[jbarr]

I did a few "tests" this evening to see just how Show Extender works and how it affects recordings on adjacent time slots. Here's what I found. (ReplayGuys, can you substantiate this as it is not covered in the 3.0 manual...)


First, I set up a guaranteed single-show recording from 8:00 to 8:31 (extended one minute).


Next, I attempted to set up a guaranteed single-show recording of the show in the adjacent time slot on the same channel (8:30 to 9:00) and ir displayed a conflict message.


Next, I attempted to set up a guaranteed single-show recording of a show on a different channel at the adjacent time slot (8:30 to 9:00) and got the same conflict message.


Next, I set up a non-guaranteed recording for a show on the same channel in the adjacent time slot (8:30 to 9:00), and did not get the conflict message. My testing breaks down here in that I didn't actually wait to see if the non-guaranteed show would record, however, my speculation is that it wouldn't record given that the guaranteed single-show recording conflicted.


While I am admittedly disappointed that the conflict resolution for extended shows is not "smarter", I realize that this would, no doubt, have required significant new design and testing for which resources were unavailable for the v3.0 rollout.


The function intuitivly works as described, and it works well. The interface is so simple to use and the Channel Guide even adds red "underscores" at the end of the program block to indicate that the recording time has been extended in that diirection. Very cool. I used Show Extender to "tweak" a couple guaranteed recordings that I had set up.


It's a great addition to the system, and that said, I encourage ReplayTV to consider a "smarter" implementation in a future software upgrade.


------------------

-Jim


ReplayTV: The only way to watch Iron Chef!

 

[Xaa]

The Tivo Show Padding feature works about the same. Even if the adjacent show is on the same channel, a conflict arises and the second show is not recorded. I'd like to see it ignore the pad if the next show is on the same channel, or better yet, attach the padded amount to the end of one show and the beginning of the other.


I'm happy to have it, but I hope it grows into something more for both platforms. This is a good first step.


Xaa

 

[BBobley]

ReplayMike,


It seems to me that ReplayTV should embrace the following golden rule:

When in doubt, it is better to record than to not record.


You can always delete something you don't want to watch. But if you miss a show, you can't go back in time.


So, to sum up, if I have set up a guaranteed recording from 8:00 to 8:31 and I have a non-guaranteed recording from 8:30 to 9:00, the second recording should just pick up at 8:31 and start recording.


Here is a good example of why this is good: my wife has set up several Theme-based channels to search for her favorite movie titles and record them. It may take weeks or months until one of these movies comes on the air. So it might be a total surprise when ReplayTV finds one and suddenly starts recording. Now let's say it finds the movie at 8:30pm. But, unknowingly, we had set up something else to record from 8:00 to 8:35. Well, I'd hate to miss the whole movie just because I padded an extra 5 minutes to a prior show.


thanks,


Brett

 

[jbarr]

Quote:

Originally posted by JeepGeek: jbarr, I did a test just like yours and the second show indeed does not record. In this specific case I would like to see the second show start a minute late. To generalize it, if two shows overlap by any period, the one with the higher priority should win out during the overlap, but the lower-priority one should still record during the non-overlap. If the earlier show was non-guaranteed but the later one was guaranteed, each would be 30 minutes.

Mike, That's exactly what I would like to see when I say "smarter" padding. I know that opinions vary on this one, but mine is that I would rather miss the first minute or two of the adjacent show and see the rest than miss it entirely. The only time this may not be true is if the adjacent show is before the extended show (ie: you extended the second show to record 1 or two minutes earlier) on a different channel. The first show would have the last minute or two cut off, and if the show's ending is important, you're screwed. Of course, this really isn't any different from current VCR conflicts. While viewers aren't stupid (I believe that they will "get it" after one or two times of seeing how the extender affects recordings), the key is to effectivly explain to the user what is actially happening (in tht form of an on-screen message, etc.)

