Talk:Pacific Coast Hellway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Podcasting  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. If you would like to participate, don't hesitate to join!
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Suggest semi-protected page status[edit]

There has been several blatant vandalism events by fans of Pacific Coast Hellway to remove any criticism towards the show, despite references and citations. I request that we semi-protect the page for wiki-users only until things calm down. Electric Avenue 09:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It has become clear that someone close to PCH is again (late August 2006) anonymously editing this Wiki article to slowly remove any poor reflection on the show, and to strangely omit pieces of history that had been established as fact. Changing the reason for departure of the original cast from "creative differences" to something about "creative staleness" without backing it up with a reference, along with the chipping away of the type of criticism the show recieves, is a blatant example of someone trying to make sure PCH is not shown in any poor light . Also, it would appear there was an unexplained attempt to remove any reference to the original team's names or current podast. It seems unlikely that such a move would be from an objective third party.

Also, the claim that PCH's audience has grown is unsubstantiated. Without cited numbers to back it up, that line is merely marketing for the show, and should be deleted. In fact, PCH's Alexa History and its dropping place on the iTunes Podcast Top 100 (Comedy) chart would indicate that its audience is falling.

WIKI Revisions[edit]

Due to the ongoing controversy and animosity between the two podcast audiences, this Wiki article has been subjected to numerous revisions, many of which were of a derogrtory, non-factual nature directed at both parties. There was an effort by readers to clean up this article and remove much of this inflamatory and childish material directed at Nemcoff in order to provide a fact-based view of the events. However, a recent change by a user claiming to be JerseyToddShow (another Podshow media property) removed many facts and re-injected opinion over substance, this time in defense of Nemcoff.

This revision (on 8/4/06) hopes to return this article to a fact-based page, reporting what was said and done without opinion or bias. Readers are encouraged to look at this article's history to get the clearest picture of the issues involved, and those would would make further revisions are respectfully asked to remember that Wikipedia is not a playground to fight personal battles. 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) moved this to the talk page.

Forum links[edit]

Forum links aren't working anymore. Maybe someone should post screenshots.

pdedecker 11:29, 8 August 2006 (GMT + 1)


The real problem with this article is that it isn't written from neutral point of view. The so called "vandalism" will immediatly stop if lines like "with fans of Keith and The Girl dominating the argument at both locations" will be rewritten. This is just not true.

POV? That's the whole POINT of keyword spam.[edit]

re: this revert: -

For point one, citation, fine, I'll see what numbers I can find before re-adding and list it here (though again common sense should indicate we don't cite the obvious: it's just silly to think a podcast like Diggnation doesn't do orders of magnitude better than PCH). But to say you think it's POV to say that is the reason those were picked? Come on, that's just silly. A keyword spammer isn't going to pick UNPOPULAR podcasts to piggyback - that's the whole point of keyword spamming. WP:AGF of course, but it makes me wonder if you're not one of the biased posters mentioned above on this page. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as whether they are more successful, hard to get exact numbers from podcasting, but you can get broad strokes numbers that are pretty clear on rough relative popularity. Alexa: (not just diggnation though): 13,967. 38,266. 705,393. As I said, not hard numbers, but I think it's clear to see the lineup. 2006 Podcast awards: Diggnation: nominated; won. KATG: nominated, lost. PCH: not even nominated. iTunes and Yahoo have the video version of Diggnation at 40 and 30, respectively, and that's just the video version. PCH not on the lists. Podcast Alley's top ten for September: #1 is KATG. #92 is Diggnation. PCH is ranked 606th. Again, none of these alone are super reliable, but I think there's a pretty solid trend here that makes it safe to say the two mentioned in the article are pretty clearly more popular podcasts by far. And As to your POV quesiton, Duh. There's a reason he didn't list "Speeches and Historical Audio" (Podcast alley ranking - no votes to rank it with). He used popular podcasts in his code to get hits when people search for them - as said on the page itself. This isn't exactly controversial. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Struck the above line in the first part there. Looked at your history of changes to this page, and that was an unwarranted and incorrect assumption in my opinion. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC) --John Kenneth Fisher 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Shadow Falls[edit]

podcasting's first professionally-produced drama series - really? and what is The Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd? The first Dr. Floyd show was released in 2004 and is produced by two professional producers in Hollywood.

"Keith Malley answers back"[edit]

Here's why I think the "Keith Malley answers back" section is irrelevant:

  • The section is biased and was clearly written by KATG fanatics. This does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
  • The section is about him re-opening the fight with PCH. In that respect, the title is misleading. Keith was the one who started another pointless flamewar about the same subjects all over again. Keith, not Mark. Therefore he cannot "answer back".
  • The section is a repetition of Keith's critique. The article already pointed out that Mark and Keith have -ehm- a little bit of tension going on between the two of 'em.
  • The poster is anonymous. There is no way for us to check whether it's Keith himself, one of his fans or an actual neutral passer-by who wrote the section.

So, Wikipedians. What's it gonna be? --Pdedecker (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)