Comments should be less than 5000 chars!

I haven't had problems with any other transcripts that I've done, but the one for A Fated Meeting is being refused (both as a comment and as an original post) because supposedly it's 10,000 chars or longer. Well it's quite close, but not hitting the limit. It's 9,145 chars including spaces. I've converted to RTF format and have been trying to copy-paste from that file. I've even kept the text free from all formatting. Still being refused.

Any hints as to what else I could do, before I give up and resort to the not-really-happy solution of splitting the document up?

hehe, sounds like fun mate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzfPc2kkndw

..cheers :)

Part of the reason I posted at the top is because Tal tells me that Google Docs is blocked in China. I haven't been bothered to sign up to yet another web service such as Zoho or whatever it's called. I guess that's the joys of interacting with China's LAN.

Okay, I pasted the transcript, saved as an rtf file, in its entirety, on the original post for Transcripts with Tal/Parking Lot Rage. No problems, no error messages.

Patti

I don't know if it's the reason here, but sometimes a certain amount of space in a database has to be allocated for every entry, regardless of the actual size of each entry. So in effect it would be treating each entry as the maximum size. It's not just data storage on their end, this can also mean when you click to load a long discussion page it will take minutes rather than seconds for the same content.

I'm guessing that's what is meant by "performance issues." I doubt very much it's a question on simply what's cheaper for Cpod but rather what makes the entire on-line experience most enjoyable.

I think Paul is perhaps confusing a suggestion that I provide a link to the lesson in the originating post with an acknowledgment that it is helpful having the dialogue included in the transcript .

I am going to try and edit my opening post on Transcripts with Tal/Parking Lot Rage to include an rtf file version of the transcript. (Paul helped me do that with One Way Street Scuffle and it worked, and didn't compromise the way it looked. I apologize for not trying that technique with the last post I made there-- I'm a slow learner.)

A link to an outside document is fine, but it seems nice to have the transcript right there on the page within the group, though in one piece would be ideal. I don't like breaking them up, or checking if the post was cut short.

It's not going to be a huge amount Baba. Cpod would be the first to say that active community posters are among their greatest assets.

Also, if you stop posting, I will hunt you down and strap you to a computer until you start again.

Paul please read this again ... John's response to Baba.

For now, can you split it into a couple pieces and post them in a series? We want to make sure that the larger limit doesn't cause any problems before considering increasing the limit further. Sorry about the hassle!

Does that sound like CPod are the enemy? No, in fact they're remaining flexible and helpful and happy to accommodate us. This 10,000 char limit isn't even final.

Why do I feel like I should be allowed first turn to say 算了 here??

paul,

yeah, As I said I'm no techie. I do know what RAM is and I knew that what johnb was referring to wasn't RAM. I was trying to use an analogy, and admittedly it wasn't a good one. But I guess I was just trying to say that I think johnb was referring to something different to the number of comments [the issue you think I'm causing], but rather the size of an individual comment due to transmission problems. I could be wrong but I thought this was referring to when you've typed out your comment or post or whatever and then hit reply to upload it. Anyhow, despite my limited [or complete lack of , hehe] understanding of this process, am I wrong in saying that what he was referring to was not related to the number of comments but rather the size of an individual comment? I am happy to be corrected and enlightened here.

"So live it up, bro!"

...I feel I get the gist of where you're coming from here but not certain exactly what you're saying. My guess is that you're saying that I'm costing CPod money [once again, as above, this was not the issue discussed with johnb...at least not to my limited understanding...he seemed to be discussing a specific performance issue] by frequent posting, and should therefore desist...or limit it, or something along those lines. It gives me the "practice what you preach vibe". Or are you saying something else? Anyway, I don't profess to understand how these things affect businesses, so I look forward to being advised by CPod in that regard. To date I have not been made aware it's an issue for them [and can't see above in anything johnb has written that this has even been hinted at so I'm not sure where you're getting this from ...am I missing something in what he has written?], but would be aghast to find that I have been detrimental in some way and will happily comply with what is in their best interests. Wow, you've got me thinking...I hadn't even considered that. You're obviously very cluey in this area. Dare I ask [one eye shut closed tight, the other covered with hand but cautiously peeking out]..how much do you reckon I've cost them?

