Guide needs update

[Stuart Douglas]

Joe said:

"People want precise info on most things "

And what will they do with that info? Assuming they are a fan, knowing if 'Rupert and the Obsessive-compulsives' or whatever exists isn't a great deal of use to them. If might give them a glimmer of hope that they could see the episode one day, but thats about it. Now, if they were hunting down prints or researchoing a book, that might be useful. Even then, that particular series was a fairly consistent Childrens series and there probably isn't much to be gained by having a full set, except completism.

Now I really am desperate to know - why are you here (other than trolling obviously)?

If someone goes to a car boot sale and buys some old video tapes, takes them home and finds loads of Rupert the Bear (or Fabian or Boyd QC or whatever), then they can check here to see if they are still extant.

Which - now that I think about it - is exactly the type of free onlie information you were advocating at the expense of the Kal guides in your original post.

At least be consistent

Stuart

[Simon Coward]

laurencepiper said:

In equivalent terms, I couldn't justify spending £130 on just one book (no matter how meticulously researched). All down to personal choice though, as ever. You pays yer money...

What you do with your money is entirely your business. But £130 (£145 with postage) gets you 5 volumes not just "one book". That's over 2,500 pages, so including postage it comes to about five and a half pence per page which probably isn't too far off what it would cost anyone to print or photocopy even if the info was "free" on the internet. What you also get for this money includes info that can only be obtained off screen on programmes that haven't been shown on TV for 40 years or more but for which we've paid (quite a lot of) money to various TV companies over the years, just so we can fill in a gap where (for example) a rescheduling means the TV Times never covered a particular programme.

Joe said:

The Kaleidoscope guides are usless for serious researchers as they do not allow relational searches. If they were set up as an online facility with a subscription that would be a step forward.

I guess that's a possibility at some point in the future but this isn't a trivial operation - we're already dealing with more than a million database records and around half a gigabyte of information and that's (pretty much) only TV Drama.

To give me an idea of an appropriate approach, can you suggest anyone whose done this kind of thing (for whatever type of information, not just TV or film) where there isn't either a business or other type of ready-funded institution (e.g. a college or the BBC) behind it?

[Clive Shaw]

Joe said:

The Kaleidoscope guides are usless for serious researchers as they do not allow relational searches. If they were set up as an online facility with a subscription that would be a step forward.

'Serious Researchers' would have the capability to be able to use reference guides such as Kal and do the necessary leg-work themselves to make the links between one entry and another. This was where research was a long drag but gave you a real sense of achievement to have made those links yourself.

I agree that the Internet has made thing vastly easier for researchers but to say that the KAL guides are useless for serious researchers is way off the mark.

I often think the Internet has made things damn too easy for lazy research students.

[h Hartley]

Perhaps the Kaleidescope team could investigate the potential sales of their tomes in mass market conditions? thus bring down the price.

For example ' Dave Rogers encyclopedia of drama '. We all know it was very flawed and unfinished in many aspects, but it seemed a popular seller
and I have to admit I still consult it, despite the inaccuracies.
Finding the sales figures of a book like this might give an indication of the potential sales of the Kal series.

However Chris Perry's philosphy might follow the Japanese bike seller ?

In Japan a westerner wanted to buy a bike . The bike seller took him to a computer, punched in all his measurements and his requirements . The westerner was impressed and asked when the bike would be ready . The Japanese bike seller replied that it was already being made in the factory and would be finished after lunch.
"So I can come back and collect it" , the westerner asked.
"No" said the bike seller, "you can collect it in 2 weeks" .
"Why! if its ready" said the westerner. "Well, we like you to appreciate its very fine quality , and we do that by our prices and making you wait for it" said the seller.

.. but of course the Japanese bike seller could have been lying about it being made? ;D

Anyway the Kal guides are something I am looking forward to purchase whent the time is right.

[Jo Cole]

"Now I really am desperate to know - why are you here (other than trolling obviously)?"

