The BBC  permalink

DOGs

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 5101 - 5133 of 5133
  • Message 5101

    , in reply to message 5100.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) on Sunday, 9th November 2014

    I don't know how long ITV have been using these awful things  

    They started on STV in Scotland about 2 years ago and consequently I used to record all my ITV programmes via Sky on ITV London which was DOG free. However after a while the main ITV channel followed suit so it looks like we're stuck with it. It's merely a branding exercise although they try to kid us that viewers find it useful to be told which channel they are watching!!!

    Report message1

  • Message 5102

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by pyanaman (U2905997) on Tuesday, 11th November 2014

    In future, please can we have a constantly repeating voice reminding us, "This is Radio 4. ......This is Radio 4,"  
    On 5 Live you do .... accompanied by 'Bish, Bang, Thump, Crash, Bosh' smiley - steam

    Report message2

  • Message 5103

    , in reply to message 5102.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Thursday, 20th November 2014

    I got some stick a few years ago on this thread because I have gaffer/duck tape stuck over the DOG on my TV. Hardly ever see one, except for the sneaky digital ones who have moved them to the right.

    Feel vaguely and indecently vindicated today because the advice to avoid having your webcam hijacked on your laptop is to stick - wait for it - gaffer tape over the camera. Been doing that for years too. Added another layer just in case - you can never be too careful.

    Report message3

  • Message 5104

    , in reply to message 5103.

    Posted by Harvey Specter (U4307220) on Monday, 24th November 2014

    Why?

    Two entirely unrelated things. smiley - laugh

    Report message4

  • Message 5105

    , in reply to message 5063.

    Posted by Joe Black (U10382673) on Monday, 24th November 2014

    Why would anyone want a DOG permanently on screen? Have you heard of screen burn? DOGs are intrusions that do not need to be on screen.  Absolutely true, these idiot broadcasters are damaging their viewers TV screens - it needs a prosecution or two to stop this silly nonsense.

    Just stop watching the channels that are DOG mad, they will feel it eventually when the advertisers give up on them because they have no viewers smiley - winkeye

    There is inconsistency in the BBC's use of DOGs as well, watching the Day of the triffids last night, the SD C9 had a very prominent white DOG, but the HD Channel had an almost transparent Dog - so you can guess which one I stayed with.

    Report message5

  • Message 5106

    , in reply to message 5105.

    Posted by Harvey Specter (U4307220) on Monday, 24th November 2014

    Screen burn would only occur if they did not change the channel for hours on end and even then was only ever really much of an issue for plasma users, which perhaps isn't such an issue nowadays.

    Report message6

  • Message 5107

    , in reply to message 5105.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) on Monday, 24th November 2014


    Just stop watching the channels that are DOG mad, they will feel it eventually when the advertisers give up on them because they have no viewers  


    They claim it's done to identify and promote the channel. However they haven't grasped the fundamental fact that viewers watch programmes NOT channels. If there's a programme I want to watch I'll tune in and don't care a jot which channel it's on as I'm not slavishly loyal to any particular channel

    Report message7

  • Message 5108

    , in reply to message 5104.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Monday, 24th November 2014

    Why?

    Two entirely unrelated things. smiley - laugh 


    Just love a good non-techy solution. They work!!! smiley - cool

    Report message8

  • Message 5109

    , in reply to message 5107.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Monday, 24th November 2014


    Just stop watching the channels that are DOG mad, they will feel it eventually when the advertisers give up on them because they have no viewers  


    They claim it's done to identify and promote the channel. However they haven't grasped the fundamental fact that viewers watch programmes NOT channels. If there's a programme I want to watch I'll tune in and don't care a jot which channel it's on as I'm not slavishly loyal to any particular channel 
    I am NOT supporting DOGs as I detest the bloody things but if you are "channel hopping" and come across an interesting programme and want to watch the next episode you do need to know where to find it again.

    So "watching programmes not channels", whilst true, does mean that you need to know what channel they are on (and there are MANY better ways of doing that than the DOG)

    Report message9

  • Message 5110

    , in reply to message 5109.

    Posted by captainMouse (U14652804) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    There is a search facility on EPG so you don't need to know the channel. There are also apps and the web to assist.

    I agree people watch program's not channels.

    Report message10

  • Message 5111

    , in reply to message 5109.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    if you are "channel hopping" and come across an interesting programme and want to watch the next episode you do need to know where to find it again.
     