hey paul,

I think there were quite a few transcripts done before I joined and started doing the odd one. I may have missed it [or forgotten] , but to that time I think it was pretty much always done as zhen says. It was just a link to the transcript. When I started doing them, like you I thought it would be easier to directly post it. I sometimes get the feeling that that extra click to follow a link may make some less inclined. I don't think it makes a huge difference either way and someone conscientious like zhen will probably always go to the links. I guess I wanted to make it as easy/ accessible as possible to encourage poddies to chip in. But there are many ways to skin a cat and there are I'm sure many good system. I guess in the end it's up to the one doing the transcript.

"since you guys are supporting Cpod's limiting the posting"

...I don't know where I said that exactly. At the outset I said I agreed with you and ideally there would be no limit. I can also see that with your system it poses a problem [the inability to edit] that I don't have so I understand. Rather, my position was that I accept what johnb said. If it can't be it can't be. If it's going to cause tech problems then maybe it's a case of meibanfa. Hopefully there may be a solution down the track,but in the interim, while it may be a little less convenient, I don't see why adjustments can't be made. It'd be a shame to throw in the towel just because of that when you did such a great job right from your first transcript. All the best mate.

Baba,

RAM has nothing to do with data storage or transmission. RAM only increases processing speed. The more you chat the more it costs Cpod to store the data in servers and transmit data to the mirroring site. So live it up, bro!

Hi Zhen,

Didn't Baba, Sebire, and Xiao Liang posted their transcripts as the original post? That was my understanding... post the transcript as the original post so that it is easy for anyone to comment on any part of the transcript, and it is easy for the transcriber to edit and update with the corrections. That was how Sebire did it in her Music Corner transcript which I thought was a great way for people to collaborate as a group to work on a transcript. Compare her Music Corner transcript to my transcript Essential Tools In The Kitchen which is so hard to follow because it is broken up into many pieces. So since you guys are supporting Cpod's limiting the posting and having a transcript broken up into pieces, 算了， I no longer have interest participating in Transcripts with Tal.

The first time she posted a transcript Patti explained to us that "My transcripts start with the dialogue, even though the podcast doesn't. It's just my way of warming up for the content to come." Because we hadn't been doing that. In fact I think all of us skip the dialogue portion entirely, because it's there on the lesson page. But so I looked at Patti's transcript and it seemed helpful, the way she did it, to open with the dialogue. That's what I was saying. This has nothing to do with posting the transcript itself on the boards.

I've never been anti-, or against supporting CPod, not even during all those months I was dissatisfied with service and grumbling.

I would usually agree that we shouldn't have to view the response this time as above-and-beyond service, that we should be able to expect as the norm good responses to user feedback. However, I can't help the way I feel. And what harm is there ever in showing appreciation?

hehe, brilliant...touche. I love that. You've got me a beauty. I have to applaud that comment, one of your very best. In answer, I would have to say that you're right of course, it would be tough going for a nut like me, hehe. But in all honesty, while I would be disappointed, I guess at the end of the day I would respect that it's their call, and if they felt it was in their best interests and the communities then I would support it.

btw, I'm no techie [so therefore I could well be wrong], but I suspect you have misunderstood the memory bandwith issue. To put things in terms I can understand, and to use an analogy, the problem that my frequent posting could cause would be akin to saying there's not enough hard drive storage space, whereas the problem I think they're referring to would be a little more akin to a RAM problem...thus an issue with the size of an idividual post.

But I'll pay that good comment mate. Paul 1 Baba 0 . hehe, thanks for the good laugh. :)

Baba,

Johnb said that Cpod has put a limit on the length of comments so as to save on memory to store and bandwidth to transmit. Seems to me the next logical step to take is to have a quota on the number of posts per person, say 30 posts per month, which is an average of one post a day? I think if poddies were polled, the majority will be fine with this limit. What do you think?