Why should I troll? Your assumption only.

"If someone goes to a car boot sale and buys some old video tapes, takes them home and finds loads of Rupert the Bear (or Fabian or Boyd QC or whatever), then they can check here to see if they are still extant."

Added together, all the K'scope guides are a serious investment for many people. You do spend hundreds on a dictionary, if you you only read three entries in a year. Realistically, how many people on this forum find missing Television regularly enough to justify spending large amounts on guides? Even if they do and are at that film sale, do they carry them around with them?

"Which - now that I think about it - is exactly the type of free onlie information you were advocating at the expense of the Kal guides in your original post."

In an ideal world, everything would be free. In fact all broadcast TV would exist, but it doesn't. The world isn't perfect.

If the info is free online , then use it. If it isn't free and you see films or TV programmes on tape that you think are rare and are reasonably priced, buy them and consult either the BBC or BFI who will (in the majority of cases) be able tell you if they are missing. At worst, you can ask on here. You do not need K'scope guides to do any of this.

As for serious research. If someone was making a TV programme on set design and they needed all the existing programmes listed by say 'Stephen Bundy', they wouldn't have that info in the K'scope guides. They would need to know each programme he was involved in.

At the touch of a button on Infax, you can do both, online and for free.

Yes, if you want, you can live in a house with gas lighting and a tin bath, why bother when you don't need to!

[Deleted]

Jo said:

"Now I really am desperate to know - why are you here (other than trolling obviously)?"

Added together, all the K'scope guides are a serious investment for many people. You do spend hundreds on a dictionary, if you you only read three entries in a year. Realistically, how many people on this forum find missing Television regularly enough to justify spending large amounts on guides? Even if they do and are at that film sale, do they carry them around with them?

If the info is free online , then use it. If it isn't free and you see films or TV programmes on tape that you think are rare and are reasonably priced, buy them and consult either the BBC or BFI who will (in the majority of cases) be able tell you if they are missing. At worst, you can ask on here. You do not need K'scope guides to do any of this.

As for serious research. If someone was making a TV programme on set design and they needed all the existing programmes listed by say 'Stephen Bundy', they wouldn't have that info in the K'scope guides. They would need to know each programme he was involved in.

At the touch of a button on Infax, you can do both, online and for free.

I know that the TV companies themselves use the Kal guides as a reference. I don't think most people posting here will want the guides primarily as a tool to assist missing material hunts though; mainly - as fans - they want to learn which series (and which particular episodes of same) survive and which do not, out of a general interest in archive TV as a hobby / interest. TV companies will help with very basic queries but they won't provide the bulk info on archives provided in the guides just because someone asks for it (as we all know from experience, they can be very UNhelpful if you ask too much of them too often).

The internet is a great tool but it's riddled with inaccuiracies and insubstantial detail. Sure, anyone can find - freely at the click of a mouse - a reasonably correct basic episode guide / archive listing for Steptoe & Son, Doctor Who and Monty Python but what about for Late Night Line-Up, The Man In Room 17 or The Guardians? Or a complete list of 1950s single plays by a particular writer? Or a list of all sitcoms produced by a specific defunct ITV company? This is where the Kal guides score heavily as they include EVERYTHING transmitted (no mean feat) and such info just can't be found elsewhere and in one place. They were never about the technical areas (e.g. set design) and it's pedantic criticising something for what it isn't and was never meant to be. The Kal guides are a basic, bulk reference and first point of contact for any "serious" researchers using them.

My own gripe with the guides is just that (price-wise) they aren't primarily targetted at their potentially largest market - the fans. But that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile publications (they are).

[Joe Cole]

"I know that the TV companies themselves use the Kal guides as a reference"

We are told this, but in cases of people visiting archives (I've heard of) all searches are done through an owned database or e-mailed requests to the appropriate company for info. A few libraries may have them either through donation or promotion. It would be interesting to find which public libraries do have copies, as people could then use that as a resource.

