Author: tonyandrewmeyer

dev, education, dad

Tekzilla

As suggested by Veronica Belmont herself, I checked out Tekzilla over the last week.  In short: I’ve unsubscribed to the combined feed, but subscribed to the daily tips.

The show seems a lot like something you’d see on TV (or you would if NZ TV had any tech shows).  I don’t enjoy watching those, so it’s not that surprising that I don’t like this (actually, I don’t think I watch any non-fiction on TV at all).  The biggest problem probably is that it seems like it’s aimed at people reasonably unfamiliar with technology.  So overall, if you do like watching TV tech shows, and you’re not all that tech-savvy, I think this would be a good show to watch.

Problems that I had with it:

  • It’s way, way, too long.  It’s two to three times the length of CommandN, which I find too long.  I just don’t have that much eye-time available.
  • I don’t know if it’s a deliberate style choice, or poor editing, or lack of practice, or something else, but seeing Patrick/Veronica change from looking at one camera to another is really irritating.  I would much prefer either a single angle or an edit that changed angle but always had the host looking in the right direction.
  • Q&A style shows don’t interest me much, and it does seem to mostly be Q&A (I did only watch five of the full shows).
  • The quality of the shows on the iTunes feed is terrible.  I’ve subscribed to the HD feed for the short shows, and that’s fine.  I can see that there would be reasons to make the default a low-quality one, but it does give a bad impression first up (especially if you don’t realise that there are other options).
  • As above, the expected audience seems to be people much less familiar with how technology works than I am.  Obviously this isn’t a problem with the show, it’s just a poor match for me.
  • I don’t mind commercials, but the ones they have seem extremely US-centric (do people in the US really not wear seatbelts?  We learnt to “make it click” like 20 years ago!), which is annoying.

That said, I think the hosts are both good (and I do think Veronica is better here than on Mahalo Daily, although I think she’s better still when she guests on TWiT), and the intro & outro are good also (catchy music, short, reasonable graphics).  The daily tips are also pretty good – most are things I already know or aren’t interested in, but they are short enough and well-done enough that I’ll watch 20 of them to get a single useful tip.

There is such a thing as “polite”

In my post rating the potential Mahalo Daily co-hosts, Veronica Belmont herself (presumably!) had this to say:

But on another note, geez… your comments are pretty jerky. These women are trying really hard to make a great show, cut them a little slack. It’s not the easiest thing in the world.

I couldn’t fit a reply nicely in a comment (as always, I am too verbose), and I figured that this was worth a separate post, since it applies to other things I write (and it’s not often that a tiny personal blog like this gets a comment from a celebrity – although if Sarah does win, then I guess it was four times today!).

Before I get to reviewing my own comments (blogging’s highest form, I suppose), comments in general: I don’t feel that it is my place to cut them any slack.  Calacanis asked for ratings with considered thoughts, and that’s what this was.  I have no doubt that it’s a challenging task (if it wasn’t, then they shouldn’t bother), nor that they are all making their best attempt, and I didn’t say either of those things.

When I teach, I give my students honest feedback about what they have done poorly, and what they have done well.  If I sugar-coated my responses (or cut them any slack), then I would be doing them a disfavour, as well as anyone that uses their eventual qualifications (e.g. employers).  It can be abrasive, but it also spurs development and improvement (and in general (but with exceptions) students rate my teaching highly, at least as far as I know).  I expect this feedback from my students, also: either the comments are valid and I endeavour to make changes so that future students benefit from my enhanced skills, or they’re not valid and I don’t worry about them.  I expect, give, and receive, this feedback in other work I do as well.

In the “real world”, people often consider me blunt, abrasive, or rude.  Some people get to know me, and then they realise that, yes, I am (well, not rude).  But it’s never malicious, unconsidered, or untruthful, and reciprocation is always welcome.  I have friends (and a wife of nearly five years), even given this personality trait.

My assumption (could be wrong, of course) is that the comment mostly applies to my comment about Sarah (personally, I think the comments about CommandN and Veronica were the least fair, since I didn’t elaborate on either).  My comments on Nadine, Leah, and Andrea’s episodes were nearly all positive, and the negative was something minor that could be worked on.

My criticism of Michelle – the hair flick is constructive criticism (it should go), the laugh perhaps unfair (but it bothered me personally, and this was a personal response), and I think my feeling about the enthusiasm has the same source as comments from other people about “professionalism”.  I didn’t say that it was fake (that would have been unfair), but that it came across that way.  My guess (personal response, remember) is that she could be more natural and it would be a better show, or that she’s just suited better elsewhere.

My criticism of Kristina echoes that of nearly everyone, including the official judges.  Considering that I’d (probably) watch her in some other show, I can’t see this as “jerky”.

So that leaves Sarah:

Easily the worst.  The comments talk a lot about “energy” (meaningless drivel, really).  There are three problems: (1) the interviewing skills are terrible (evident in the over-editing, if nowhere else), (2) the facial expressions are off-putting, and (3) frankly, she just isn’t ‘hot’ enough – realistically, the show needs an extremely attractive host (especially if co-hosting with Lon) and while Sarah is pretty, she’s not that hot.  Picking a “suck-up” topic doesn’t help.

