FiveUS dog

Edster wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote in message

Do you have the feeling we'll eventually be offered a
button to remove this stuff but at a price?

But how would we know what we were watching?

:O)
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:52 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Dominic Shields wrote:
What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a corner of
the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

Dominic Shields wrote:
Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a
corner of the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

I didn't ask if you were indifferent to them. I asked if you found them
useful. Your answer suggests that you don't, which tends to confirm my view
that the broadcasters are lying when they claim to have research
demonstrating that people find DOGs useful.

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

I just think it's interesting that you would complain in one case but not in
the other, when the impact on the picture of a DOG is so much greater than
the impact of a defective pixel or two.

In article ,
says...
Ian wrote:

In message , Paul Heslop
writes
Pyriform wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:
It seems with this stuff there isn't an easy answer. The sky answer to
complaints was almost identical, only they actually claimed to have
proof that people like having onscreen garbage.

I think the proof is entirely in the heads of deluded, dimwitted TV execs.
I've yet to meet or communicate with anyone who thought DOGs were either
necessary or a good idea. People differ only in how irritating they find
them - from those who barely notice them to those who find them utterly
intolerable. Considering that people often become irate at discovering a
single dead or stuck pixel on their shiny new LCD TVs, it seems odd to
imagine that they would find a permanent, large, picture marring blob in the
corner of the screen in any way acceptable.

I'll put my complaint in to C5 (for all the good it will do), and I'll ask
them for references to peer reviewed research demonstrating that people like
DOGs. I won't be holding my breath.

Let us know if you get the same reply :O)

I contacted them on the day they started broadcasting the previews.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Maybe they weren't set up properly then?

Five/C5 had been going for 9 years by then so they should be and all the
channels to do with Five have the same Duty Office and Customer Services
divisions, hence the one email address for each.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1115 DVDs, 338 games, 264 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:52 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Dominic Shields wrote:
What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a corner of
the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

If it was just one small logo occasionally then maybe it wouldn't be so bad,
albeit completely redundant since I know what channel I'm watching, but over
time these logos have got bigger and, on some music channels, have become
animated.

BBC3 for example started with a "BBC THREE" logo. Then they added "BRAND NEW"
underneath it for new shows, even though that was obvious to anyone who'd seen
the TV listings and for the casual viewer it wouldn't matter anyway.

About a year ago it became a much bigger logo, starting off at three times the
height of the original, before being shouted down to somewhere inbetween. Last
night on Torchwood they added a "BRAND NEW" logo underneath so it covered up
the actors' faces in certain scenes including the end of the first episode.

Keep doing nothing about it and eventually they'll return to the size of one
of my favourites as used on the Sci-Fi channel:
http://logofreetv.org/images/SciFi/S...6042002_01.jpg

Surely you'd object then?

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

People who use Plasma TVs, for example, will suffer burn-in from onscreen
logos if they watch the same channel for a long time.

Cartoon Network actually reduced the intensity of their black and white logo
after What Video came to them with the case of a bloke who'd bought a £1700 TV
and didn't realise that leaving the kids in front of such a channel for hours
on end, with the logo on for the entire duration, would result in burn-in.

That's why a lot of computer games that have static graphics onscreen, such as
a head-up display for a first-person shooter, have the option to turn them off
completely.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1115 DVDs, 338 games, 264 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

Dom Robinson wrote:

In article ,
says...
Ian wrote:

In message , Paul Heslop
writes
Pyriform wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:
It seems with this stuff there isn't an easy answer. The sky answer to
complaints was almost identical, only they actually claimed to have
proof that people like having onscreen garbage.

I think the proof is entirely in the heads of deluded, dimwitted TV execs.
I've yet to meet or communicate with anyone who thought DOGs were either
necessary or a good idea. People differ only in how irritating they find
them - from those who barely notice them to those who find them utterly
intolerable. Considering that people often become irate at discovering a
single dead or stuck pixel on their shiny new LCD TVs, it seems odd to
imagine that they would find a permanent, large, picture marring blob in the
corner of the screen in any way acceptable.

I'll put my complaint in to C5 (for all the good it will do), and I'll ask
them for references to peer reviewed research demonstrating that people like
DOGs. I won't be holding my breath.

Let us know if you get the same reply :O)

I contacted them on the day they started broadcasting the previews.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Maybe they weren't set up properly then?

Five/C5 had been going for 9 years by then so they should be and all the
channels to do with Five have the same Duty Office and Customer Services
divisions, hence the one email address for each.
--

Dom Robinson

Yeah, i just read the addy properly when I was awake :O)
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

In message , Dominic Shields
writes
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:52 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Dominic Shields wrote:
What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a corner of
the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

A more useful comparison might be, would you leave a sticker, for
instance," HD " on the screen after the TV was set up for viewing?
--
Ian

Dominic Shields wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:52 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Dominic Shields wrote:
What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a
corner of the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

Your argument makes no sense at all. DOGs are not one of those annoying
things that 'just are', like wasps, rainy English weather or herpes.

DOGs have been deliberately placed on the screen by people who, for some
reason, think it's a good idea. However, nobody in the known universe agrees
with them.

The best defence people like you can offer is indifference, meaning that in
fact they are of no use to you. So if the reaction to DOGs is at best
indifference, ranging downwards from mild irritation to deep loathing (to
the extent that people will refuse to watch the channel) then why on earth
have DOGs?

As for your comment about widescreen - that's crap too, but I'll save that
for another day.

I like it, its's really clear and easy to see, I wish more channels would
use them because there are so many channels these days, it could be a little
bigger and bolder IMO, and still remaiin unobtrusive, well done channel 5!

"leon" wrote in message
...
This is the response from five re the size of the dog on 5us:

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding the DOG on Five US.

There are no current plans to stop using or reduce the size of the DOG on
Five US. Station identity is increasingly important in the age of
competitive multi-channel television; as is promotion of certain programme
strands. We have purposely ensured that the current DOGs are very faint
and unobtrusive.

Nonetheless, we have logged your comments for the attention of all
relevant Five personnel. Also, your complaint will be noted in the
quarterly report to our regulator. Commercial television is regulated in
the UK by Ofcom (the Office of Communica tions).

If there is anything further we can help you with, please do not hesitate
to contact us.

Thank you for your interest in Five.

"Qatar Airlines Passanger" wrote in message
...
I like it, its's really clear and easy to see, I wish more channels would
use them because there are so many channels these days, it could be a
little
bigger and bolder IMO, and still remaiin unobtrusive, well done channel 5!




And there is someone who fails to understand 21st century "long tail"
economics (of giving your customers what they want).