TV Live

I'm not arguing either way, I was just saying you'd not mentioned one.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/2007TopGearDog/buzz_zps4c0c4dd2.jpg
is a listings archive really worth getting worked up over?


Don't really see much wrong with that to be fair, James? 'TV Live' being in text?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD...

I had always planned to move the Listings to a seperate site when I moved the hosting as I felt it didn't suit TV Live Extra. The "logo" is simply the "L" from the current TV Live logo, it's not new.



So far, the only person moaning about the new site is you James, and it's getting a bit repetitive. 623058 and VMPhil have the right idea about what I'm trying to achieve. I don't see anyone else complaining about it. I took your previous comments on board in January, and I think that a simple listings site isn't going to bother anyone. It's a website that's attempting to fill a gap, and if you don't like that, then just ignore it.

It's just a logo, alright!?

I haven't put forward my views on this in the thread - although I've criticised what TV Live was in the past, all this forked site needs is a few people interested in FACTS for it to work. It's not as if Rob is looking through old copies of the Radio Times and TV Times and writing down all the schedules.

I think everyone's made their views clear on the branding before - to be perfectly honest, a lot of people have made their views clear on the "network" issue before. If Rob wants to ignore certain pieces of advice, that's his prerogative.

But this addition is a proper bolt on. There has upteem people wishing to contribute old tv listings, to be fair there gaps of this type of thing over the past 15 year's. It very easy to update, ie simple text.

I think rob clicked he needs to stick to the core assets which he is doing, very little work is required for tv listings.unlike the main tv live site, which needs continuing updating, he does have copies of the correct dates list, it does take time and errors still croop up.

If anyone would like to help on tv wiki we would be happy, plenty still to fill in.

Unless it's about logo? If so I'm confused.

All I've done is moved something that was on another to a seperate service so I could manage it more efficiently, and I'm getting slated for it, which I think is rather unfair.

The idea of a "network" died the day I made those changes in January, NOT ONCE have I referred to the sites as a network since then. I got rid of the things that were failing, and I don't plan to bring them back. I've learned from my mistakes and have moved on from that.

623058 is right, there are a lot of people who want somewhere to submit their own listings, and I'm offering them a place to go since the TV Room went offline.

I would like to make clear that my post wasn't slating the new site - I was saying that the new site isn't going to be a problem seeing as it's not something that requires much legwork. I was then saying that there's no need for people to repeat what they've already made clear previously.

That's OK Bilky, I thought I'd just explain myself a bit more just so people could back off. Anyway, back on topic now...

Not a regular TV Live user but I want to put this in, does branding really matter? Yes of course something that looks okay is good, but the site is not about website branding! The point is to give us TV pres (which it does greatly!).. I think the TV Live Listings site is great, of course with some more listing it will be even better!! It is early days for this, and I think everyone should reserve judgment until the site is fully developed.

A look at ITV's new Spring 2013 idents now online. More to come over the weekend.

Page Not Found