"I don't think most people posting here will want the guides primarily as a tool to assist missing material hunts though; mainly - as fans - they want to learn which series (and which particular episodes of same) survive and which do not, out of a general interest in archive TV as a hobby / interest."

In the vast majority of cases, that info is available (in some form) online). Given the number of general queries on this site, there can't be many popular programmes which haven't been covered.

I'm a bit puzzled at to why people do get curious about what is missing (or indeed what survives). If there is no end purpose from this, it doesn't really help anyone. In terms of value for money, spending hundreds to have one evening flicking through a set of guides, going 'aha, thats missing', doesn't seem a good investment! Or perhaps some people read them every night? if so, God help them.

"TV companies will help with very basic queries but they won't provide the bulk info on archives provided in the guides just because someone asks for it (as we all know from experience, they can be very UNhelpful if you ask too much of them too often) "

I didn't mean they would to satisfy pointless idle curiosity (see above), but from people who had a commercial purpose in asking.

"The internet is a great tool but it's riddled with inaccuiracies and insubstantial detail. Sure, anyone can find - freely at the click of a mouse - a reasonably correct basic episode guide / archive listing for Steptoe & Son, Doctor Who and Monty Python but what about for Late Night Line-Up, The Man In Room 17 or The Guardians?"

When I checked INFAX for 'Line-Up', the few editions I looked at had a place where you can click with the mouse and see the complete PASB description for that edition. It may not be on all, but it was on the random ones I looked at.

'Man in Room 17' is a Granada Production and I'd be surprised it any were missing. As a general rule of thumb, the Granada holds copies of most of their output, particularly from the 60s on-wards. The other 'Guardians' is LWT and apart from a few blips, their archive is also very good. I'd be surprised if this was missing.

"Or a complete list of 1950s single plays by a particular writer?"

Unless the new guides are a vast improvement, I can't recall indexes which allowed such searches through the book.

"Or a list of all sitcoms produced by a specific defunct ITV company?"

It is interesting that the guides are touted as 'British television' guides, but taking this case as random, most (if not all) regional sitcoms from BBC Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are not listed. The ITV companies that served outside England are also poorly served in general, with many key programmes missing.

"This is where the Kal guides score heavily as they include EVERYTHING transmitted (no mean feat)"

Not so. See above. The Comedy Guide was missing many programmes, as was the drama and children's. I haven't seen the new drama, perhaps it is improved.

"and such info just can't be found elsewhere and in one place."

The INFAX listings generally allow relational searches and PASB listings to a detail not contained in the guides. The BFI site covers a wider range and the ITN site also covers ITV territory.

"They were never about the technical areas (e.g. set design)"

Pardon me, but that was an example of how detailed the search facilities are on INFAX. Set design might not be your interest area, but someone researching a programme about it, would be able to link a name, whether designer, director or producer, or indeed actor in a matter of a few mouse clicks.

"and it's pedantic criticising something for what it isn't and was never meant to be. The Kal guides are a basic, bulk reference and first point of contact for any "serious" researchers using them."

Further up, you have them as "score heavily as they include EVERYTHING transmitted" and now you say bulk reference. Which is it to be? I say, rough guides for archive anoraks and self employed media researchers, plus a quick thumb through reference for commercial archives.

"My own gripe with the guides is just that (price-wise) they aren't primarily targetted at their potentially largest market - the fans. But that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile publications (they are). "

I thought the originals at £35 to £40 were stretching it, but now they have perhaps priced themselves out of their most ardent fans.

Like a telephone directory, they go out of date as soon as they arrive. I've just had a horrible thought. Probably people who like reading them at leisure too!

Best to to dwell.

