them about all sorts of other issues using those addresses; and nor do they want to use throwaway email addresses,.

    So the PM system, where they can exchange private communications without either knowing the other's email address (unless given voluntarily), is better here.

    Me, I just use it to protect my secret identity on sensitive forums, though here I am who I say I am, my anonymity protected only by the fact that my name is shared with thousands of others, including fat comedians, WWI flying aces and writers of Elvis Presley hits (or one of them, anyway - spooky to see my name on the wall at Gracelands)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:53PM
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:53PM
    aisha said,
    I'm finished
  • DJ BILINGSDJ BILINGS Member Posts: 172
    edited 10 March 2017, 12:54AM
    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT
  • drhowellsdrhowells Member Posts: 634 ✭✭
    edited 20 December 2016, 6:21PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    What a great response, well explained and thought out. I am a bit confused why it was the CFO who responded though. That is exactly the answer that I thought would be given with the exact reasons as well. I think he was very careful to not say Channel 5 in the letter, even though he probably wanted to :)
  • DJ BILINGSDJ BILINGS Member Posts: 172
    edited 15 March 2013, 5:07PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    I am happy ish with the response as I understand now why Youview want AR Accurate Recording or Live Sync as Channel 5 call it.

    However channel 5 response was they are not getting Live Sync or AR system for foreseeable future.

    I do not know what if anything will be done but Youveiw assured me they are dealing with their shareholders and partners in order to resolve the issue but for now we must miss the start and end of recordings.

    Youview' have the approach that padding is not the way they want things on their platform.

    I find that a shame because Freesat, Sky, Virgin and many Freeview+ boxes have padding but Youview have their reasons for this as explained in the letter above, I accept partly their argument but as the broadcasters don't all seem to have the AR or Live Sync in place then one solution would have been Padding.

    This brings and end to the padding issue, we are not getting it and looks like we will have to suffer missing the start and or the end of some shows.

    At least Youview are aware and hope they get it sorted soon and Youview could be one of the best non subscription platforms on the market to-date.

    Little disappointing with the response but they did respond and gave me a reason as to why padding is not being implemented, but I am not sure why the Chief Financial Officer replied back to me, maybe Youview needed his backing to implement padding and he said no no too expensive to implement.

    I am not sure but that is their up-to date response.
  • petkolpetkol Member Posts: 213
    edited 14 April 2017, 6:24PM
    I note there was no reference to manually adding to the start and end of recordings.

    I also note that there was no reference to being able to set manual timers.

    Like others I find it strange that the response was from the Chief Financial Officer. .
  • [removed][removed] Member Posts: 282
    edited 27 March 2013, 5:49PM
    Quite a disappointing reply as we have to endure clipped recordings for the forseeable future. A possible way round this would be for all programs to be made available on demand, then we needn't bother about setting timers we can just watch what we would have recorded on catchup.
    At the beginning I thought everything was going to be made available on Catch Up. I didn't realise what a can of worms that idea turned out to be.
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:53PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    Hi Samuel, this reply to your letter is very interesting.
    I thought it was worth drawing to the attention of users of the TalkTalk forum and have posted a copy there.
    (See: http://www.talktalkmembers.com/forums... - I hope you're happy about this.)
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 15 March 2013, 6:27PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    In my experience large overruns on live events are *exactly* when padding is the best method of ensuring you record it all. Clashes with pre-recorded programmes can go hang as they will likely be shown again or be available on catch up. Live coverage, by definition, has to be captured first time around and be given absolute precedence.

    In other words, the basic premise they put forward is flawed.
  • PPP QQQPPP QQQ Member Posts: 857
    edited 10 March 2017, 12:54AM
    drhowells - I agree, a very good letter, and I note that Dorans's explanation to SAMUEL is just as you and Anaglypta and others have been saying. :-)

    Maybe the letter was passed to the CFO because he's responsible for support costs. If this letter draws a line under this particular saga, he'll have done a good job.
  • drhowellsdrhowells Member Posts: 634 ✭✭
    edited 20 December 2016, 6:21PM
    PPP QQQ said:

    drhowells - I agree, a very good letter, and I note that Dorans's explanation to SAMUEL is just as you and Anaglypta and others have been saying. :-)

    Maybe the letter was passed to the CFO because he's responsible for support costs. If this letter draws a line under this particular saga, he'll have done a good job.

