Guide needs update

[Matthew K Sharp]

Joe, you're the one who can't hold a consistent argument for more than two posts.

The discussion is whether INFAX is indicative of whether episodes of shows exist or not. You say "Every pre-78 BBC recording which appears in INFAX exists in either audio or video." I give an example where that's not the case. You then try to qualify your argument by saying "I made a general point, that something exists, whether audio or video" which is clearly not the same thing as a complete episode existing.

You clearly have some grievance against the Kaleidoscope people for not putting their works online for free, and are trying to claim INFAX as a superior source of information when it demonstrably isn't at the present moment.

Then you follow it up by insulting anyone who might want to have the information available who accessing it for commercial purposes (by which presumably you mean licensing purposes). There are many reasons why someone might want to know what does and doesn't survive; I, for one, am trying to assess what material I have that the BBC doesn't. Others, perhaps, might want to lobby for a series to be released on DVD, which may be a pointless exercise if nothing survives. Maybe if we were all in the dark about this stuff we all could have quietly and passively consumed the recent Likely Lads or Rag Trade DVDs, protected by our ignorance from knowing that a couple of extant episodes had been omitted.

Since you seem to have no particular interest in the subject of missing episodes, Joe, I do wonder why you bother to post here at all - unless you're on a desperate mission to save us
"TV trainspotters" from ourselves, which is quite noble but equally unnecessary.

[Stuart Douglas]

Joe said:

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.

But you have yet to make anything resembling a reasoned and consistent argument - on the rare occaison when you have made an arguable point (as opposed to 'you don't need these guides because I say so and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong') you have been shown to be plain wrong (eg Infax and Marty).

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

A quick look through the various fora throws up the fact that this and another thread on which you argued that collecting old films was pointless constitute your two longest contributions (plus some spelling correction). So I have to ask again - why are you here?

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.

Why would anyone need to justify their need for this.?

People here are interested in archive TV for a variety of reasons, some professional and some hobbyist, and some of those people like to have guides in case they turn something up/are checking their own private collection or any number of other reasons. There is no need for further justification - what people spend their money and time on is, with respect, absolutely none of your business.

It's a hobby like any other - something akin to owning the full Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogues if you are a philatelist. You are never going to own any of the most rare and valuable stamps contained therein, but you may well be interested in knowing about their existence.

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.

One more time - why are you here, other than trolling?

You present no cogent arguments, unlike those who are doing you the courtesy of replying and who have provided any number of good reasons for why they might want to buy the Kal guides/are interested in archive TV; you apparently have little interest in archive TV or collecting old films; and you have little or nothing to contribute in terms of intelligent conversation, prefering instead to fall back on discourtesy and wide-ranging and fallacious generalisations.



Stuart

[Joe Cole]

"Joe, you're the one who can't hold a consistent argument for more than two posts."

Good. I will try harder to satisfy your needs.

"The discussion is whether INFAX is indicative of whether episodes of shows exist or not."

There are many discussions on this thread and it all started in connection with the on line guide on this site needing an update.

"You say "Every pre-78 BBC recording which appears in INFAX exists in either audio or video." I give an example where that's not the case. You then try to qualify your argument by saying "I made a general point, that something exists, whether audio or video" which is clearly not the same thing as a complete episode existing."

The problem with this forum (and in general with forums) is that you can make a generalisation and someone will come along and be pedantic. I might have phrased it better. I should have realised it would get picked apart. The BBC library as listed on INFAX is not a list of clips as you well know. It is a list of programmes for which there is surviving material. In many cases if the programme listed is just a clip it lists it as a clip (see the 'Billy Cotton' thread). Marty isn't well documented, but type in something like 'Panorama' and you'll see much more detail on individual programmes.

"You clearly have some grievance against the Kaleidoscope people for not putting their works on line for free, and are trying to claim INFAX as a superior source of information when it demonstrably isn't at the present moment."

Again, I'm sorry for you. You are making an assumption. My original words are being twisted. I suggested "I'm sure most people would rather seee it on line for free than pay many hundreds of pounds for a set of guides". That comment is not connected with K'scope, being a general comment on this following the precedent free on line access of the BBC info on INFAX.

"When you follow it up by insulting anyone who might want to have the information available who accessing it for commercial purposes (by which presumably you mean licensing purposes)."

Very dramatic, but I don't recalling insulting anyone. I have already mentioned I think that the only people who would get value for money from the guides are people who have a commercial interest in using them. Even then, like all paper guides, they are out of date and as I mentioned aren't complete. There are more entries for BBC programnmes on INFAX than there are on the K'scope guides. Idle curiosity can be satisfied by a cheaper option.