[Joe Cole]

Best not to dwell!!!! (I mean't)

[Deleted]

You obviously have a good basic knowledge of (fairly obscure) TV series, Joe. Many do not. A lot of your comments are directed as if fans are all pro researchers; people don't NEED an "end purpose" if archive TV is a hobby rather than a job though. We're not talking about just popular shows here either - details of the obscure is just not out there in any quantity (or degree of accuracy). Having a "rule of thumb" knowledge of what archives keep is a broad generalisation though when, in fact, people want specifics. The Kal guides provide that (they're not infallible but any omissions are usually corrected in later editions). The BFI / ITN sites, for example, have no archive holdings info attached (and nor does the new BBC database) so that is one glaring omission that Kal does not have.

On the one hand you concede that everything should not be free to all who so desire it (except in an ideal world) but then you say that even £35 is too much to pay for a guide. I don't understand where you're coming from, Joe.

[Joe Cole]

"people don't NEED an "end purpose" if archive TV is a hobby rather than a job though"

I can understand them watching the shows on DVD, but what is the point of spending hundreds of pounds to satisfy idle curiosity?

"We're not talking about just popular shows here either - details of the obscure is just not out there in any quantity (or degree of accuracy)."

You've read my comments regarding the K'scope guides. They are far from accurate. I refer you to my earlier reply.

"Having a "rule of thumb" knowledge of what archives keep is a broad generalisation though when, in fact, people want specifics."

Why do they want specifics? Will anyone's life be more comfortable knowing the exact number of 'Dixon of Dock Green' episodes?

"The Kal guides provide that (they're not infallible but any omissions are usually corrected in later editions)."

I again refer you to my earlier replying regarding accuracy.

"The BFI / ITN sites, for example, have no archive holdings info attached (and nor does the new BBC database) so that is one glaring omission that Kal does not have."

Every pre-78 BBC recording which appears in INFAX exists in either audio or video. Isn't that good enough for you?

You can buy the BFI guide which gives exact archive holdings of thieir ITV collection, which includes all the A-R material left.

"On the one hand you concede that everything should not be free to all who so desire it (except in an ideal world) but then you say that even £35 is too much to pay for a guide. I don't understand where you're coming from, Joe"

I said originals in plural because they were a set of guides. Each one was around that price or more. Added together they were a lot more than £35.

[Matthew K Sharp]

Joe said:

Every pre-78 BBC recording which appears in INFAX exists in either audio or video. Isn't that good enough for you?

if we're talking about the online-available-to-the-public INFAX, that's not actually true, through, is it? A prime example is the 1968 episode of Marty I asked about the other day - it's listed, but it turns out only to be a mute film insert.

[Joe Cole]

"if we're talking about the online-available-to-the-public INFAX, that's not actually true, through, is it? A prime example is the 1968 episode of Marty I asked about the other day - it's listed, but it turns out only to be a mute film insert."

I made a general point, that something exists, whether audio or video. You can add film to that generalisation too. I don't think the Kscope guide listed that insert, so INFAX is giving you more detail. It is entirely possible that this being a trial version it will be updated.

[Deleted]

I don't think there's any point in replying further to you, "Joe" (if that's your name). The hobby for you is clearly not archive TV but trolling. There are plenty of other sites you can do that...

[Matthew K Sharp]

Oh Laurence, you can't just write him off like that...

(reads back last few posts of twisty-turny term-changing pseudo-argument nonsense...)

No, actually, you've got a fair point.

[Joe Cole]

It is interesting that when someone does make a serious point on this forum some of you can't join in a measured discussion, but simply resort to pompous words, childishly rubbishing everything I've said with throw-a-way comments along the lines of 'what is he on about', or implications I'm trolling. A troll wouldn't have gone to the bother of making reasoned arguments.

Also, very quick to make assumptions (and judgenments) about people, wedded together with endlessly romantic views of old tv and tv archives.

The key issue is that you have failed to justify your own need for complete and incredibly osbscure information on archive holdings and you have not justified with reasoned argument why someone without a commercial interest should need access to
that information.

The truth probably is that this is a form of television trainspotting. No doubt harmless, but it serves even less purpose than recording train numbers as you are dealing with something that isn't there to begin with.