Media Websites

TV Room +

Mocks section gone? (September 2007)

MQ
Mr Q World News
Mike decided to close down the TV Mocks section because he wasn't happy that the section's contributors weren't pumping out enough mocks for his liking. He complains that there wasn't enough enthusiasm for that section of the site on the part of contributors - perhaps Mike was expecting somehow that we should have been overjoyed at the opportunity to have to resize all our images instantly just because he unilaterally decided to change the page layouts. It's his site, yes, and he gets to make the decisions - that, I have no problems with. But he didn't ask us to change our images - he demanded it, and threatened to pull down our mocks if we didn't comply by the end of the month... And now, he's decided to pull them down anyway because no-one replied to his latest e-mail after 24 hours.

I was originally honoured to have been asked to be a part of TV Mocks - I've always admired The TV Room. I've long viewed it as the pre-eminent TV presentation site on the internet. But ever since I joined up, I've only come to regret it - it's just been a series of hassles. In hindsight, I should have just continued doing what I always did - posting mocks when I felt like it, formatting them the way I wanted to, right here at TV Forum.

For what it's worth, I still think The TV Room is a great site - but I would never get involved with a project like it again.
TV
The TV Room
Mr Q posted:
Mike decided to close down the TV Mocks section because he wasn't happy that the section's contributors weren't pumping out enough mocks for his liking.


One of the reasons, yes. Until very recently, there had been little or no activity on TV Mocks since 2006. Bit hard to believe when there are three people involved.


Quote:
He complains that there wasn't enough enthusiasm for that section of the site on the part of contributors


Well, was there?!?! Certainly didn't seem so.


Quote:
- perhaps Mike was expecting somehow that we should have been overjoyed at the opportunity to have to resize all our images instantly just because he unilaterally decided to change the page layouts.


Let's just get a few things straight here. The change in size for 16:9 images was instigated by a page design change that was implemented over a year ago. The first request to update 16:9 images was issued last year - not within the last month or so, as your note almost suggests.

The page layout change was implemented as a result of discussions with Martin Anderson; we had been reviewing requirements for the design for a relaunch of the main site. We decided to push ahead with the revised format on TVR+ first.

The smaller 16:9 images were now looking very out-of-place. I suggested back then that everyone should update to the new standard. Over a year on, nothing has changed.

Your use of the word "instantly" is hardly appropriate. Ever consider a career in journalism? I asked everyone to review the situation last year. It was somewhat disheartening to see material appear in August this year, still using the smaller sizes.

You seem to make it sound as though updating these images is an onerous task? That type of thing can be done in minutes using batch script; from memory, we wouldn't have been talking a huge number of images.


Quote:
It's his site, yes, and he gets to make the decisions - that, I have no problems with. But he didn't ask us to change our images - he demanded it, and threatened to pull down our mocks if we didn't comply by the end of the month.


And, your point is??! As you have said, it is my site. Most websites have standards/guidelines regarding the use of images and the general structure of pages. This site is no different. If contributors don't comply with such guidelines, we end up with a lack of consistency.

The layout on TVR and TVR+ is fairly straightforward. Initially I thought that the hundreds of online pages would act as a fairly good guide to how pages should be structured. However, things clearly weren't that obvious and so I created a guide for page layouts recently.

And yes, I did indeed threaten to pull the content offline. I sent out a note at the end of August this year. The main point of the e-mail was to explain some forthcoming changes to the CMS software. However, I also requested that the image sizes be reviewed asap.

No-one replied to the e-mail and none of the online pages were updated.

Two weeks on, I issued a revised note, giving more details about the CMS changes and now insisting that the images be revisited. Given that the original design changes were implemented over a year ago, I think I've shown a good deal of restraint actually.


Quote:
And now, he's decided to pull them down anyway because no-one replied to his latest e-mail after 24 hours.


As I've explained, the overall issue was much more than 24 hours old. On Saturday, I decided to pull the plug on the section. My decision. I also consulted with one of the main contributors, Martin Anderson, who I was already in communication with re other matters.

If you felt so strongly about things, you could've sent me an e-mail.


Quote:
I was originally honoured to have been asked to be a part of TV Mocks - I've always admired The TV Room. I've long viewed it as the pre-eminent TV presentation site on the internet. But ever since I joined up, I've only come to regret it - it's just been a series of hassles. In hindsight, I should have just continued doing what I always did - posting mocks when I felt like it, formatting them the way I wanted to, right here at TV Forum.


"A series of hassles". What?!?!? How many e-mails have you received from me over the last two years??? I could count the number on one hand - and two of those went out in the last few weeks. The e-mails were also generally about possible software enhancements that would benefit you. The only even vaguely 'heavy-handed' e-mail that you received was this week.

Hassles indeed. If that's what your idea of hassle is, you've led a very sheltered life!

Extreme disappointment that you have opted to air your grievances in such a public manner. You had every opportunity to discuss any issues that you may have had with me directly by e-mail. You chose not to.
MD
mdtauk London London
Just to add my comment, I suggested pulling the section some months back, because it wasn't being updated as frequently as the other sections. Also, I will be starting back at University in a matter of weeks, so I wouldn't have the time to keep the logos, and other bits up to date.

We had hoped more people would be interested in supplying mock designs, but as you can see from the forums, mock designs are becoming scares, and so it made sense to just take it down.