I'm not having a go at K'scope. I think the original guides were a very good idea and they were good for their time. However, technology has moved on and the guides are becoming an archaic medium. They also have to compete with online databases.

"There are many reasons why someone might want to know what does and doesn't survive; I, for one, am trying to assess what material I have that the BBC doesn't."

So, are you willing to spend hundreds of pounds (or in your case, Dollars) for a set of guides to check a relatively small number of programmes or you can get the info from INFAX? In both cases, it will be a rough guide because the K'scope guide isn't complete and the public version of INFAX is limited. How many are we talking about? If you think you have missing material, why not e-mail the BBC with your list? Simple.

"Others, perhaps, might want to lobby for a series to be released on DVD, which may be a pointless exercise if nothing survives."

Being realistic, given the general level of knowledge about old TV (on the internet) it would have have to be something incredibly obscure. For example my request for a 'Bransby Williams' box set hasn't come to anything ;-)

"Maybe if we were all in the dark about this stuff we all could have quietly and passively consumed the recent Likely Lads or Rag Trade DVDs, protected by our ignorance from knowing that a couple of extant episodes had been omitted."

Very true, but equally that knowledge has got you nowhere as in both cases, nothing has been done and in fact you are probably more frustrated by not being ignorant.

"Since you seem to have no particular interest in the subject of missing episodes"

Thanks for the continuing assumptions!

"Joe, I do wonder why you bother to post here at all - unless you're on a desperate mission to save us
"TV trainspotters" from ourselves, which is quite noble but equally unnecessary.""

Ah - don't tell me you don't want to be saved! I'm here to help you!

Just to go over my original points:

* K'scope guides are not 100% accurate (possibly never can be) and have gaps (particularly large in regional programmes). They are admirable attempts to capture the subject on paper, but only really useful as a rough guide. As time moves on the guides will increase in size and the cost will rise. Encyclopaedia Britannica is now on CD-ROM and this is the way forward. Though K'scope could offer a finders fee for individual requests. They have been very generous in posting listings on this site.

* Anyone with a casual interest can find most of this info for free, particularly from INFAX or on this site.

* Anyone with a serious commercial interest can get access to the info they need from the respective company.

* Anyone who thinks they have missing TV can contact the company concerned for free info

[Joe Cole]

"But you have yet to make anything resembling a reasoned and consistent argument - on the rare occaison when you have made an arguable point (as opposed to 'you don't need these guides because I say so and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong') you have been shown to be plain wrong (eg Infax and Marty)."

Again, thank-you for your informed judgement. I'm not attempting to say I'm right or wrong, I am expressing my viewpoint that the guides are expensive and quickly out of date. The way forward beuing online guides such as INFAX. I coukd say that it is people on here that take this as a personal attack them. Show a bit of tolerance for my opinion!

"A quick look through the various fora throws up the fact that this and another thread on which you argued that collecting old films was pointless constitute your two longest contributions (plus some spelling correction). So I have to ask again - why are you here?"

Again, you quote me out of context. Have you ever thought that it might be priggish and insulting to mention typing mistakes?

"Why would anyone need to justify their need for this.?
& It's a hobby like any other - something akin to owning the full Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogues if you are a philatelist. You are never going to own any of the most rare and valuable stamps contained therein, but you may well be interested in knowing about their existence."

There is a difference. Missing tv is unique in that it is missing. I can't think of many hobbies based on the worship of something that doesn't exist (or could exist) or does, but it is almost impossible for you to see it! So, I am asking, if you aren't able to watch these programmes, you aren't wrting a book about them, you aren't searching for them - why would anyone spend £300 to £400 on a set of guides?

"One more time - why are you here, other than trolling?
You present no cogent arguments, unlike those who are doing you the courtesy of replying and who have provided any number of good reasons for why they might want to buy the Kal guides/are interested in archive TV"

I am giving you very good reasons why you don't need to buy them. Save your money. How many times do I have to explain that?

"you apparently have little interest in archive TV or collecting old films; and you have little or nothing to contribute in terms of intelligent conversation, prefering instead to fall back on discourtesy and wide-ranging and fallacious generalisations."

Again, assumptions and pomposity. I am not attacking anyone personally, just making some points about the cost of the guides, their accuracy, the ability to get this info for free and the need to have this information in such detail.

I've read very little in your agruments or anyone elses that justify spending hundreds of pounds on a set of guides, apart from a vaguelly trainspotterish interest in comparing like with like. The best I've had so far is that they have missing tv and want to check. Fine. E-mail the BBC with a list.