    Unfortunately, it won't draw a line under it until recordings are fully recorded :)

    Channel 5 really do need a ruler wrapped over the knuckles. 95% of all of the failures I have had have been on their channel(s). Most of them films, with a news broadcast in the middle. Luckily, I know this and record the news broadcast as well, so I get the whole thing.
  • stuart621stuart621 Member Posts: 616
    edited 15 March 2013, 6:42PM
    No real surprises in that response (apart from their inability to spell "programme" correctly in the third paragraph).

    So, hopefully, AR will be implemented across all programmes on all channels in the not too distant future.

    Also, a reply within just over a week seems perfectly reasonable to me and will hopefully put an end to all this nonsense about YouView taking a while to reply or not caring about its customers.
  • edited 26 September 2013, 8:33AM
    So no padding likely to come, well at least those who really really want it now have the clarity they beed to decide if they want to give up waiting and use another box/platform.

    Personally I'm pleased they're focussing on feeding back to the only people who can fix the core issue.
  • lloydoflondonlloydoflondon Member Posts: 296
    edited 7 August 2017, 12:17AM
    Re: the letter from Mr Dorans

    Q.E.D.
  • stuart621stuart621 Member Posts: 616
    edited 15 March 2013, 6:58PM
    Martin1 said:

    So no padding likely to come, well at least those who really really want it now have the clarity they beed to decide if they want to give up waiting and use another box/platform.

    Personally I'm pleased they're focussing on feeding back to the only people who can fix the core issue.

    Me too and I'm glad they have said that they will fix the problem by concentrating on sorting AR rather than some stopgap workaround.
  • DJ BILINGSDJ BILINGS Member Posts: 172
    edited 15 March 2013, 7:08PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    Yes gwatuk I am happy for it to be put on talktalk, it took me to write to Yoview before we got a full and final response, I guess they asked they ask the Chief Financial Officer responded as they asked him to fun padding and he said no so they asked him to respond(joke) but maybe true. I am find it disappointing as other providers have system in place, but I think they are working in the background to get it sorted, but currently it is like buying a books with a % of the book missing.

    But they assure us they are working on the issue.
  • edited 15 March 2013, 11:15PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    >> In my experience large overruns on live events are *exactly* when padding is the best method of ensuring you record it all

    Only if the padding amount you set equals the length of the overrun. Otherwise, at best, you just miss less of the overrunning event.
  • CiceroCicero Member Posts: 345
    edited 15 March 2013, 11:36PM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    >>Only if the padding amount you set equals the length of the overrun<<

    That's, as Basil Fawlty would say, stating the the bleedin' obvious.
    Gomez made it quite clear that he would be prepared to pad by a large amount to ensure capture of the whole of the live event and "Clashes with pre-recorded programmes can go hang"
  • edited 16 March 2013, 8:51AM

    Dear Samuel

    Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 which has been passed to me by Richard Halton.

    I note that you have contacted our call centre on a number of occasion and made multiple postings on our forum so clearly have a strong view on the issue of clipped recordings.

    It is probably worth setting out a little history. When the YouView device was in architectural design it was decided that relying on real time triggers from broadcasters would provide a mechanism to record programs accurately. This is because this system allows not just for minor movements in scheduling, which can be catered for with padding, but also major schedule overruns, the sort of thing associated with live events which padding cannot deal with. In addition, because it is quite possible that viewers will wish to record multiple programmes back to back on different channels, padding in its simplest form can lead to additional clashes even though the box has two tuners. More advanced forms of padding increase the complexity of the implementation and don’t solve the problem completely.

    Therefore I believe the decision was a sound one. However, in order for this method to work broadcasters do need to ensure that their on air triggers are accurate. As you note this is not always the case and can lead to some recordings having either the start or the end missing on occasion. We are aware of this and have a considerable volume of data about it and know exactly which programmes have historically been affected and which broadcasters transmit them. We are therefore working with broadcasters to see how the accuracy of their triggers can be improved and to ensure that they take into account the latency between the box receiving a command to start recording. We therefore believe that work already carried out and currently underway will improve the issues you refer to.

    In terms of your proposed solution I am afraid that it is just not as simple as you assert and moving to a system involving automatic padding would require substantial reworking of the underlying YouView software (despite the assertion you include in your letter relating to your call with Humax) not least in order to manage the potential clashes referred to above. Therefore, we are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.

    Overall I am pleased to hear that you are enjoying YouView and the features that it has to offer. We do read forum posts and take feedback from our customers seriously though we have taken a policy decision to allow the forum to self-manage itself as far as possible so do not always respond on the forum. I believe our track record of innovation, as demonstrated by our past software releases, shows our commitment to taking feedback on board. We are working continually to enhance YouView to make it an even better viewer experience.

