Doggone five gone DOG

If this was discussed before then I apologise, but I didn't see it.

I noticed just today the five logo on Freeview. I subsequently heard that
the DOG is displayed on five's analogue broadcast too, but I can't confirm
that as I can't receive it.

For myself, I'm at the point of giving up in despair and expect EVERY
analogue/digital channel to be DOGged before very long. My (partial)
solution is to watch ONE episode of each new series to see if I like it,
then wait for the DVDs to come out. Already about one third my TV program
viewing is from rented DVDs, and I expect that to rise much higher.

I suppose the next generation of TV viewers will just take DOGs for granted,
but I hate them, hate them I tell you. Grrr...woof!

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"PerkyPat" wrote:

I suppose the next generation of TV viewers will just take DOGs for
granted,
but I hate them, hate them I tell you. Grrr...woof!


I think in a few years we will look back and think of the good old
days when all they did was put a logo in the corner. Much worse are
all the adverts for other programmes they put on screen during the
programme you are trying to watch. BBC2 and ITV1 have both started
doing that in the last few months, which just leaves BBC1 as being
safe to watch. The only digital channels I've noticed that don't do it
are Sky 2 and BBC4. I doubt that will last long once they decide they
have to compete in the rush to shed intelligent viewers.

Agreed. Broadcasters seem to think it inadequate to simply transmit
programs; now they have to "present" them with "added value" gimmicks.
Ironically, and inevitably, the standard of TV presentation has never been
so low, IMHO, and continues to spiral on downwards.

"PerkyPat" wrote in message
...
If this was discussed before then I apologise, but I didn't see it.

I noticed just today the five logo on Freeview. I subsequently heard that
the DOG is displayed on five's analogue broadcast too, but I can't confirm
that as I can't receive it.

**** THEM THE STINKING PIECES OF ****. That's another viewer they've lost.


For myself, I'm at the point of giving up in despair and expect EVERY
analogue/digital channel to be DOGged before very long. My (partial)
solution is to watch ONE episode of each new series to see if I like it,
then wait for the DVDs to come out. Already about one third my TV program
viewing is from rented DVDs, and I expect that to rise much higher.

I suppose the next generation of TV viewers will just take DOGs for
granted, but I hate them, hate them I tell you. Grrr...woof!

I suppose the next generation of TV viewers will just take DOGs for
granted, but I hate them, hate them I tell you. Grrr...woof!

'spect I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but I really don't see
what all the fuss is about these DOGs.
Most of them don't bother me that much, and if the program is good enough, I
don't notice them at all after a while.

I suppose the problem really is that the (mostly static and generally fairly
discreet) DOGs that we have at the moment are just the thin edge of the
wedge, and the start of a slippery slope to more intrusive colourful
animated DOGs, messages and adverts for up-coming features and other
annoyances that will disrupt my viewing pleasure...

Well, that's my thoughts on the matter...

Bring on the flames... :-)



--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In article , ChrisM wrote:
'spect I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but I really don't see*
what all the fuss is about these DOGs.
Most of them don't bother me that much, and if the program is good enough, I*
don't notice them at all after a while.

Wash your mouth out.

If you were to administer repeated blows to your head with a rubber hammer you
might not notice them at all after a while , but that's not really the point.

If you bought a book, and found it had something rubberstamped over every page
(DOGs), the contents and index pages ripped out and replaced with adverts
(trailers and announcements over shortened end credits), words scribbled over
with black marker (censorship), perhaps even some whole pages ripped out (even
worse censorship), you'd consider the book to have been vandalised, and you'd
take it back and complain.

There's an understanding that an author's words are sacrosanct, nobody talks
over the music on Radio 3, shine a torch on the screen in a cinema and you'd
probably be escorted from the premises, and anybody attempting to paint
advertising slogans over the works in an art gallery would be locked up, but
for some reason the people entrusted to provide us with television programmes
appear to think it acceptable to vandalise their own product before presenting
it to us, which is a disgrace.

Rod.

In message ,
Edster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote:



I suppose the next generation of TV viewers will just take DOGs for
granted, but I hate them, hate them I tell you. Grrr...woof!

'spect I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but I really
don't see what all the fuss is about these DOGs.
Most of them don't bother me that much, and if the program is good
enough, I don't notice them at all after a while.

I suppose the problem really is that the (mostly static and
generally fairly discreet) DOGs that we have at the moment are just
the thin edge of the wedge, and the start of a slippery slope to
more intrusive colourful animated DOGs, messages and adverts for
up-coming features and other annoyances that will disrupt my viewing
pleasure...

Well, that's my thoughts on the matter...

Bring on the flames... :-)

The reason we now have a third of the screen covered up with adverts
for the next programme is people like you who don't mind small logos.
There will also be people who don't mind having a third of the screen
covered up with adverts, so the next step will be having a continuous
scrolling ticker tape across the top third of the screen all the way
through the programmes.