Quote:

The only exception I might consider making to this is themes. It might be reasonable to say that a theme should never record a partial show; this can be justified in reality because themes can match such a wide variety of programs that the chance of partial recordings (due to general overlaps, not show extender) is really high, but justified on paper because they are the very lowest priority. But on the other hand, customers might see this as very inconsistent behavior and WANT partial shows recorded in their themes, and we get into one of those tough design decisions. Making it an option adds complexity.

I would personally would go for the partial recording scheme. Programmatically, it seems intuitive that ReplayTV would "know" (based on the overlap) that the show is cut short (beginning and/or end) and could somehow flag that fact (added text message to display, icon, different color times, etc.) so that the viewer knows.

Quote:

This probably doesn't match with the algorithms the software is using already, but other than the theme issue I think it would satisfy all of us as to overlap resolution, so I think of it as my ideal.

I agree 100%!


------------------

-Jim


ReplayTV: The only way to watch Iron Chef!

 

[jbarr]

Oh, also related to this, I mentioned this in another thread, but since this seeme a better one, I would like to discuss negative padding.


I was actually surprised to see this not included, but I am definatly greatful for what we did get.


Maybe in a future release, ReplayTV could incorporate negative padding.


I see two points: [*]Reduce Conflicts

Negative padding would help eliminate some of the conflict issues discussed above. Of course, if you use the BBobley Rule, "When in doubt, it is better to record than to not record.", this becomes a non-issue.

[*]Partial Recordings

Negative padding could also be used as a method to record a portion of a show. For example, say you want to record the middle 10 minutes of a 1/2 hour show. Simply negativly pad the show on each end by 10 minutes, and you get the portion of the show you want. While Manual Record gives you the same basic function, negative padding would allow you to do this right from within the Channel Guide (or search screens, etc.)


------------------

-Jim


ReplayTV: The only way to watch Iron Chef!

 

[karog]

Quote:

Originally posted by ReplayMike: I'd be interested in hearing what you think would be "smarter" in the back-to-back case. We discussed many options, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

First, I completely agree with JeepGeek. IMHO, conflicts should result in a full recording of the higher priority show and partial recording of the lower priority show. And this should be true of all conflicts, not just padding conflicts, with perhaps the exception JeepGeek discussed for themes et al. Note I am making no claims on how feasible this is within the current architecture.


I have made this argument before and some vehemently disagree. On balance, I did not find their arguments persuasive but they were not entirely without merit either. This raised the dreaded "solution" of a user preference as to whether the user would want partial recordings or not. I am certain I would.


I would be very interested in hearing Replay's rationale for punting conflicting shows rather than recording partials. And understand, I am not asking about implementation issues but rather the strategic choice.


Wow, I started this message and then had to do something else so I missed several of the intervening messages. I agree with them all.


One more point on using negative padding to get part of a show. Say I hate Leno's monologues but I often like his musical guests. So I want a repeated recording of the last 10 minutes of Leno. Some say to use Manual Recording for this. But Manual Recording is relative to the clock whereas padding is relative to the show.


So if I use Manual Recording to record from 12:25 to 12:35 I'll often get what I want but miss it if Leno changes time slot. However, since padding is relative to the show, I could start + 50 and thus get the last 10 minutes of the show even when the show changes time slot. This is a big win.


And finally, I absolutely agree with the BBobley rule to err on the side of recordings that may be deleted rather than miss a show. I wrote the same thing several weeks ago.


karog


[This message has been edited by karog (edited 10-19-2000).]

 

[Ryan]

Has anyone else noticed that the program block in the Replay guide appears to be sized relative to the padding? I flipped through this morning and noticed that a 30 minute show padded 3 minutes at the end is slightly 'longer' in the guide than the ½ hour show above it. Cool.


------------------

Ryan

 

[TexasCap]

That rule couldn't be more right! Genius!


When in doubt, record. I don't see how that could ever be wrong. If a show starts recording 4 minutes late because of a pad, that's my fault. I'd much rather delete things I don't want than not get something I was expecting.

 

[JustDoug]


Quote:

Originally posted by karog: I would be very interested in hearing Replay's rationale for punting conflicting shows rather than recording partials. And understand, I am not asking about implementation issues but rather the strategic choice.