[John Rushton]

Glad to see that you are feeling better Joe

[C Perry]

£400 for a set of Guides? Blimey, Simon must have put the price up on them. I think its £145 including postage for the new ITV Drama Guides for which you get all (or at least I think it's all) the English ITV Drama, and loads of the Welsh, S4C, satellite and Scottish, HTV, Grampian regional drama. You also get all the corrections and updates from the last guide. If we could find the series we stuck it in. We are doing the same for BBC stuff as well, even 12 series of Pobol y Cym are in there. :-)

The ITN database online lists the material they hold in "ITV" hands including stuff that doesn't exist, but it doesn't list their Anglia db, it doesn't list the Granada International (some HTV, ATV, Central, Carlton) material. (Their International database lists such gems as "24 cans of such and such", I was the poor bugger that went through each can to find out what they had. :-) )

The ITN database also does not list all the holdings and it does not give the full synopsis listing, though you think it does. When we ask ITN for more details they give us specifics that are only accessible to internal sources.

As for INFAX, it is an invaluable source of info and has been placed online so outside agencies can access it who pay the BBC for the privilege, though a few fans seem to have got on it for free. However, lets be clear - and I asked my good mate Andrew Martin about this in great detail to get the facts straight.

a) There is material listed on there that does not exist - I have an INFAX print-out here by the computer that says Power of the Daleks 1-6 exists, but when we call up the record there is no holding.
b) Some of the INFAX records are purely typed in from the Radio Times and the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. I have a full 300+ page print out for Doctors here, and it contains all the omissions of the Radio Times. ie some eps have all the weeks casts typed under one episode title because that was how the Radio Times presents them.
c) The Eastenders print out has lots of episode number inconsistencies where the production office has lost track and gone back to ep 400 twice for eg. Our database logs every ep by number automatically so we can spot their errors and correct ours.
d) Many shows including Eldorado have benefitted on INFAX by us querying errors and it turned out that INFAX was wrong. Our work does have errors and so does theirs.
e) If you pay for a commercial search of INFAX it can cost you £25 per programme search. Try searching for 6 different searches and you have paid the price of a set of Guides.
f) Once the BBC set is finished there will be a set of Guides available listing actors, writers, etc by surname and credits because we have been asked this many times. That may be an online downloadable PDF because it is too bulky to put in book form without being very expensive and we think the market is very small.
g) Alas INFAX does not list any regional archive holding so for eg, we do not know which BBC eps of Pobol Y Cym exist. We rang up BBC Wales and they said they didn't know either.

Finally, what do archives use our books for? Normally for pointing people towards the right place to find material. Punter rings Fremantle and says I want to buy clips from Raven, so Fremantle looks it up and says: ring Granada International.

Quite a few people use it when their systems crash and the computers are offline, or to check holdings like NFTVA holdings or check things in private collections. Our most famous case of that was probably Likely Lads Last of the Big Spenders which was in the Guide for years but was not held officially. Lots of No Hiding Place are in the book because they too are in private collections.

I hope that helps clarify a few points.

Chris

[Joe Cole]

"Glad to see that you are feeling better Joe"

All the better for your comments, Frank.

[Stuart Douglas]

I'm just going to leave this alone after this because I can't believe Mr Cole is anything other than a particularly irritating troll, but there are a couple of fairly glaring things to clear up first.

Me: A quick look through the various fora throws up the fact that this and another thread on which you argued that collecting old films was pointless constitute your two longest contributions (plus some spelling correction). So I have to ask again - why are you here?

Joe Cole: Again, you quote me out of context.

Excuse me? I haven't quoted you at all there, just said that your two longest thread contributions served no purpose but to insult film collectors and now archive TV fans.

Joe Cole: Have you ever thought that it might be priggish and insulting to mention typing mistakes?

I agree totally that it would be priggish and insulting to do so - but I was talking about you correcting people's spelling mistakes. For example missingepisodes.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1142527474"

Me: Why would anyone need to justify their need for this? It's a hobby like any other - something akin to owning the full Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogues if you are a philatelist. You are never going to own any of the most rare and valuable stamps contained therein, but you may well be interested in knowing about their existence.

Joe Cole: There is a difference. Missing tv is unique in that it is missing. I can't think of many hobbies based on the worship of something that doesn't exist (or could exist) or does, but it is almost impossible for you to see it! So, I am asking, if you aren't able to watch these programmes, you aren't wrting a book about them, you aren't searching for them - why would anyone spend £300 to £400 on a set of guides?