Don't get me wrong, I don't LIKE DOGS, and I like where things are heading
even less, but it's not really due to 'people like me' is it? The TV
companies haven't exactly asked anyone if they want to have a DOG or not (If
they asked me I'd say NO, but they haven't). They'd carry on using them
though even if there were large numbers of people complaining.

The vast majority of the 'normal' public really aren't all that bothered. In
fact the only places I've ever seen people complaining about them is in
technical groups such as this. Truth of the matter is, even if people don't
like them, they will 'put up' with them. Not many are principled enough to
stop watching TV because of DOGs, or even because of in-programme adverts,
or worse still, in-programme tickertape displays, and the TV companies know
that...

Not saying I agree with, or like this progression, just that IMO it is
inevitable, and if you don't like it, your only choice will be to stop
watching broadcast TV altogether, but I think you will be part of a very
small minority :-(


--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In message ,
Roderick Stewart Proclaimed from the
tallest tower:

In article , ChrisM wrote:
'spect I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but I really
don't see what all the fuss is about these DOGs.
Most of them don't bother me that much, and if the program is good
enough, I don't notice them at all after a while.

Wash your mouth out.

If you were to administer repeated blows to your head with a rubber
hammer you might not notice them at all after a while , but that's
not really the point.

If you bought a book, and found it had something rubberstamped over
every page (DOGs), the contents and index pages ripped out and
replaced with adverts (trailers and announcements over shortened end
credits), words scribbled over with black marker (censorship),
perhaps even some whole pages ripped out (even worse censorship),
you'd consider the book to have been vandalised, and you'd take it
back and complain.

There's an understanding that an author's words are sacrosanct,
nobody talks over the music on Radio 3, shine a torch on the screen
in a cinema and you'd probably be escorted from the premises, and
anybody attempting to paint advertising slogans over the works in an
art gallery would be locked up, but for some reason the people
entrusted to provide us with television programmes appear to think it
acceptable to vandalise their own product before presenting it to us,
which is a disgrace.

Rod.

All true, if little bit exagerated maybe. (not sure what censorship has to
to with DOGs though - that is a whole new discussion!!)


I understand that the current on-screen logos are only the thin end of the
wedge, and agree with the opposition to them on that basis. A lot of people
seem to be complaining about the actual logos though, and my point was that
they(the logos) don't really bother me.
I DON'T like the way it is all heading, I just think that in the words of
the Vogon guard from Hitchhiker's - "Resistance is Futile".
(See my earlier post in this thread)

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In message , Edster
writes
"PerkyPat" wrote:


If this was discussed before then I apologise, but I didn't see it.

I noticed just today the five logo on Freeview. I subsequently heard that
the DOG is displayed on five's analogue broadcast too, but I can't confirm
that as I can't receive it.

For myself, I'm at the point of giving up in despair and expect EVERY
analogue/digital channel to be DOGged before very long. My (partial)
solution is to watch ONE episode of each new series to see if I like it,
then wait for the DVDs to come out. Already about one third my TV program
viewing is from rented DVDs, and I expect that to rise much higher.

I suppose the next generation of TV viewers will just take DOGs for granted,
but I hate them, hate them I tell you. Grrr...woof!


I think in a few years we will look back and think of the good old
days when all they did was put a logo in the corner. Much worse are
all the adverts for other programmes they put on screen during the
programme you are trying to watch. BBC2 and ITV1 have both started
doing that in the last few months, which just leaves BBC1 as being
safe to watch. The only digital channels I've noticed that don't do it
are Sky 2 and BBC4. I doubt that will last long once they decide they
have to compete in the rush to shed intelligent viewers.

In the new series of Heroes in the U.S., an animated message appears in
the bottom left corner after each break, which tells you what you're
watching, then what's on next, and then invites you to " find out more
about Heroes by visiting www.blahblah.com while you're watching".

It must be very annoying for broadcasters to have to put up with their
marketing being constantly interrupted by useless, unprofitable
programmes just for the benefit of a few viewers, probably wide-awake
adults, who wish to spend some time not thinking about buying something.
--
Ian

In article , ChrisM wrote:
The vast majority of the 'normal' public really aren't all that bothered. In*
fact the only places I've ever seen people complaining about them is in*
technical groups such as this. Truth of the matter is, even if people don't*
like them, they will 'put up' with them.

If anyone were actually to *ask* the vast majority of the normal public, I
wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they simply don't know where to
complain, or have come to accept the futility of doing so. That's not the same
as being "not all that bothered".

Rod.

In article , ChrisM wrote:
All true, *if little bit exagerated maybe. (not sure what censorship has to*
to with DOGs though - that is a whole new discussion!!)

Nothing directly to do with DOGs, but another all too common example of
vandalism of a type that no right minded person would nowadays regard as
acceptable if applied to any other artform than television.

Rod.