I know when I was there, a big issue I noticed users had, in general, was “Why didn’t this recording work?†Not just for padding issues, but for other things as well.


A recording-based notification system that could say “Hey! This recorded 1 minute late because of a guaranteed conflict†or “Hey! This show didn’t record at all because of a guaranteed conflict†would help users understand why this stuff happened.


In any case though, getting a recording with the first minute or two chopped off is not the right solution without any notification. It would be nice if non-guaranteed recordings would warn of conflicts during set-up, but still allow you to set up the recording.


At now it can finally be said: If you run into this situation you can use Manual Recording for the second show.

 

[karog]

JustDoug, thanks for responding.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustDoug: A recording-based notification system that could say “Hey! This recorded 1 minute late because of a guaranteed conflict†or “Hey! This show didn’t record at all because of a guaranteed conflict†would help users understand why this stuff happened.

That would be great. Maybe in some future version.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustDoug: In any case though, getting a recording with the first minute or two chopped off is not the right solution without any notification.

Wrong. It is better to miss a few minutes without notification rather than miss the entire recording without notification. Moreover, it is erroneous to assume that every conflict is one I do not understand. Many times I would knowingly set it up that way because the conflict is a scheduling reality and that is the best I could do; or would be if you didn't prevent it.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustDoug: It would be nice if non-guaranteed recordings would warn of conflicts during set-up, but still allow you to set up the recording.

It would be nice if you would be warned of all conflicts at setup and allowed to set them anyway and get partial recordings for the lower priority show.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustDoug: At now it can finally be said: If you run into this situation you can use Manual Recording for the second show.

As I said in my message above, Manual Recording (MR) is relative to the clock rather than the show. So MR can help for overlaps as long as shows don't move. But a better solution is negative padding which is relative to the show. See my prior message for an example.

 

[PRMan]

Now, I could see a limit on the automatic recording where once you get past say, 5 or 10 minutes past the beginning that you no longer need to record the show. Why? Because HALF a movie doesn't do me any good while a 5-minute late movie is still enjoyable (I'll just pretend I got stuck in the popcorn line). Plus Turner's scheduling would be a lot less annoying this way.


You could still record the end of Leno with negative padding.


But, suffice to say I would rather have half movies than none at all because of a 1-minute pad.

------------------

PRMan


[This message has been edited by PRMan (edited 10-19-2000).]

 

[JustDoug]

Quote:

Originally posted by karog: It is better to miss a few minutes without notification rather than miss the entire recording without notification.

I agree with you there, karog, but that doesn’t make it the right solution. The question is to go all the way, or half way.

Quote:

Moreover, it is erroneous to assume that every conflict is one I do not understand. Many times I would knowingly set it up that way because the conflict is a scheduling reality and that is the best I could do;

I agree. But again, there I think notification covers both the instances where you do set it up that way, and also when you don’t realize there’s a conflict.

Quote:

Manual Recording (MR) is relative to the clock rather than the show. So MR can help for overlaps as long as shows don't move. But a better solution is negative padding which is relative to the show.

Yeah, MR is simply a work around for this, it doesn't really solve the problem.





------------------

-JustDoug

 

[karog]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustDoug: But again, there I think notification covers both the instances where you do set it up that way, and also when you don’t realize there’s a conflict.

I guess I am not really sure what you mean by "covers." Notification is good in that it helps me understand why something does or does not happen. But it only affects what happens insofar as I see the notification and act on it before the issue is moot. I want the notification so that I may have the opportunity to change what will otherwise happen. But I also want an automated machine to do the best thing for me in the case where I do nothing either by choice or because I do not see the news in time.


That best as I see it is to record as much of what I ask for as possible and if something gets recorded that I don't want, I'll delete it. Having even a partial recording gives me an option. The machine choosing not to record leaves me no choice.


Is recording partials without notification the perfect choice? No. But it is a better choice than recording nothing without notification. I would opt for the better choice rather than the lesser choice.


