TVARK

[sdaonline]

Maybe it's nitpicking to point out spelling mistakes, but certainly fairly glaring factual mistakes like the aformentioned NODD thing really should have more attention paid to being sorted out, particularly as many people will be using that site as a primary source of information on the subject. It ends up propagating the mistruth even further.

Can’t say I can find all these incorrect references you mention on the site but the BBC Engineering magazine was calling it Noddy in 1985 and both terms have been used online as long as I can remember

[James2001]

The main page with the NODD stuff on is this one:

https://www.tvark.org/?page=49&subpage=Miscellaneous

Click on the pictures and the detailed descriptions on the pictures mentions both "NODD" and "Nexus Orthicon Display Device" and claims that was the real name for the device and it wasn't actually called Noddy.

I seem to remember it was either the MHP mailing list or the Mausoleum Club tried to work out where the NODD term had come from, and they seemed to trace it back to TV Forum- certainly nobody on either of those places who'd worked for the BBC at the time had ever come across the term "NODD", and it's not in any BBC documents. This was a long time ago (around the mid-00s), so that might be why you remember the "NODD" term always kicking about. Possibly it did originate before TVF and merely got repeated there, but that was the earliest mention of it they could find.

Similar was the case with the term "holding slide"- also seemingly escaped from the blue place. Though in that case, it's a genuine term being applied incorrectly than something being made up entirely. I think it was used by some ITV companies to refer to certain slides which were displayed for long periods (interval, breakdown etc.) rather than all slides as a whole which is how it's come to be used.

It might not be the biggest thing, but there's far too many cases thought history where even minor factual errors get repeated so many times they become treated as 100% fact after a while and the real facts get forgotten or muddied. It might not be the biggest or most important thing if future generations looking into TV presentation history think the "NODD" thing was correct, but I think most of us would prefer the correct information get preserved for the future. After all, one of the reasons people got so frustrated with cwilliams and his videos was because there were several occasions of researchers thinking his videos were the real thing and work went out with factual errors as a result.

[Mateus Honrado]

I really don't know why people still sh*t on TV Ark. It was the same in the blue place. Those guys are working hard in their spare time to upload some of the highest quality clips on the internet, preserving the very stuff us lot are meant to be interested in. And we're really gonna to whine about spelling mistakes?

I know, right? It may not be perfect but I still like the site.

Granted TV Ark does have a wealth of content other sites don't focus on, but nowadays it is pretty poorly indexed and organised compared to how they did it a few years ago and their built in video player makes viewing it a tedious experience.

Well, they do need to do some improvement to make it more user friendly as well as updating some of their content with a higher quality.

[Scrotnig]

I really don't know why people still sh*t on TV Ark. It was the same in the blue place. Those guys are working hard in their spare time to upload some of the highest quality clips on the internet, preserving the very stuff us lot are meant to be interested in. And we're really gonna to whine about spelling mistakes?

I know, right? It may not be perfect but I still like the site.

Granted TV Ark does have a wealth of content other sites don't focus on, but nowadays it is pretty poorly indexed and organised compared to how they did it a few years ago and their built in video player makes viewing it a tedious experience.

Well, they do need to do some improvement to make it more user friendly as well as updating some of their content with a higher quality.

Many of the clips won’t have been recorded in any high quality to start with.

[JAS84]

Yeah, how many are sourced from VHS tapes?

[channel4squares1]

Yeah, how many are sourced from VHS tapes?

There's probably even some that's sourced from Betamax.

[James2001]

Some are from N1500 and N1700 too.

[JAS84]

:? OK, I know what Betamax is, but [mention]James2001[/mention], I've never heard of those two you mentioned. What are those?

[Mateus Honrado]

I really don't know why people still sh*t on TV Ark. It was the same in the blue place. Those guys are working hard in their spare time to upload some of the highest quality clips on the internet, preserving the very stuff us lot are meant to be interested in. And we're really gonna to whine about spelling mistakes?

I know, right? It may not be perfect but I still like the site.

Granted TV Ark does have a wealth of content other sites don't focus on, but nowadays it is pretty poorly indexed and organised compared to how they did it a few years ago and their built in video player makes viewing it a tedious experience.

Well, they do need to do some improvement to make it more user friendly as well as updating some of their content with a higher quality.

Many of the clips won’t have been recorded in any high quality to start with.

Fair enough.

[Larry the Loafer]

Rather unusual to see the BBC pinching a TV Ark capture and blurring the watermark instead of raiding their own archives... Hell, it's not as if there's no stockpile of BBC closedowns on YouTube without a watermark.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-59966111

[VMPhil]

They've used clips from TV Ark before, but blurring the watermark is pretty crappy.

[Brekkie]

It is when it's other peoples content - when people are watermarking content which is your own to begin with it's not quite so straight forward an argument.

Odd place to source it though as you say though.

[ConorM98]

Is it me or has TVARK stopped working?
I can't seem to access the site despite it being online earlier.

[Neil Jones]

https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/tvark.org.html - "Tvark.org is DOWN for everyone. It is not just you. The server is not responding..."

[channel4squares1]

Rather unusual to see the BBC pinching a TV Ark capture and blurring the watermark instead of raiding their own archives... Hell, it's not as if there's no stockpile of BBC closedowns on YouTube without a watermark.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-59966111

Channel 5 once used an Oxo advert from that website (with a very clear logo) during The 50 Greatest Christmas Adverts back in 2010. Probably as there was no clips of that advert online other than TV Ark.