    We've had this discussion before TomcatRed, but it's impossible to tune into any channel without a banner coming up on the screen telling you which channel you have chosen and its number. This applies whether you scroll down the listings or enter a number into the remote.

    Report message11

  • Message 5112

    , in reply to message 5111.

    Posted by Joe Black (U10382673) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    if you are "channel hopping" and come across an interesting programme and want to watch the next episode you do need to know where to find it again.
     


    We've had this discussion before TomcatRed, but it's impossible to tune into any channel without a banner coming up on the screen telling you which channel you have chosen and its number. This applies whether you scroll down the listings or enter a number into the remote. 
    Exactly - there is no reason for the DOG at all, unless the broadcasters are worried about it being recorded & then re-transmitted in outer mongolia smiley - smiley without the pirate, paying for the "Rights"

    That was a reason that was denied when I put it to a broadcaster sometime ago, so perhaps it is a bit like smoking - a silly habit that should be cured....?

    Report message12

  • Message 5113

    , in reply to message 5112.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    I'm not taking a shot at TCR, but he is THE type of viewer that networks pray for.

    * He believes that background music is a good thing and people who complain about it should just deal with it or watch something else.

    * Despite admitting he hates DOGs he agrees with the network double-talk that they are there for "the benefit of the viewer who might not know what channel they are watching."

    * He supports the use of End Credit Promos that talk over, speed up and shrink down the end credits of the programme/film you have just watched to shout at you about someone other programme. He agrees with the network double-talk that these are more useful and beneficial to the viewer than letting the credits and music roll unobstructed.

    If there were ever boardroom meetings with TV execs and anyone ever said "Do you think viewers really buy this double-talk we put out about DOGs and End Credit Promos being beneficial to the viewer? Rather than just obtrusive marketing? Someone could say "Look at this guy, he has been writing paragraphs about it for years in support of us."

    And no TCR I dont need to to explain point by point why you support these things. We know why you support these things. And the networks love you for it.

    Report message13

  • Message 5114

    , in reply to message 5113.

    Posted by Joe Black (U10382673) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    I'm not taking a shot at TCR, but he is THE type of viewer that networks pray for.

    * He believes that background music is a good thing and people who complain about it should just deal with it or watch something else.

    * Despite admitting he hates DOGs he agrees with the network double-talk that they are there for "the benefit of the viewer who might not know what channel they are watching."

    * He supports the use of End Credit Promos that talk over, speed up and shrink down the end credits of the programme/film you have just watched to shout at you about someone other programme. He agrees with the network double-talk that these are more useful and beneficial to the viewer than letting the credits and music roll unobstructed.

    If there were ever boardroom meetings with TV execs and anyone ever said "Do you think viewers really buy this double-talk we put out about DOGs and End Credit Promos being beneficial to the viewer? Rather than just obtrusive marketing? Someone could say "Look at this guy, he has been writing paragraphs about it for years in support of us."

    And no TCR I dont need to to explain point by point why you support these things. We know why you support these things. And the networks love you for it. 
    Well said GZ - I would go further - I don't think the program makers have much of a clue of how to create decent Drama, scifi & comedy any more, - but just in case if the poor viewer has managed to watch something through - he has to tolerate all the stuff you describe.
    I did watch the BBC Triffids on Sunday night, & what a change for the better over the current garbage that was - they even managed NOT to yak over the closing credits - BUT the DOG was there,sadly.....WHY?
    Please,if ever BBC4, you get around to showing the ORIGINAL Survivors, not DOGs or Yaking please - the background music has already been taken care of in that series..... THERE IS NONE smiley - winkeye

    Report message14

  • Message 5115

    , in reply to message 5111.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    if you are "channel hopping" and come across an interesting programme and want to watch the next episode you do need to know where to find it again.
     


    We've had this discussion before TomcatRed, but it's impossible to tune into any channel without a banner coming up on the screen telling you which channel you have chosen and its number. This applies whether you scroll down the listings or enter a number into the remote. 
    Yes indeed, and that is one of the "MANY better ways of doing that than the DOG" that I spoke of.

    Having said that if you are "channel hopping" then you wouldn't really take any notice of the channel banner as you may well not be staying on that channel for many seconds (that is how "channel hopping works).

    If the programme does take your fancy and you stick with it then you need to know what channel it is that you stopped on, but simply pressing the "info" button (other options are available).

