Question Regarding Seasons for Youtube Shows

Discuss ongoing matters concerning the application of site policies, or the policies themselves, here.
Forum rules
This sub-forum is for the discussion of site policy and the handling thereof ONLY.
Please direct all change requests to the main forum.
Post Reply
RazzyKitty
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 3:04 pm

Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:56 pm

There's a show on Youtube called Let's Talk About That, which is a "show about the show" for Good Mythical Morning. It started during season 14 of GMM.

GMM itself is broken up into season playlists, as can be seen here, on the playlist page for season 15.

LTAT is not broken up like this, as all the episodes are listed on a single playlist, as can be seen here.

That said, each episode of LTAT corresponds to a specific week of episodes of GMM.

Should LTAT be broken up into seasons to match the weeks of GMM? ie, S1 for LTAT = S14 for GMM, S2 for LTAT = S15 for GMM, S3 for LTAT = S16 of GMM

Or should LTAT be just one season, as it isn't set as seasons on Youtube?
eherberg
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:56 pm

Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:39 pm

I know you worked with @rhondadehaini and @Equinox on an earlier question about this web series - so perhaps one of them is more familiar with the content. I am not familiar with this web series outside of your descriptions in this and the previous post.

However, my opinion is that we should consider how users (like yourself) are best served by the data.

In most instances where there aren't clear-cut 'seasons' - the tendency is to use year-based 'seasons' for those YouTube channels without dedicated seasons.

However - in this case I wonder if that best serves a user's interests. We don't have a hard-and-fast rule for this, but I would suspect that users who are watching content that is discussing another YouTube channel's content would likely find it easier to reference between the two by following a season numbering that mirrors GMM. Of course - if they talk about other YouTube content, such a scheme makes less sense and a year-based numbering would be a better option.

But if GMM is the focus of LTAT, usefulness for the user is better served by matching seasons of GMM.

I can't imagine there is much of a database library offline for LTAT and would further suspect that people using the entries for LTAT are using them more for scheduling purposes and not media library purposes. As you are more familiar with this program, would you agree that is a fair assessment? Is that your primary use of the LTAT entries (using TV Time, for example, for managing 'watched' status) as opposed to media library archival?

If media library archival was the primary purpose, we would need to be mindful of the number of entries affected so as we don't break existing libraries. If scheduling is the purpose, there is a little more leeway in our considerations for how users would be best served.

As somebody who uses this data, do you agree with the assessment that you would be better served with a numbering that matches what I presume you also follow in GMM?
RazzyKitty
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 3:04 pm

Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:18 pm

However - in this case I wonder if that best serves a user's interests. We don't have a hard-and-fast rule for this, but I would suspect that users who are watching content that is discussing another YouTube channel's content would likely find it easier to reference between the two by following a season numbering that mirrors GMM. Of course - if they talk about other YouTube content, such a scheme makes less sense and a year-based numbering would be a better option.

But if GMM is the focus of LTAT, usefulness for the user is better served by matching seasons of GMM.
GMM is the focus of LTAT. Some of the weekly episodes do talk about stuff that happened in the previous week of GMM as well. The closest analog I can think about would be how the show The Talking Dead talks about that weeks episode of The Walking Dead.
I can't imagine there is much of a database library offline for LTAT and would further suspect that people using the entries for LTAT are using them more for scheduling purposes and not media library purposes. As you are more familiar with this program, would you agree that is a fair assessment? Is that your primary use of the LTAT entries (using TV Time, for example, for managing 'watched' status) as opposed to media library archival?
I personally would be using the data for media library archival, though I might be the only person who might be. The episode data seems to be added by a couple people, but I don't know if they're doing it for scheduling or archival. I'd probably guess scheduling, because they've been adding the episode dates weekly for GMM and in advance for LTAT.
As somebody who uses this data, do you agree with the assessment that you would be better served with a numbering that matches what I presume you also follow in GMM?
I would be better served with it broken up into seasons to align with the seaason of GMM, as that would help to align the episodes for playlist creation and such.
eherberg
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:56 pm

Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:34 am

Unless somebody else has any objections - I see no problem with doing this for user usefulness. As you are likely a subset using it for media library purposes - you would be likely the best source for pain-point in media library renumbering. If not too great a disruption, I don't see a problem with proceeding as you described.

Be warned, however, that you'll need to keep a watch on the entries. Since this is technically a gray area, I wouldn't be surprised to see the listings change. Hopefully, the users who care about this program will find it a better solution to match up with GMM and there will be minimal disruptions. If it does get changed, we can deal with it in the future.
RazzyKitty
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 3:04 pm

Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:41 am

It shouldn't be too much of a disruption. There's only about 40 episodes so far, and the order itself isn't changing.

Alright. I'll work on creating the seasons, and will refer to this thread when I make a series change request to remove the already added episodes from season 1 once I'm done, unless there's a way to move the already created episodes?

Episodes 19 to 37 would be moved to Season 2,and episodes 38 to 40 would be moved to Season 3.
eherberg
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:56 pm

Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:24 pm

I've moved the episodes as you've listed them. The episodes still need to be renumbered, however. Unfortunately, there's no fancy Mod tool that makes that go any faster. It would be the same as you would do them. Perhaps during the football game later this evening, I'll plink away at it. Of course -- being unlocked -- anytime you're free to renumber the episodes feel free to jump in. :-)
eherberg
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:56 pm

Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:08 pm

Lightning delay in the game gave me some free time (plus after listening to Joe Buck for a while, I started wishing *I* could be hit by lightning). Give it a look-over and make sure it passes the eye-test.
RazzyKitty
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 3:04 pm

Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:54 pm

Everything looks good! If I notice any issues later I'll look at them. I might be making a Series Change request in the future because some of those episode thumbnails are pixely and low quality. Thank you so much for your help and input. :)
Post Reply
https://forums.thetvdb.com/viewtopic.php?p=158621
forums.thetvdb.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-43
56440
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VBV4WLFLGWREOZ45Z7ZQX3CUJHZAPZSP
<urn:uuid:5767ad06-8690-4dad-9a73-5c5d2dd64846>
2019-10-18T11:57:38Z
104.16.229.14
text/html
sha1:3B3Y7HG7NLUFHWE5UIMZIN2B4RDTBVCN
<urn:uuid:709016ee-9699-4358-a314-a3d10575f2f5>
https://forums.thetvdb.com/viewtopic.php?p=158621
response
<urn:uuid:8fba3b00-1757-4965-8f29-75bf5eecaf47>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-144.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/