Personally, the “energy” comments seem more “jerky” to me, since they’re too vague to be of use.  I could have elaborated on the interviewing skills, I suppose, but I already commented on her individual episode (which it’s logical to assume she read).  If I had said her face was off-putting, then that would have been “jerky”, but “facial expressions” is not; to me personally the expressions distracted from the content.

Beauty, as the cliché goes, is in the eye of the beholder.  This is my personal blog, so thankfully I don’t have to prefix IMO to everything I write.  However, IMO Sarah is pretty, but not hot.  Clearly many people disagree with that (possibly including some/all of the official judges).  Commenting on people’s attractiveness is often considered impolite (ironically, more so when the commentee may know of it), but realistically, it’s a huge factor here (and the judges opened the door on such comments in the earlier episodes).  To throw in another cliché, beauty is only skin deep: while I don’t find Sarah attractive, that says nothing about how I find her as a person (again, IMO, but vastly more important).

The topic really did seem chosen to insincerely ingratiate herself with the audience.  Reading her personal blog entry, which  I did after writing my post, it seems a little less so (but the audience can’t be expected to follow her elsewhere).  I think it was a poor choice in that regard.

Was I impolite?  Well, politeness is a cultural thing – I don’t feel I was, but perhaps in the Mahalo Vlog Idol culture, maybe I needed a “sorry Sarah” at the end to make it polite.  I guess the subtitle of this post is then, “but it’s not me”.  Personally, I would consider myself polite, even though (perhaps especially because) I am directly honest.

Bottom-line: if I offended Sarah (or Veronica, or Amber, or whoever is responsible for the quality (or lack thereof) of YouTube videos), then I apologise: such was not my intent.  However, I believe that my comments were appropriate, and not inherently offensive, demeaning, or “jerky”, and accurate (as a reflection on my personal opinion).

Footnote: the title of the post references a tweet from Veronica, which is quite possibly completely unrelated to this, but seemed appropriate.

Mahalo Vlog Idol

Update: There’s now a proper place to vast a real (presumably non-binding) vote.  Go to it!

I listen to a lot of different podcasts, but watch very few (I have a lot of ear-time free, but not much eye-time).

  • Apple’s Quick Tip of the Week is extremely short and although I know the majority of the tips already, I can spare a minute to possibly learn something new (I don’t know why they target it at business users).
  • I have watched CommandN much longer than any other.  It borders on being too long for my taste, and is often more mediocre than great, but it’s good enough to continue with for now (and the last couple of episodes have had much better video quality).  I would drop this first.
  • I love Geekbrief.TV.  Great host, great length, good content.  I would drop this last.
  • MacBreak (video): The video quality is great, but the intros are really far too long.  There needs to be more content than intro+outro!  The really short shows that cover events are often the best.  Many of the hosts are not that great – sticking with Alex and a couple of others would work fine.
  • Mahalo Daily: I’ve never really understood the attraction people have for Veronica Belmont.  Maybe you have to be familiar with her from previous work (which I’m not) or something.  The first 100 shows were a mixed bag – some good, some awful – but they were at least the right length and well produced.

The astonishing thing about Mahalo Daily is that their search for a new (co)host has produced more compelling viewing than the show itself previously was.  I’m not a fan of [Country] Idol, The Bachelor, etc, but Mahalo Vlog Idol (not a great name) has been funny, entertaining, and even informative.  I don’t care how long they stretch it out for (and it has been a while already!) – it’s good watching.

One of the baffling things about the contest has been the judges’ picks – my suspicion is that there are elements of the contestants that don’t show up well on camera, and the judges have so far been judging more on the live aspects of the contestants than solely watching what we the audience see.  A couple of people got through that really just seemed very low quality.

The first round ([Country] Idol style), and second round (“The Batchelon”) were solely judged (as far as we know) by Jason, Alex, and Loren (who is he?).  For the third round, where each contestant created their own Mahalo Daily episode, the audience has been asked to offer their opinion about how everyone did (although this clearly won’t be binding).  Perhaps with the last round, there will be real voting?

FWIW, my opinions are (ranked best to worse – and you should subscribe to the show, rather than watch these crap Youtube quality versions):

Nadine would be a perfect choice for next host.  She has a great look, distinct from Veronica, but still in the “Mahalo” style.  She’s exceptionally attractive, and produced a great episode.  Like Leah, there’s a variety of people interviewed, which helps make a more interesting episode, and there are really good popups.  There were a couple of weak spots in the middle, but they didn’t detract from the episode, and generally the interviewing was good.  She feels like she brings in a style already; more so than the others.

I vacillated between Leah and Nadine as #1 – they’re really equally as good.  All I could come up with as a deciding factor was that Nadine is slightly ‘hotter’ than Leah (although both easily ‘hot’ enough).  The episode felt a little ‘infomercialish’, but was generally good.  Well produced, with good popups, but the voice-over felt stilted and ‘read’, rather than natural.