Yes there has also been issues with image sizes, but that's an issue which crops up, when you have many people adding content to one person's site, and I think its best to find other avenues to show of mock designs, such as posting on the forum, or sites like Deviant Art, and You Tube.
MQ
Mr Q World News
I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever receiving any notification a year ago about the changes to the image sizes for The TV Room. The first I heard about it was in your e-mail a couple of weeks ago, which was sent out shortly after I posted a series of fresh mocks to the site.

Let me be clear about this, I don't sit on my computer 24/7 waiting to respond to every e-mail that arrives. I am working full time - most days I come home absolutely exhausted, and sometimes if I receive an e-mail that I don't have an immediate response for, I don't respond to it. With respect of your e-mail 2 weeks ago, I didn't have any comment to make. I thought things were still a work in progress - I wasn't going to make changes to any of my sections of the site until I was certain as to what was going on.

The first I was aware of a definite plan was yesterday with your e-mail when you threatened to take pages offline that didn't comply with the new rules by the end of the month. I was going to reply to your e-mail, but I was busy Friday night - as it turns out, I do have a life away from this machine. By the time I came around to responding, I had received another e-mail from you announcing the whole thing had been scrapped. I was disappointed to say the least. But I was particularly angered when I came here and saw that you couldn't even be honest with people who were asking the simple question "why?". Given the way you've handled this, I didn't feel especially obliged to offer my thoughts to you in private.

When I signed up, I thought TV Mocks was going to be a home for high quality mocks, where contributors would be respect and their efforts appreciated. It's clear to me now that I was wrong. I come up with mocks when I have an idea that I want to explore - I don't pump them out like some factory robot. If you were expecting more from us Mike, then you should have outlined that to us - preferably in a consultative fashion, rather than an impersonation of Moses handing down the ten commandments.

I stand entirely by my comments, and am frankly glad that I no longer have anything to do with your site. Of course it's your choice how you run your ship - but you shouldn't be surprised when the deckhands and passengers start complaining.
TV
The TV Room
An advisory went out last year regarding the image sizes. This was not issued to Martin as he was involved in the page design changes and knew the score. If you did not receive the e-mail, I cannot explain that.

You say you believe things were "a work in progress" and you weren't going to make any changes "until I was certain as to what was going on". Well, the guidelines that you were pointed to applied to hundreds of existing pages on both sites - a quick comparison would've proved this; this was not a work-in-progress - that was an assumption on your part. If you had any doubts, the thing to do was ask. I gave no indication at any point that the situation was fluid/likely to change.

You imply that I was not "honest" with the people on this forum? I do not have to provide full reports to the public on my reasoning for changes. There were certainly some thorny issues associated with this particular decision; that is why I preferred not to enter into a public discussion about it. This was an internal matter and should've stayed that way.

Let me be clear - my initial response in this thread was in no way dishonest.

Anyhow, I'm not going to waste more of my weekend arguing the toss on here. TV Mocks is gone. Other options for posting mocks are available.

--
Moses.
NE
Netizen Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
I got a inkling this was a 'toys out of the pram' issue, turns out I was right. Can anyone point out a site where high quality mocks are constantly pumped out? Ridiculous to demand such a thing from contributors offering their work for free.
TV
The TV Room
Netizen posted:
I got a inkling this was a 'toys out of the pram' issue, turns out I was right. Can anyone point out a site where high quality mocks are constantly pumped out? Ridiculous to demand such a thing from contributors offering their work for free.


If someone can provide me with a quote, indicating where I made such a demand, I'd be most grateful.

At no point have I ever suggested that mocks be "pumped out constantly". My expectation - which I believe was perfectly natural - was that with three people contributing, there'd be a fairly regular stream of material being presented. The fact of the matter is, TV Mocks has been sitting more or less dormant for months and months, with precious little activity this year at all, bar some updates a few weeks ago.

This is not the type of site that people come back and visit on a regular basis.

This is one of a number of factors that prompted the closure of this part of the site. Further consultation with one of the main contributors also influenced the decision. Ultimately, it is my decision to take.

Now - might I suggest that unless you can substantiate your claims, just keep quiet!
NE
Netizen Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
Sheesh alright, it was just the impression I got from your post and I felt the need to question your reasoning. I just fail to understand why no content at all is better than an archive of content updated sporadically. For the record, I used to be a regular visitor to The TV Room, but less so since the last redesign for obvious reasons that have been discussed to death before (that I can appreciate to an extent).
G4
G4
Well, that's settled. I shall not be surfing ever again to The TV Room.

Rolling Eyes
TV
The TV Room
I do appreciate that content-wise, the main site remains lacking in a number of areas. I am striving to bring that site back up to full capacity. The process is long and the work associated with it quite intensive. I believe the effort will be worth it in the end; the new site is streets ahead of its predecessor in many respects.

A lot of work is going on in the background. Just because the online site is not updated on a given day, this does not mean that work is not being done.

As ever, do keep in mind that webmasters do have lives away from the PC too!
EY
the eye World News
G4 posted:
Well, that's settled. I shall not be surfing ever again to The TV Room.

Rolling Eyes


Mind not coming to TV Forum instead?
GR
Greg
The TV Room posted:
If someone can provide me with a quote, indicating where I made such a demand, I'd be most grateful.


Sure.

The TV Room posted:
Mr Q posted:
Mike decided to close down the TV Mocks section because he wasn't happy that the section's contributors weren't pumping out enough mocks for his liking.


One of the reasons, yes. Until very recently, there had been little or no activity on TV Mocks since 2006. Bit hard to believe when there are three people involved.


If you wanted more mockers then you could have asked around.

Newer posts