Comments on: The Algebra of Quality (Part 1) http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/ Doug Kaye's Weblog Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:38:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kevin Sangeelee http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-50046 Kevin Sangeelee Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:32:16 +0000 http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/#comment-50046 Bear in mind that one of the benefits of Internet broadcasting is that it doesn't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator; in fact, it's the opportunity to specialize that's so valuable. So, the MLK example actually applies to a wide range of talks, presentations, and interviews. If the content is of interest to <i>me</i> then I'll make the effort to listen to it, regardless of quality, as long as it's reasonably discernible. The problem with invited ratings here is that the characteristic being rated has now been blurred - will we be asked to rate the content (in the opinion of a genuinely interested listener), or the quality of the recording/production (in the opinion of anyone else)? Suggestion (c) makes lots of sense to me. Great work on ITC! Bear in mind that one of the benefits of Internet broadcasting is that it doesn’t have to appeal to the lowest common denominator; in fact, it’s the opportunity to specialize that’s so valuable. So, the MLK example actually applies to a wide range of talks, presentations, and interviews.

If the content is of interest to me then I’ll make the effort to listen to it, regardless of quality, as long as it’s reasonably discernible.

The problem with invited ratings here is that the characteristic being rated has now been blurred – will we be asked to rate the content (in the opinion of a genuinely interested listener), or the quality of the recording/production (in the opinion of anyone else)?

Suggestion (c) makes lots of sense to me. Great work on ITC!

]]> By: Karen http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-27625 Karen Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:54:28 +0000 http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/#comment-27625 Great coincidence. I just <a href="http://www.mardahl.dk/2007/04/24/the-frustrating-side-of-podcast-listening/" title="link to my post" rel="nofollow">blogged</a> about a frustrating listening experience, and commenter Karin H from podjournal.com directed me here. I think a quality rating might be very useful as a learning tool for the podcaster. After being so critical in my own post, I suddenly feel sorry for someone who would get 1 or no stars on quality - but then who could stand to listen to them? As I find more and more exciting podcasts, it would be one way to stem the tide. After all, there are only 24 hours in a day. How many podcasts can you listen to? :-) I think this would be especially important for those recording conferences and the like. Podcasts with one or two voices are generally OK, unless the one phone line is horribly poor. Once you are recording groups, especially with a Q&A or any kind of interaction, getting the message requires that you can hear what is being said! From another happy ITC listener. Great coincidence. I just blogged about a frustrating listening experience, and commenter Karin H from podjournal.com directed me here. I think a quality rating might be very useful as a learning tool for the podcaster. After being so critical in my own post, I suddenly feel sorry for someone who would get 1 or no stars on quality – but then who could stand to listen to them? As I find more and more exciting podcasts, it would be one way to stem the tide. After all, there are only 24 hours in a day. How many podcasts can you listen to? :-)

I think this would be especially important for those recording conferences and the like. Podcasts with one or two voices are generally OK, unless the one phone line is horribly poor. Once you are recording groups, especially with a Q&A or any kind of interaction, getting the message requires that you can hear what is being said!

From another happy ITC listener.

]]> By: Paul Gillin http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-27584 Paul Gillin Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:53:25 +0000 http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/24/the-algebra-of-quality-part-1/#comment-27584 As a regular listener, I have found the overall audio quality of the ITC programs to be quite good. The occasional technical glitch is always disclosed at the start of the program and your quality has improved with tighter editing over the last couple of years. I don't listen to your programs for an audio experience; I listen because they provide good value. As long as they're audible, I don't really notice the audio quality. As a regular listener, I have found the overall audio quality of the ITC programs to be quite good. The occasional technical glitch is always disclosed at the start of the program and your quality has improved with tighter editing over the last couple of years.

I don’t listen to your programs for an audio experience; I listen because they provide good value. As long as they’re audible, I don’t really notice the audio quality.

]]>