Friday Night with Jonathan Ross has received quite a bit of negative attention from users and staff in the last couple weeks. The guide is generally cared for, but a casual read through the episode summaries reveals mostly opinion with plenty of negative person attacks. According to the tv.com knowledgebase article on this topic: "Episode summaries and the recaps that follow them should not contain opinion and should be as neutral in tone as possible." Now I know that a lot of the knowledgebase articles are outdated, but I'm fairly certain this one doesn't go out of date. Another obvious aspect to these summaries is that many of them are simply made up. A few, like the December 17, 2004 and the June 3, 2005 episodes, even have a note at the end stating this fact.

I was under the impression that show guides were for, um... shows! But somehow the Court TV network managed to get its own "show" guide. Oddly enough, there was actually an editor who submitted random episodes from various Court TV shows like Texas S.W.A.T. and Forensic Files. Not only does this guide look awful, it doesn't even belong on this site. Which is why, about two months ago, I followed the proper procedure for deletion of this guide. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in removing it.

When submitting a new episode, you get 2 points for filling in all the episode information except the summary and recap (yes, summaries are no longer required with new episode submissions) If you include a summary you get 5 points! That's a lot more than 2. So if you want to quickly become the editor of a guide that doesn't already have one, you'll need to include summaries with your new episode submissions. However, writing a summary is really hard work, and it's incredibly taxing on the brain. I mean, you really have to think and stuff. If you just can't be bothered, but you really need those extra points, then go ahead and write something lame like "coming soon...", or "to be added later", or just "TBA" that way you still get the points and you get to be a total douchebag! Score! And then later, if by some bizarre set of circumstances you actually do add a summary, you get 4 more points! Score! Now look how much closer you are to getting that guide you can corrupt with your editorial powers!

I've pretty much gotten the NOVA guide updated now. Which means the latest episodes are finally up and ready for reviewing, or whatever you want to do with them. The PBS website was my primary source as episode information is fairly well organized for the whole history of the show. Unfortunately, I noticed a lot of inconsistencies and typos, so I took that list to the library to double check things. I got to spend some quality time with the microfilm. There's still a few old episodes I haven't submitted yet as I'm getting conflicting information everywhere I look. However, for the most part I think this guide now has more accurate air dates than the PBS website. One aspect of the guide that still needs to be addressed are the episode summaries. The previous editor simply copied the summaries from the PBS website. Those now occupy the first seven seasons and need to be removed and rewritten. I've written many of my own summaries, but there's over 600 episodes and I can't do it all myself.

So I've been a member here for a month now and have noticed some strange things. For example, some profiles always give the "Last online" date as the present time, like with MasterAndrew23.

And then there's users like RedMJB12 who despite having a grand total of 2 submissions, 1 being denied, still manage to have 140 contributor points for Three's Company.

Finally there's the profile of aratyle06. This profile simply doesn't make sense. There's a total of 7 reviews all submitted within 5 minutes. Each review repeats the summary text in the actual review section, and none of it really makes much sense. One review is for Campus Ladies, but ends up sort of talking about Family Guy. Another review is for Headland, but then sort of talks about American Idol. Yet another review is for a short lived game show from 1956 called Can Do, but refers to it's poor quality as "simply the trend of tv these days". Even the "About Me" section starts off OK, but ends up in complete mush. A quick look at their gamespot profile shows a banned user, but this kind of pollution ought to be deleted.