Hi Zhen,

I am a first time user of Transcripts With Tal. Didn't you recently recommend to Patti that " it's a good idea that you put the dialogue up there at top. It makes reference easy for someone looking at just the transcript"? So, I'm wondering why you're now saying you don't see any problem just to post the transcript on GoogleDocs. Are you now compromising and supporting Cpod and disabling us to post the transcript at the top? Of course, we are all relieved that after some nine months of complaining and cajoling (mostly thanks to your tireless effort) that finally Johnb came to our rescue and had the problem fixed within a day. However, lets look at this from a customer service point of view...in a customer service oriented organization, there is no need for a white knight to come to our rescue on an issue that could be fixed within a day. Not that I'm not grateful to Johnb for championing that particular issue, I am, however I don't think we need to be overly thankful that finally there is someone at Cpod who is communicating with us... it should ordinarily be regarded as a norm, rather than viewed as an exceptional service from an organisation which views itself as a professional and customer service oriented company.

paul,

ok, firstly I would agree with you that ideally there would be no limit, and it would suit me too. Having said that I perfectly accept johnb's explanation and to me it really won't cause me a problem at all [even if I wasn't thinking of taking a decent break from the transcripts...once I've finished tidying up the translation of the current one I've been working on, I have other areas in learning this language that I really need to go back and work on]. The reason being that if I were to do another one, I would just post the first 1/3 or one half in the initial post and then the rest of it in one or two more replies. When you think of the time that goes into a transcript, a minute or two making two or 3 posts about it is trifling. Having said all that, that's just how I operate. I've read your post and understand you go about it a different way, which is also fine. My initial draft transcript is full of errors and then helpful poddies come along offering suggestions of how to correct them. I never edit my initial post with all the errors. In fact I would find that a little confusing [but maybe it isn't]. I like to see what the initial errors were so comments that follow from that are easy to follow. I do take up the suggested corrections however [except in the odd case where there is still some doubt], but instead of correcting them in my initial post I go and correct them in google docs. So in the end when it's all corrected, either a link to that google doc can be provided or it could be reposted [ either in the same thread or a new thread] or both. So I've never felt the need to go back and edit my original post using the system I use. I hope this explains why it is not a problem for me. Regardless, even if it were to muck up my system, I guess as I said I also understand johnb's explanation, have faith that they're doing the best they can, and make the most of things. Cheers mate :)

Oh. I didn't count the spaces. Sheesh.

Hi Paul, the change, as John told us, is months old now. Yeah another one of those minor website changes made during that period not sneakily maybe but one couldn't help getting such an impression, because for some reason they were never properly announced or explained (and when things did get restored to the original state, again, silence, no announcement--creepy, I think I've said of such non-communication). Anyway, with this particular one John has said we should have been informed, and apologized for that. We users are not calling for groveling. It is so nice to be dealt with graciously.

John's finally come up to put all the non-communication here right and do what a good service does with its customers--acknowledge promptly and respond in a straightforward manner. He has looked into the issue and explained to us the reason for the limit. He not only shows us consideration for our concern with Transcripts (which I wrote in my PM to him), he continues to deal with it in a most resilient manner.

XiaoLiang has said in this thread one of his recent posts was over 5000 chars. Tingyun just the other day said he ran over 5000 chars so he split his comment up. I wouldn't be surprised if one (haha) of my comments has run over 5000. That's what I mean by "a couple of other prolific users".

We didn't use to post our transcripts here before. We just posted the links to external sites such as GoogleDocs and now Zoho. I don't see any problem with continuing to do it that way.

I also couldn't post it when I tried cutting it in two! I got the same message and the post was most definitely under 5000.

Baba,

"Yeah, easily done and no point causing tech probs." ????

Hi Zhen,

It's not only the lack of Cpod acknowledgement and response when we bring up issues to them, it is also why they would suddenly make certain changes that impede our progress and participation in the Cpod community. This recent change to limit the length of comments is another example of how Cpod does things without thinking through the negative impact to our participation in the community. Besides, other than the Transcripts With Tal, where is there ever a comment that is longer than 5,000 words? I haven't seen one. Have you or anyone else? So, it is puzzling that suddenly they felt it necessary to put a limit to the length of a comment. All it does is now causing a hindrance for us to work collaboratively on a transcript.

