bjm at lvcm
Apr 3, 2007, 5:21 PM
Post #22 of 68
Yeechang Lee wrote:
> Bruce Markey <bjm [at] lvcm> says:
>> One post from an uninformed user claimed that that the issue
>> was that of myth marking generic showings as repeats and was due
>> to a "*BUG*" [sic] in MythTV and we should be thankful for what
>> we get from "Tribune". I posted a response with the following
>> - DD was not provided merely as a favor to it's users but was
>> created in response excessive traffic from scrapers like XMLTV.
>> - If description information is not available from DD but is
>> from tvlistings.com this will surely lead to people using
>> scrapers which would increase tvlistings.com traffic ten fold
>> then one-hundred fold or more.
>> - Therefore it is in everyones best interest that TMS take this
>> issue seriously.
> Bruce, I hate to say it but the first reaction I had upon reading the
> above (not to mention your choice of subject line) was that you were
> issuing a threat of the DataDirect servers melting down if the
> data-accuracy issue isn't fixed pronto. "Not I," you will surely
> say. "I never said *I'd* do it!" That's what's called
People often take that approach to MythTV to try to leverage
forcing others to do things their way. F-abuser is currently
the king of attempts at acts of intimidation to try to have
things his way and has posted that he believes that he is
However, "I never said *I'd* do it!". I was pointing out the
reality of the situation before zap2it initiated DataDirect
for their own benefit. If they continued to ignore this issue,
they would create a situation that you or I, and most certainly
they, do not want to see again.
> passive-aggressive threatening. (Besides, would you yourself really
> hold off on using a screen scraper and therefore contributing, even if
> only fractionally so, to the 10-100X traffic jump?)
If they continue to deliver inferior data for weeks or months,
everyone would use a scraper regardless of anything I'd say one
way or the other. Shooting the messenger is not a solution.
> The uninformed user was just that, uninformed and not affiliated with
And I responded with a factual correction. Partially because
your replay was at least mis-leading if not downright wrong.
> I agree that a fix of the data really is best for all
> parties. However, I know better than to make any kind of ultimatum,
> however veiled it may be, because *Tribune Media Services isn't
> obligated to do anything*. The company is doing us a huge favor, and
This is absolutely false and this attitude that we have to
be beholden and obedient to then else they will take our
toys away is BS. They are doing themselves a favor which
is mutually beneficial.
Before DD, XMLTV users were hitting potentially hundreds of
web pages per grab per person. No one asked for DD but they
initiated it because it accomplished two things; delivering
compressed data reduced their network traffic by magnitudes
saving them millions in hardware and IT costs, and by having
an account based system they can gather demographic information.
The idea that we have to walk on egg shells or they'll take
it away is just plain wrong.
> Again, there is no moral or legal obligation on TMS's part to not pull
> all XML access to the data immediately should it choose to do so. Of
> course, then there's nothing that prevents us from returning to the
> screenscraping days of yesteryore. But guess what? *TMS knows this
> very well*, and its employees don't need your or anyone else lecturing
And I certainly don't need you lecturing me. If they were aware
of the importance of the issue they would not have ignored it
for the past week or two. I assume that you are not a TMS
employee so I fail to see how you believe you can tell me what
they do and do not know. However, I know exactly what they've
had to say about it up until today: "" and that's a direct quote.
> them about it. If you don't like it, they will surely be happy to
> refund you the money you've forked over to TMS for the data feed. (Any
> resemblance to the first sentence of the sixth paragraph of the GPL is
> purely intentional.)
You may choose the bend over and ask for another. I will not.
I have sent a letter to them explaining my message and my
concerns about their reaction. I hope they can clarify what
their reasoning was. I would be more than a little disappointed
if that message was ignored.
> For the record, here's I responded to the same post by the ignoramus
> poster, before I read your message here (I never saw your actual
> response on the forum itself):
> MythTV assumes--and I think rightly so--that a generic episode for a
> TV show that has a recording rule is one that could be one the viewer
> wants to watch. This behavior can be overridden, if desired, but
> better safe than sorry; better that an episode of that big new TV show
> be recorded without a description than not be recorded at all.
"Overridden" implies the override feature which would be entirely
the wrong solution thought I assume you meant 'it cold be
configured differently'. You completely missed that the record
status was "Repeat" rather than Will Record or Previously Recorded
Earlier, Later or anything else. This status is the result of
"Record new episodes only". Had this not been set, it would try
to record all generic episodes.
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv