What a great episode of "24" that was tonight! And the trailer for next Monday's two-hour fnale was a jawdropper. I'll probably find some faults (there were one or two classic "24 cliches but not too many) about the episode shown tonight but overall it was a great episode.

I don't like this new TV.com system at all. It's horrid. Why do the people who run the site have to keep changing it? Correct me if I'm wrong but why has the writer, director and cast info been removed from the main page for any episode of a TV show?

A lot of work goes into contributing to a TV.com guide But what makes it frustrating at times is, the closer you get to becoming a trusted user or an editor the further you get away from it. I think there can be snobbery at times with existing editors looking down at the contributors, who seem determined to keep their show guides. I would like to become the editor or trusted user of one or two more TV show guides on TV.com, but it's proving to be frustrating, like trying to get up a never-ending mountain.

I've thought recently about quitting the TV.com guide I'm the editor of. The original episode airdate information is what will make the episode guide a heck of a lot better. But this information seems to be near to impossible to find. But that is not the reason why I am considering quitting being the editor.

It's not a great deal of fun when it feels like you're being told off for something you haven't been doing. I'm talking about the points system and what level you are on. I don't always have the time to read what I assume are pages and pages of information which editors have to read, telling them how to edit their TV.com guide. It feels like you are being made to look stupid.

I think I have done a good job up to this point editing this tv show guide here. There are just a few problems with editing it sometimes, and also with making submissions for other tv shows.

I'll see how it goes in the coming weeks.

One of the things with TV which has disappointed me in recent years, and annoying me now, is the running time of programmes. It's not just US shows but also UK ones as well. But it's mainly the running time of US programmes which annoy me. Back in the 60s, and up to the 80s (I haven't watched any or many programmes from the 50s so I can't say how long one edition of aprogramme from the 50s lasted for) episodes of dramas etc. used to be around 48 minutes long. And in some cases even 50-52 minutes (I'm thinking of the DVD boxset of Kolchak: The Night Stalker TV series from 1974-75). In the 80s programmes were still quite long in running time, being around 46-48 minutes.

But as we went into the 90s the running time of programmes have got less and much less by the end of the decade and the new millennium. Episodes of The X Files used to be around 43-44 minutes but by the time of it's last season (2001-02) episodes were only around 40-42 minutes, and in the case of one episode ("Scary Monsters") just 38 minutes.

I've been surpised and then not too surprised when I've looked at the running times of episodes on a UK ratings system website. It's really shocked me how short episodes of US programmes are now. Episodes of Supernatural when they've been rated, have had running times of as few as 37 minutes. You'd think there would be around 7 minutes of deleted scenes for every episode which has a running time of 37 minutes. That hasn't been the case.

I'm assuming it's all to do with advertisements. It's sad really. I know there's that saying that quantity doesn't mean quality, but to me an episode of a programme having a running time of between 45 and 50 minutes is good value for money.

UK hour-long programmes used to have running times of around 50-51 minutes but are now around 46 minutes...because there are more adverts. It's really getting on my nerves. But sadly I don't think there will be any change and we will be stuck with shorter hour-long programmes and more adverts.