    I must say though that I don't "channel hop" very often at all, tending to watch the same programmes each day/week or use the EPG to search for other programmes that I do not know about.

    Report message15

  • Message 5116

    , in reply to message 5115.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    Having said that if you are "channel hopping" then you wouldn't really take any notice of the channel banner as you may well not be staying on that channel for many seconds (that is how "channel hopping works).
     


    I guess you and I channel hop differently TCR.

    When I channel hop it is specifically the channel banner I take notice of. I read what the programme is, when it began, when it ends.

    Many is a time when you are channel hopping that you come across a programme that is at an advert break.

    And its not easy to tell exactly what sort of programme it is by seeing a brief visual.

    You see a man and woman talking but that doesnt tell you what programme it is or what its about.

    So I read the channel banner which (in my case anyway) provides the name of the programme, the name of the channel, the start time, the end time, what year it was made, if it is a series - which series and which episode, a description, a critical rating (if its a film), an age rating and also a link to tell me the next time that particular programme is on again as well as an opportunity to set a pop up reminder.

    Report message16

  • Message 5117

    , in reply to message 5116.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    Having said that if you are "channel hopping" then you wouldn't really take any notice of the channel banner as you may well not be staying on that channel for many seconds (that is how "channel hopping works).
     


    I guess you and I channel hop differently TCR.

    When I channel hop it is specifically the channel banner I take notice of. I read what the programme is, when it began, when it ends.

    Many is a time when you are channel hopping that you come across a programme that is at an advert break.

    And its not easy to tell exactly what sort of programme it is by seeing a brief visual.

    You see a man and woman talking but that doesnt tell you what programme it is or what its about.

    So I read the channel banner which (in my case anyway) provides the name of the programme, the name of the channel, the start time, the end time, what year it was made, if it is a series - which series and which episode, a description, a critical rating (if its a film), an age rating and also a link to tell me the next time that particular programme is on again as well as an opportunity to set a pop up reminder. 
    Yes I will accept that point GZ but the brief programme synopsis is what I will look at rather than the actual channel number.

    Personally I can usually tell within a few second if a programme will be something that I will not like though.

    Report message17

  • Message 5118

    , in reply to message 5117.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    Like I said, you and I obviously channel hop differently.

    And I see NO practical use for DOGs beyond obtrusive marketing and branding by the network.

    I certainly dont see it as a "beneficial service" because I am too daft to be able to know what channel I am watching without it.

    Report message18

  • Message 5119

    , in reply to message 5118.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    I certainly don't see it as a "beneficial service" because I am too daft to be able to know what channel I am watching without it.  Neither do I as there are, as I have explained before "MANY better ways of knowing what channel you are watching".

    I detest DOG's and wish, with all my heart, that they would go forever but I do want quantify the statement that "it is programmes that people watch and not channels" by saying "yes but you do need to know where to find the next episode".

    Report message19

  • Message 5120

    , in reply to message 5119.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    but you do need to know where to find the next episode.
     


    Well if someone needs a DOG to do that, then they have real problems that a DOG wont solve.

    Report message20

  • Message 5121

    , in reply to message 5120.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    but you do need to know where to find the next episode.
     


    Well if someone needs a DOG to do that, then they have real problems that a DOG wont solve. 
    I agree that people don't need a DOG to find out what channel they are watching but I can't see how you can claim that they don't fulfill that need (one glance at it will tell you).



    Just to be clear about my form of channel hopping (if I ever do it) is to keep pressing the "up" button on the remote until a programme pops up that grabs my attention.

    I tend to do it more with the music channels, switching until a song that I like comes on.

    Report message21

  • Message 5122

    , in reply to message 5121.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    I can't see how you can claim that they don't fulfill that need (one glance at it will tell you
     


    One glance at it will tell you - but it stays on for the entire programme (except for during ad breaks. At that point you are on your own to figure out what channel you are watching).

    Well, one glance at the programme bar will tell you as well. And that goes away in a few seconds.

    But like I said TCR - you are the PERFECT viewer for networks.

    You hate DOGs yet you will still defend their usefulness. Networks love viewers like that.

    Report message22

  • Message 5123

    , in reply to message 5122.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    I can't see how you can claim that they don't fulfill that need (one glance at it will tell you
     


    One glance at it will tell you - but it stays on for the entire programme (except for during ad breaks. At that point you are on your own to figure out what channel you are watching).

