thelinuxlink.net

After listening to the show I had some thoughts on the survey so I figured I would throw them out there.

It sounded like overall the survey yielded some good data and solidified some positions. For instance the length of the show and the audio format of the show. For those issues I think the data was clear and helpful.

For issues about the content of the show I think it's all in the interpretation. For instance the results of what you like best about the show. If I recall correctly tech related talk was first and the interviews were second.

This is where the interpretation comes in. Does this indicate that people want a couple of shows per month of just tech related talk? Does it mean they want less interviews?

As someone who voted for tech related talk let me state my rationale. As a part of the show I really like the interviews. Of course maybe some interviews I don't like that much and some I really really like alot but I like that each show has one. In the past few months many of the shows consisted of just the interview and very little else. So when it came time to vote for my favorite part of the show I picked the tech related talk as a way to encourage more of it. My intent was to encourage more of the talk in addition to the interviews not at the expense of the interviews. My thought was the interview lasts 1 -1.5 hours and the rest would be tech related talk. I guess what I'm saying is that I like the format and content of the show as it is and my answers were more to encourage tweaks as opposed to fundamental changes.

I'm not trying to say that I hate shows without interviews. I'm not trying to say that scheduling a show without an interview once in a while is bad. I'm just saying that my votes were not intended to help prompt major changes in the format of the show.

Ok I will quit rambling.

The interviews are great when they're good and horrible when they're bad.

Usually even when the guest is a dud, the interview can still be interesting. When everything is working, it doesn't really matter what's being discussed.

When the interviewee spends the whole interview asking for the question to be repeated or there's so much lag that everybody talks over each other, it can be hard to listen.

It's hard to say that the interviews are the best part about the show because there's a lot of variability.

Gomer_X wrote:The interviews are great when they're good and horrible when they're bad.

Usually even when the guest is a dud, the interview can still be interesting. When everything is working, it doesn't really matter what's being discussed.

When the interviewee spends the whole interview asking for the question to be repeated or there's so much lag that everybody talks over each other, it can be hard to listen.

It's hard to say that the interviews are the best part about the show because there's a lot of variability.

I agree.

I guess my hope was that this thread would spark some discussion that may clarify and help interpret the survey results. I decided to post it after looking at the calendar and seeing that a couple of shows per month were slated for no interviews. If that really is what the majority wants I have no problem with it...I just know that's not what I intended with my votes and wanted to see what others intended.

I personally think , the questionnaire was not out long enough.
Not everyone listens to the pre-recorded show before the next show or even the same month.

To be a bit more scientific , the questionnaire should of been around for 3-4 months before gathering the answers.

The gaps in interviews might be because there are less people that the four guys want to interview or the interviewees are so busy.