    Your sincerely,

    David Dorans

    Chief Financial Officer

    YouView TV Ltd. Third Floor, 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6YT

    Well it's all academic, padding isn't coming. Broadcasters will need to fix their issues, and viewers will need to consider stopping watching shows from certain broadcasters until they do.

    People unhappy with that choice will have to consider using a different platform/box.

    Everyone has the clarity they need
  • Simon12Simon12 Member Posts: 391
    edited 1 October 2015, 10:08AM
    Its nice to actually have some solid feedback from YV (at last), however a few observations

    1) Struggle to believe it was written by a CFO. Aside from the odd mention of shareholders the rest of it was not really a bean-counters direct concern. So not the type of response you'd normally get from a CFO, unless he's an ex techie.
    Or more likely - someone wrote it for him.
    2) The comments about it not being a simple task do not surprise me. Its been said before, and its indicative of an inflexible design quite frankly.
    They are this far in, didn't see the issue coming when the Design spec was laid out, and now have no easy way to address it. Bit naive really, as it means there is no plan B here - its all heads down Plan A.
    Bearing in mind that Plan A has not borne fruit really since the issue was first observed its a bit of a concern. Looks like they will stubbornly plough on here regardless. I therefore can't see any fix coming any time soon, as they need to get all broadcasters to play ball.
    3) re "so do not always respond on the forum" - well they've made extra efforts not to respond here. Congrats. I see that YV didn't post the letter here, it had to be inserted by a forum member.

    Right, as this post will setup following for me again, time to un-follow again and continue to lurk.
  • KeithKeith Member, Super User Posts: 2,450 ✭✭✭
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    So the key summary position statement from the response to Samuel is:
    YouView are not currently planning to address the clipped recording issue by adding automatic padding to recording durations, rather we are dealing directly with broadcasters to achieve improved performance on their broadcast triggers and this is where having them as shareholders really helps. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory result we may reassess our approach but it is just too early to do that right now. As I said we do know which programmes and which broadcasters are the issue.
    YouView have stated they have data that shows them where the main problems lie but it is understandable they would not wish to name and shame or rank the partners in order of performance on this issue. From the experience and comments on the forum it would seem fair to say that of the main broadcaster partners the one that is significantly and regularly letting down the system is Channel 5. That of course is not surprising since they do not really support the accurate recording system at this point in time. I would expect Channel 5 could say their priority is live TV and on-demand content and that implementing a good accurate recording signalling system is non-trivial for them at this point in time.

    If that is the case though it does make for an awkward situation whereby Channel 5 need to implement proper accurate recording for systems such as YouView to work properly and YouView can continue to encourage them to do so but it is unclear whether that ongoing dialogue will bear fruit in the near future (e.g. in the next 6 months).

    I do think the accurate record system is technically the best solution and personally suffer few problems even in the current situation (which probably suggest I record much less from Channel 5 than other channels although I do suffer a little with split recording films that Channel 5 never get right). As it stands though the issue of clipped recordings whilst having improved with other broadcasters remains fairly constant (based on others comments on the forum) with Channel 5 and it is unclear it will improve.

    The statement from YouView understandably states they will continue to work with partners to resolve the issue around accurate recording but does also acknowledge that they may (and I would hope that is really will) reassess the approach in the future if a satisfactory result is not reached. Quite when in the future that will be of course is intentionally not specified (and nor would I expect it to be).

    So for now the situation is clear, padding will not be added at this point in time but YouView are striving to drive partners to deliver on accurate recording and hence resolve the issue in the best possible way. I would thus not expect any significant further response on this matter now for quite some time unless that response is a major announcement about changes at a broadcaster which definitely deliver a step change in performance.
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 16 March 2013, 10:51AM
    Looking back I see that the broadcasters have been playing with accurate recording systems of one form or another for nearly twenty years. And yet it is still a million miles away from being trustworthy.
  • stuart621stuart621 Member Posts: 616
    edited 26 September 2013, 8:33AM
    It's not a million miles away from being trustworthy. It works perfectly well where it is implemented. Channel 5 (and possibly Sky) don't use it and don't stick to scheduled recording times which is why the recordings aren't always complete. That has absolutely nothing to do with AR.
  • edited 16 March 2013, 11:39AM
    stuart621 said:

    It's not a million miles away from being trustworthy. It works perfectly well where it is implemented. Channel 5 (and possibly Sky) don't use it and don't stick to scheduled recording times which is why the recordings aren't always complete. That has absolutely nothing to do with AR.

    Well said Stuart, AR works just fine for me on the channels that use it properly
  • CiceroCicero Member Posts: 345
    edited 16 March 2013, 11:54AM
    And for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.