Johnnb,,

Splitting up a tanscript into couple of pieces will not allow us to work collaboratively on a transcript. Only the original post can be edited. We need to post the transcript as the original post. Then as various people collaboratively work on the transcript, it is updated by editing the original post. When a transcript is broken up into pieces, it gets too confusing to work collaboratively on the document.

p.s. Patti couldn't post her transcript even though it was less than 10,000

hehe, no worries John. I just was having some sort of Dirty Harry moment [such fantasizing felt good actually, hehe] . Yeah, easily done and no point causing tech probs.

I'm pretty sure it counts spaces (they take the same amount of memory to store and bandwidth to transfer, which is the critical issue). For now, can you split it into a couple pieces and post them in a series? We want to make sure that the larger limit doesn't cause any problems before considering increasing the limit further. Sorry about the hassle!

haha. Thanks johnb, but my recent media transcript has blown your 10,000 character limit out of the water. It was 22,840 characters [ 27,378 characters if you wanna count the spaces...I'm not sure if your 10,000 limit counts the spaces? ] . Ah baba, problem child, hehe.

Hi John,

Thank you for getting back to us so soon, and giving us such a clear explanation. That's funny, how some of these changes only become known to us months later. Same thing happened with this one ... but anyway, I am gratified to have my "Since when?" question answered!

And I appreciate very very much your taking the Transcripts Group activities (well, and a couple of other prolific users) into consideration and raising the limit. That's nice.

You know, we really aren't a bunch of impatient people here. I guess you weren't here for the bumpiest months of website changes and glitches this year, but this sort of response was missing most nearly throughout, which is why some of us turned into such vocal 'complainers'; we were so frustrated not just with the user experience but really the lack of CPod acknowledgement when we brought up issues. It was making us feel ignored every day and it was absolutely unnecessary to make users feel like they were being treated poorly.

So, very glad to really feel those days are in the past. 谢谢

JohnB FTW :-)

Thanks for looking into this immediately John. I do appreciate the response.

Received. :) Not sure what's causing it, but I'll raise the issue with the 相关部门 when they get into the office.

Done.

Hmn. That's not great. Perhaps a mail to the relevant person at Cpod (JohnB?) might be in order.

Baba yeah I'm only joking about new policy. If it were a new policy it would be announced, and the Commenting Policy revised. What I did think was, the website underwent another "minor" change that we weren't told about (has happened a lot this year!). So yeah hopefully it's just a glitch and will be corrected soon.

I felt sad when the site didn't take my comment, but certainly am not taking it personally! I don't believe in favored or vilified poddies. Like I said before, I'm sure CPod loves all, whether we're just Basic / Premium subscribers or using teacher services.

oh thanks zhen for explaining all that. My take on that [and I could well be wrong here] is that that is more of a tech glitch. Come to think of it, I suspect thats been around for at least a week or two. Ask paul. I think he was having trouble posting his full transcripts and they got broken down into smaller parts. I think if it was a new commenting policy we would probably have been told about it and it would also appear on the commenting policy page.

I posted my thoughts on your transcript translation--at first in full, which took. But I found an edit I wanted to make (the edit always messes up the text and html codes for color and such formatting) so I (again) deleted and tried to re-post--this time it didn't take. Got a dialogue box saying "Comment should be less than 5000 chars". This was just a couple of minutes later, so about an hour ago.

ps I presume/hope this only applies to lesson threads. Otherwise what about the transcript threads?...I mean especially the transcript posts themselves? Maybe we'll have to apply for an exemption there, hehe. Is there a down on your knees begging emoticon? ..even better...how about a kowtowing emoticon? ..sorry, just kidding folks. I know CPod are entirely reasonable, but couldn't resist a little joking. :)

zhen,

Where are you getting this from? I've not seen or heard of it before, and I just quickly skimmed the comments policy and didn't spot it there [or did I miss it?]

Well then it's really personal isn't it!

j/k. XiaoLiang this is really new, like just 1-hour old.

Not to flatter myself, but it's a counter-zhenlijiang Commenting Policy, haha.

But seriously--if so I want that counter in place please!