I think the next round should have three contestants, and so Andrea should go through.  I really liked this, and she’s a good host, but the environment made it hard to really tell what she would be like in other sorts of episodes.  A brave topic choice, and she’s certainly ‘hot’ enough to be the host (the criteria being ‘hotter than Veronica’, I guess!).  Great rapport with the interviewee, good ‘popups’, but the questions weren’t that interesting.  I’d definitely continue to watch daily with Andrea as host.

I wouldn’t be disappointed if Michelle got through to the next round, but I do think her episode wasn’t quite as good as those above.  The hair-flick is annoying, the laugh is a little annoying, and the enthusiasm seemed almost fake.  On the other hand, it was very well produced.

I would like to like Kristina more – there’s something appealing about her – but I just can’t rank this higher.  An interesting topic, and interesting content, but the episode just didn’t ‘pop’.  Her interviewing skills aren’t really up to scratch.  I’d consider watching her in some other show, but she doesn’t fit Mahalo Daily, IMO.

Easily the worst.  The comments talk a lot about “energy” (meaningless drivel, really).  There are three problems: (1) the interviewing skills are terrible (evident in the over-editing, if nowhere else), (2) the facial expressions are off-putting, and (3) frankly, she just isn’t ‘hot’ enough – realistically, the show needs an extremely attractive host (especially if co-hosting with Lon) and while Sarah is pretty, she’s not that hot.  Picking a “suck-up” topic doesn’t help.

Massey Weirdness

While looking through links for my previous post, I found this one – which caught my eye in particular because it has my old postal address (also weird – Google maps used to show the house, but now I can’t see it, even though the neighbours are there, and so is the lake.  Has the imagery got older?!). I’m not sure why I’m listed here (pretty much everything else seems to be a business, although I didn’t look thoroughly) – maybe from when I was providing theatrical services to Massey, although I did that under “Underground Services” (the theatre was named the Underground Theatre).

The information at the top seems to always be about veterinary products, but maybe that has something to do with the flashing (good grief!) “test site” at the top of the page.  I would think that Massey would have the skills available, somewhere, to make test sites (and, really, the purchasing system in general) hidden from the public and from Google.

Collective Knowledge

Dad asked me today who my teachers were at Pukepoto Primary School, which I could partially answer, with help (I think: Mrs Travers in J1 and J2, Mr Jones in Standard 1, Mrs Bellingham in Standard 2, and Mr Wilkins in Standard 3 and 4, and apparently someone else as a new-entrant).

This is an example of knowledge that Google simply can’t give you, of course.  Except now it can – or at least will be able to when this page is indexed.  When I remember, I’ll try this query again (161 hits at the moment, none of them with the required information, although in eight of the pages the “Tony Meyer” is me) and see if it works.

We wondered if Wikipedia would have an entry for Pukepoto School, and while it doesn’t, there is a mention in the entry on Pukepoto (a stub – if I had more knowledge I’d expand it, but I don’t really know what substance I could add).

New look

Since I’m updating the badtomatoes.org look at the moment (it should appear in a few days), I figured I might as well do this one too.  Since I’m still using the wordpress.com hosting my choices are much more limited here (and I don’t really want to put in a lot of effort editing the theme either), but I quite like this look.  If I ever get around to moving this site to a proper WordPress install on tangomu.com then I’ll probably change it again.

For some reason, badtomatoes.org is going from a fairly dark black and white theme to something quite colourful, and this site has gone from a light somewhat colourful theme to a dark black and white theme.  I’m not sure what that signifies!

Massey University: out of touch with the real world

A policy on passwords like the one that Massey University has is worse than no policy at all.  Of course, when I was there, they forced students to have a four-digit number as their password, despite the fact that doing so violated their own policy, so I guess it’s expected that this will be ignored. Particularly bad parts: passwords should

Contain both upper and lower case characters [and] at least one digit and one punctuation character. 

Case sensitivity is a worthy goal, and it does increase the complexity of passwords considerably.  However, it’s also the easiest pitfall for inexperienced users, which the University is full of.  Requiring both a digit and a punctuation character is completely overboard.

Passwords must be changed from their initial default value the first time a new user logs in, and at least every six months thereafter.  

I understand why institutions require this, but I don’t agree with the reasoning.  In practice, what happens is that people rotate between passwords, or if that isn’t possible, they rotate between variants of the same password, which adds very little in security).

Passwords, or even the format of passwords, should not be shared with anyone 

Passwords, sure.  But the format!  I can’t recommend how someone might come up with a good password (as the policy itself does)?!?

The “Remember Password” feature of applications (e.g. Outlook) should not be used. 

Just plain stupid.  There are so many reasons this is stupid that it’s not even worth going into them.To be fair, Massey University undoubtably isn’t the only place (probably not even the only New Zealand university) to have a policy written by people completely out of touch with the real world, but that doesn’t make it any less embarrassing to be an alumnus.