    Well, one glance at the programme bar will tell you as well. And that goes away in a few seconds.

    But like I said TCR - you are the PERFECT viewer for networks.

    You hate DOGs yet you will still defend their usefulness. Networks love viewers like that. 
    One glance at it will tell you - but it stays on for the entire programme (except for during ad breaks. At that point you are on your own to figure out what channel you are watching).  EXACTLY and that is why I can't stand the bloody things.

    Well, one glance at the programme bar will tell you as well. And that goes away in a few seconds.  EXACTLY and that is why I wish DOGs would go forever.

    You hate DOGs yet you will still defend their usefulness.  Surely everyone can appreciate their usefulness to some viewers at some point, no matter how much they hate them.

    Report message23

  • Message 5124

    , in reply to message 5123.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    Surely everyone can appreciate their usefulness to some viewers at some point, no matter how much they hate them.
     


    Not me.

    Report message24

  • Message 5125

    , in reply to message 5124.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    Surely everyone can appreciate their usefulness to some viewers at some point, no matter how much they hate them.
     


    Not me. 
    In my book that makes you selfish and without empathy.

    Report message25

  • Message 5126

    , in reply to message 5125.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    I dont really care about your book.

    Report message26

  • Message 5127

    , in reply to message 5126.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    I dont really care about your book.  smiley - laugh "I rest my case m'lord"

    Report message27

  • Message 5128

    , in reply to message 5127.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    Yes TCR you were famous for your "empathy" to people who have their television viewing ruined by why they feel is obtrusive background music.

    You have spent years telling them that they are wrong, dont know how to concentrate, that its their fault, that they are selfish.

    Just like you are telling me that I am selfish and lack empathy because I find no usefulness in DOGs.

    But do continue on with your self satisfied sainthood.

    Report message28

  • Message 5129

    , in reply to message 5128.

    Posted by TomcatRed (U8418886) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    Just like you are telling me that I am selfish and lack empathy because I find no usefulness in DOGs.  I do wish you would READ what I post and think about the meaning of it.

    I did NOT say that you were selfish because you had no use for DOGs (I don't either) I said that you were selfish for not appreciating that OTHERS have a use for them, no matter how much you dislike them.

    As for BGM, I *DO* find it selfish of you (and your like) to want to change the way everybody's programmes are made so that they suit YOU better.

    Report message29

  • Message 5130

    , in reply to message 5129.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014

    Must be awfully lonely up on that pillar of po faced perfection TCR.

    Report message30

  • Message 5131

    , in reply to message 5129.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 25th November 2014


    I did NOT say that you were selfish because you had no use for DOGs (I don't either) I said that you were selfish for not appreciating that OTHERS have a use for them, no matter how much you dislike them.
     


    Sorry I am not perfect like you TCR.

    I dont sit there watching TV saying "I hate DOGs, but, I bet some one, some where, cant figure out which channel they are watching without them, so I guess its OK if they ruin my enjoyment of a programme so that is saves some other guy the terrible inconvenience of having to push a button on his remote to see what channel his TV is set to."

    You are right - how very SELFISH of me not to think of that other guy.

    I wonder if he thinks of me.

    Report message31

  • Message 5132

    , in reply to message 5129.

    Posted by Harvey Specter (U4307220) on Wednesday, 26th November 2014

    Just like you are telling me that I am selfish and lack empathy because I find no usefulness in DOGs.  I do wish you would READ what I post and think about the meaning of it.

    I did NOT say that you were selfish because you had no use for DOGs (I don't either) I said that you were selfish for not appreciating that OTHERS have a use for them, no matter how much you dislike them.

    As for BGM, I *DO* find it selfish of you (and your like) to want to change the way everybody's programmes are made so that they suit YOU better. 
    Seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Report message32

  • Message 5133

    , in reply to message 5132.

    Posted by Rocco Barbella (U14232775) on Sunday, 17th May 2015

    After seeing the trailers for 1864, broadcast yesterday evening, I was looking forward to this new series from the Danish Broadcasting Organisation. What put me off was that it was transmitted along with that annoying and distracting BBC4 white logo in the top left. They wouldn't do this with feature films, so why do it with quality drama with equally good production values and attention to period detail? This variation in policy between dramas and films quite baffles me.

    Report message33

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.