And I'll say again in big letters so you can't possibly misunderstand. IT IS A HOBBY - JUST LIKE STAMP COLLECTING. I can buy a Stanley Gibbons catalogue and look at a picture of some stamp worth one milion pounds, of which one single example exists which has been locked in a safe for 50 years and which I have absolutely zero chance of ever seeing. Or I can buy a Kal guide and discover how much of my favourite archive TV programme still remains in the archives; what is missing and could potentially one day be found (even by me at a car boot sale) and act on that info as I see fit (lobbying for a DVD release if there is sufficient extant work to justify it, for example).

Is that too hard for you to understand, because it seems very, very simple to me?

Me: One more time - why are you here, other than trolling?
You present no cogent arguments, unlike those who are doing you the courtesy of replying and who have provided any number of good reasons for why they might want to buy the Kal guides/are interested in archive TV

Joe Cole:I am giving you very good reasons why you don't need to buy them. Save your money.

No, that's a general reason of sorts for not buying anything - you'll end up with more money. It's not a reason for not buying the Kal Guides (or any other such book if you wish) if you have an interest in archival television and believe they would be of interest to you.

Me:You apparently have little interest in archive TV or collecting old films; and you have little or nothing to contribute in terms of intelligent conversation, prefering instead to fall back on discourtesy and wide-ranging and fallacious generalisations.

Joe ColeAgain, assumptions and pomposity. I am not attacking anyone personally, just making some points about the cost of the guides, their accuracy, the ability to get this info for free and the need to have this information in such detail.

Actually, no. You hijacked this thread to continue your trolling against the Kal guides, describing them as 'useless for serious researchers' without purpose or evidence to back that claim up. You have continued both on this thread and others to make claims and allegations which you cannot support and which are simply discourtesy disguised as opinion (or are you claiming 'trainspotter' is a compliment?

Joe Cole: How many times do I have to explain that?

Just once, but coherently and with some kind of logic behind it. A little consistency would be nice too - people would be less inclined to believe you were a troll if you didn't just jump into threads to slag stuff off (as another example, the public INFAX system you are busy boosting here at the expense of written guides seems to have been the subject of your annoyance - BECAUSE IT WAS INACCURATE - only a few days ago

missingepisodes.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1145277563&page=1

Now run away and play somewhere else, there's a good boy, and leave we trainspotters to our little interests

Stuart

[Matthew K Sharp]

I used to be very interested in cricket - collected all the editions of Wisden. That was until Joe Cole told me I was wasting my time because no matter how much I pored over trainspottery data, I was never actually going to see a cricket match played in 1883. So I gave it all up for my new hobbies of golf and strangling small animals.

[Joe Cole]

All very dramatic. What is especially lovely about these replies is the way that subtle distortions and misreading have taken the place of genuine debate. Very typical to ignore anything you cannot argue with, but pick up in any weak part of my posts and try to draw attention away into inconsistency. It is virtually impossible to write on forums without people reading posts the wrong way or making comments which you might wish you phrased better. I will ignore your crude comments about 'slag off ' and 'insult'. I am merely expressing an opinion.

Let's look at the Stanley Gibbons Catalogue as you mention and compare it against the K'scope guides.

The Stanley Gibbons Catalogue is available for free on line, or a more detailed version by subscription, the main books cost about £60 for two volumes. They are well known to be highly detailed and accurate.

The K'scope guides are not free and not available on line by subscription. Although Chris Perry makes a comment about the new guide costing £140, this is only part of the story. To collect all the volumes relating to comedy, l.e. drama and childrens it would add up to much more than £140.

Regarding personal hobbies. The point of stamp collecting is assembling the best possible collection. Anyone can buy stamps and trade in them. Missing Television isn't something that people collect or trade on a regular basis. It is more obscure than stamp collecting.

Regarding accuracy. Yes, in comparing INFAX and K'scope, both have errors. However Chris Perry mentions that "INFAX does not list any regional archive holding". This is demonstrably untrue as I have looked at many regional programmes on INFAX. None of these are in the K'scope guides.

Laurence Piper mentioned he could not get details for 'Late Night Line Up'. However, most of these are hidden and can be revealed by clicking again. K'scope does not appear to have listed any of this in detail.

I did comment that INFAX was not accurate regarding 'Till Death Us Do Part', however I accept that INFAX has limitations in it's public form. However, for a free serviced, at the moment, the benefits outweigh the need to spend lots of money on guides.

The K'scope guides also have one major weakness. They do not include non-fiction programming. INFAX lists this. Form a commercial point of view, library sales of non-fiction footage is an essential part of the media business and always has been.

My earlier points about film collecting is related to run of the mill features. A very good standard of projection can be achieved in the home using video projection and DVD. My point was that film collecting is finished as a general hobby. It does not have the same support as DVD projection. The closure of most UK film dealers and conventions shows that interest in this area is generally declining.