Another issue is that sometimes, things you want simply overlap and you want both nonetheless. Notification will tell you what you already know but doesn't help you get what you want. I've already mentioned several times about a movie I wanted that ended at 10:05 and another show I wanted that started at 10:00. Missing the first 5 minutes of the second show did not bother me. But I missed the entire show because Replay would not record it. Notification was irrelevant.


Finally, even better than getting notified that I just set up a recording conflict is to see information before I do a new set up that a conflict will arise, a before the fact solution rather than an after the fact. If the Channel Guide had some coloring in the time bar that indicated scheduled shows, I could immediately see that I was about to create a conflict before I did it.


[This message has been edited by karog (edited 10-19-2000).]

 

[ILoveMyTiVo]

The fact that both TiVo and Replay, with all their usability people and extended thinking, independently decided to implement padding in the same way (hard pad, no partial recordings, no negative) is very interesting. This alone should might convince me that the alternatives that others seem to think are obviously better have serious flaws. I would be really interested in hearing (from both companies - but since ReplayMike asked about what we thought here) which parts were decided because of time to implement/test and which were decided to be the better way. But since features not implemented for time may make it into a future version, I doubt either company will describe their more difficult, but "smarter" alternatives.


Despite what a few other people said here, in many cases, particularly movies, I don't want the partial recording, especially if it is not immediately obvious it is a partial recording. I don't think you can say it is always better to record than not record because that recording might prevent a future recording because there was not enough space. Or it might delete a full recording of something old that I still want to see. Also, if the movie is going to be on again soon, I would much rather get the full version later. IMHO, if a partial show is going to be recorded, I need to be warned in advance.


The opposite possibility of partial recordings is to drop the padding when there is a conflict. But since the user decided to pad it, they must want the padding. So this might only be useful if you could specify on a show basis if the padding could be dropped or not during conflict.


The one clear advantage I could see being added is what Xaa mentioned where the conflicting show is on the same channel if it could somehow copy the padding to both recordings. But given the implementation of recordings, this could be really hard or impossible (in real time at least).

 

[TimSH]

Well, I guess I'll go ahead and throw my opinion in here for what it's worth...


We really need to keep in mind what the (eventual) target market is for a device like the Replay.


I'm on the edge of finally convincing my mother to buy one so she can a) do away with separate remotes for the satellite box, the cable box, and the TV, and b) successful record something that's on when she's not home (which, at the moment, requires a 20 minute telephone call to yours truly so I can explain yet again how to program the vcr, set the switch box to the proper input source and select the channel on the satellite or cable box).


For people like her the Replay is perfect. Assuming she gets one, I suspect she would never dream of messing with padding, and for my own sanity, I'd prefer that she didn't.


We can discuss the merits of negative padding and partial recordings till the cows come home, but we're much more technical than the average user is going to be.


Personally, the only instance in which I can forsee myself using padding is for things that air late at night/early morning, which quite often seems to be off of the scheduled time by 5 or 10 minutes. Using padding for anything running during prime time brings up too many possibilities for unanticipated conflicts. Granted, the option to record a partial program whenever possible would take care of a lot of this, but how far do you push it? The only reasonable way to deal with decisions as to what programs get priority as far as full vs. partial recordings would be a system of user selectable recording priorities (a, b, c, where a always takes precedence over b which always takes precedence over c, etc.). This is a good idea, and I personally think that it should be implemented sooner or later for those of us who would use it, but... (you knew there was a but) I think Replay should concentrate on making this a mainstream consumer product first.


The simpler it is, the more people who are likely to purchase one, the more people who purchase one, the better the stock will do (when Replay finally goes public) and the more money I'll make when I invest in it (which I fully intend to do!)


Replay has done a phenomenal job so far in my opinion, they've listened to people on this board, and I imagine they get a fair amount of input from customers who are not as technical and end up calling support when they are confused or need help.


------------------

"The two most abundant substances in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity. Not necessarily in that order"

 

[Reden]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned feelings similar to my own on the way padding was implemented. (maybe I'm in the minority?)


I was disappointed in the way conflict resolution was handled with Show Extender. As implemented, it makes an already bad conflict resolution situation worse.