Going back to the amateur uses for K'scope guides. Assuming you did pay many hundreds of pounds for a complete set, you cannot hold all that info in your head every time you visit a car boot sale. What if you discovered (for example) a BBC Documentary from 1956. That wouldn't be in any of the guides. What do you do then?

Regarding serious commercial use, my point is that the guides are a rough guide, a starting point really. At some point, commercially, the holding number has to be called up and that isn't listed (in most cases) in the guides. They aren't consistent. I haven't seen the new guides, perhaps they now hold archive numbers and synopisis/PASB listings. Both of which are essential to a serious researcher.

You then have to add to this the problem of where the footage is. In many cases programmes are listed as existing, but it may not tell you where.

To summarise. I think that for general hobby interest, there is enough info online to satisfy most needs. If people do want perfection, spending lots of money does not mean they will get it. They won't online, but it will be a lot cheaper! I also question the general 'hobby' use of the guides as I cannot see how missing television is a hobby, unless you actually collect and discover it on a regular basis.

Although I am constantly mentioning the K'scope guides, people are assuming I'm knocking them. Not so, I am pointing out that they are an expensive means to an end and amateur people should consider the free ways to get information.

Stuart mentions buying the guides so he can be prepared in case he does find something at a car boot sale. That doesn't sound like a hobby. It doesn't sound as if he has found films at a car boot sale. Going back to your stamp collector analogy, there cannot be many stamp collectors who have no stamps of their own, but buy Gibbons books in the hope they might find a stamp (even if they did, it would be a lot cheaper that buying the K'scope guides).

[Joe Cole]

Going back to Chris Perry's comments about regional programming not being on INFAX:

He said: "g) Alas INFAX does not list any regional archive holding so for eg, we do not know which BBC eps of Pobol Y Cym exist. We rang up BBC Wales and they said they didn't know either."

I went in and straight away found a complete list of all holdings. Which are as follows (too big to post individual entries after 76).

POBOL Y CWM
Programmes
1 programmes in 1974 1974 (hide)
24 December 1974
2 programmes in 1975 1975 (hide)
30
1
11 programmes in 1976 1976 (hide)
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
15 April 1976
26 May 1976
09 June 1976
43 programmes in 1977 1977 (hide)

18 programmes in 1978 1978 (hide)
25 programmes in 1979 1979 (hide)
32 programmes in 1980 1980 (hide)
18 programmes in 1981 1981 (hide)
45 programmes in 1982 1982 (hide)
34 programmes in 1983 1983 (hide)
32 programmes in 1984 1984 (hide)
36 programmes in 1985 1985 (hide)
28 programmes in 1986 1986 (hide)
32 programmes in 1987 1987 (hide)
100 programmes in 1988 1988 (hide)
168 programmes in 1989 1989 (hide)
171 programmes in 1990 1990 (hide)
210 programmes in 1991 1991 (hide)
235 programmes in 1992 1992 (hide)
255 programmes in 1993 1993 (hide)
269 programmes in 1994 1994 (hide)
191 programmes in 1995 1995 (hide)
256 programmes in 1996 1996 (hide)
258 programmes in 1997 1997 (hide)
264 programmes in 1998 1998 (hide)
273 programmes in 1999 1999 (hide)
272 programmes in 2000 2000 (hide)
255 programmes in 2001 2001 (hide)
269 programmes in 2002 2002 (hide)
257 programmes in 2003 2003 (hide)
263 programmes in 2004 2004 (hide)
249 programmes in 2005 2005 (hide)
60 programmes in 2006 2006 (hide)

[Deleted]

stuartdouglas said:

Now run away and play somewhere else, there's a good boy, and leave we trainspotters to our little interests
Stuart

Avoiding the thread completely is the way forward, Stuart, until all his gobbledygook is simply deleted.

[Joe Cole]

"Avoiding the thread completely is the way forward, Stuart, until all his gobbledygook is simply deleted"

Afraid to face facts or someone elses opinions, Laurence? Is the best you can come up with to call my comments "gobbledygook"?

I am not trolling.

You express problems with INFAX, complaining it does not show programme detail on 'Late night line up'.

I demonstrate that it many cases it does. Chris Perry says INFAX does not show regional material and for example neither he nor BBC Wales can get info on 'Pobol Y Cwm'. I found this info on INFAX and posted above.

[AGuest]

No one is listening to your rubbish any more, Joe. Why don't you move on to another site now, there's a good boy.

[Joe Cole]

"No one is listening to your rubbish any more, Joe. Why don't you move on to another site now, there's a good boy."

I'm very sorry for if this is the best way you can express yourself.