I think the Extender times should only take effect if it does not conflict with a show at the same or higher priority. The main show should record, just not the extension time.


I'm currently neutral on the partial show record after a conflict (for a lower priority show anyway). That's the way a VCR would work.


I expected to set my default record options for +- 2 minutes to allow for network time mismatches when nothing else was happening. Obviously I can't do that now, because only every other show would record.


Extender can also cause other problems. I was recording a 7:00 - 7:31 extended show. I realized I wanted to record a 7:30 show. I couldn't do it. It let me remove the extended tie on the recording show, but it still wouldn't let me record the 7:30 show. I guess it locked the time at the start of the record. I had to program the VCR to catch it.


I can only think of a few times I would ever use extender as implemented. It's a shame.. I was planning on defaulting it.

 

[karog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TimSH: We really need to keep in mind what the (eventual) target market is for a device like the Replay.

I agree. But be careful what conclusion you draw from this observation.


I believe in the maxim: Easy things should be easy and hard things should be possible. Replay's use of the More Options (or whatever it is called - I don't have 3.0) to gain access to the advanced recording features hides them from the uninitiated but provides them for the power users. This is good. I believe if done right you can satisfy both the power user and the neophyte. And it is word of mouth that sells these things (eg you and your mother) and the happier the early adopters are, the more chance of success.


And many things that people perceive as complicated can be made easy if designed well. Indeed, that is one of the signatures of great design.


Sometimes things appear complicated when they are not inherently so because they don't fit in well to the existing architecture. But great architectures extend gracefully. For example, the sign of a great programming language is not that it can do well only the things that it was designed to do but also that it can do well the things that were never considered.


As to your remarks on a larger set of priorities (a, b, c, ... or 0-9), I completely agree and I have written at length about this several times on other threads in this forum. I won't repeat myself yet again but for me it couldn't come to soon. And these priorities can be used not only for resolving conflicts but also for reclaiming space when space is lacking.


As to ILoveMyTivo's comments that say both companies did padding the same way so it must be correct, trust them - well, we don't know what the reasons were. I am always happy to be convinced by a compelling argument but not by fiat.


On some thread ReplayMike said that negative padding had lots of thorny problems. His one example was that Replay has a built in assumption that a start time always precedes an end time and they couldn't handle a user violating that. To me, that is simple. When scheduling, simply test for this and do nothing. Shows already do not get recorded for as little as a 1 minute overlap with another without notification. I don't find it worse to not get a recording when I have specified a start time that follows the end time and not get notified.


In any case, I love hard disk recording and Replay, though not the way I would design it, is better IMHO than all the alternatives I have considered. That I make lots of suggestions about how I would like things is not meant to trash anyone but rather to provoke discussion that may help things get better and better.


[This message has been edited by karog (edited 10-21-2000).]

 

[karog]

Quote:

Originally posted by Reden: Extender can also cause other problems. I was recording a 7:00 - 7:31 extended show. I realized I wanted to record a 7:30 show. I couldn't do it. It let me remove the extended tie on the recording show, but it still wouldn't let me record the 7:30 show. I guess it locked the time at the start of the record. I had to program the VCR to catch it.

Note that you could have used Manual Record to get the second show from 7:31 to whenever.

 

[karog]

Quote:

Originally posted by APeel: For example, if Show A is set for 8-8:31 (i.e. extend show) and Show B (no pad) is set for 8:30-9, then always record Show A for 31 minutes, then start recording Show B late. No matter what the piorities of the two shows are.

If show A is more important to you then why didn't you set it with the higher priority. The whole point of a priority scheme is to tell the machine what you want most. Having complicated exceptions ruins such things. Since you can obtain what you want by setting your priority right, why screw that up?

 

[Reden]

Quote:

Originally posted by karog: If show A is more important to you then why didn't you set it with the higher priority.

I think it was just an example. With only 2 priorities, we really don't have the granularity needed to set the priorities properly.


Extend show has made conflict resolution a bigger problem. I really wish it was addressed in 3.0 ( or 2.0 for that matter. )