syousef
24-08-2012, 09:39 AM
Though I didn't always listen to them as they were released I remember discovering Astronomy Cast and playing catchup for a couple of months because I found the podcasts to be so good. I always felt slack that I wasn't making time for them.
Well I'm playing catchup again and I have to say that I'm finding the quality of the latest podcasts disappointing. I think they are now doing what they should have done in the first place and making fewer of them instead of keeping up a breakneck pace, but it is still striking that the later podcasts contain glaring errors compared to the first ones.
As an example take the Messier Catalog show. The recommendation to attempt a Messier marathon with 10x40 binoculars at a minimum? WHAT? The statement that the Caldwell catalog was set up as the southern hemisphere equivalent? You can't even do the entire Caldwell catalog in one night. The fact that southern objects were missing was certainly a motivation, but presenting it as an alternative to the Messier Catalog for Southern Hemisphere listeners had me wanting to shout at the phone.
I just finished listening to the show on precision. I have some background in science so I did understand what they were trying to get at but the descriptions were just muddled!
...and the episode on Galileo - the first one I really took issue with - made it sound like the man was a putz who got what he deserved, and focused on that almost more than the science. It felt more like a defence of the Catholic Church's actions in context than a science show. A scientist should know better than to do that no matter what their personal religious beliefs.
These are just of the more annoying few examples. I don't want to be negative because the show use to be so good, because it takes a lot of effort, and because we need more good astronomy resources. But I can't ignore this.
I've left perhaps 5 or 6 detailed comments on the web site against the episodes but they never get published. I've never been as blunt as in this post but instead raised specific issues or pointed to alternate sources that correct what was said. No attempt to correct glaring mistakes is made.
I've just started listening to the 3-parter on astrophotography. The recommendation to buy a really expensive tripod for wide field DSLR images has me baffled so far. I'm using a tripod worth about $40 that I picked up for $15 and so long as I'm sensible about how I set it up and trigger it I haven't found it lacking.
It use to be that I'd point anyone with an interest in Astronomy at the show. Anyone else feel the quality went down? There were always minor mistakes and omissions but not anything that glaring. If I recommended the podcasts to a newbie now I'd probably tell them to listen to all podcasts below a certain number. I have this sinking feeling...a bit like someone's just axed (or badly remade!) my favourite TV show. Leaving shows full of misinformation basically undoes all the wonderful (and unpaid!) work they did.
Well I'm playing catchup again and I have to say that I'm finding the quality of the latest podcasts disappointing. I think they are now doing what they should have done in the first place and making fewer of them instead of keeping up a breakneck pace, but it is still striking that the later podcasts contain glaring errors compared to the first ones.
As an example take the Messier Catalog show. The recommendation to attempt a Messier marathon with 10x40 binoculars at a minimum? WHAT? The statement that the Caldwell catalog was set up as the southern hemisphere equivalent? You can't even do the entire Caldwell catalog in one night. The fact that southern objects were missing was certainly a motivation, but presenting it as an alternative to the Messier Catalog for Southern Hemisphere listeners had me wanting to shout at the phone.
I just finished listening to the show on precision. I have some background in science so I did understand what they were trying to get at but the descriptions were just muddled!
...and the episode on Galileo - the first one I really took issue with - made it sound like the man was a putz who got what he deserved, and focused on that almost more than the science. It felt more like a defence of the Catholic Church's actions in context than a science show. A scientist should know better than to do that no matter what their personal religious beliefs.
These are just of the more annoying few examples. I don't want to be negative because the show use to be so good, because it takes a lot of effort, and because we need more good astronomy resources. But I can't ignore this.
I've left perhaps 5 or 6 detailed comments on the web site against the episodes but they never get published. I've never been as blunt as in this post but instead raised specific issues or pointed to alternate sources that correct what was said. No attempt to correct glaring mistakes is made.
I've just started listening to the 3-parter on astrophotography. The recommendation to buy a really expensive tripod for wide field DSLR images has me baffled so far. I'm using a tripod worth about $40 that I picked up for $15 and so long as I'm sensible about how I set it up and trigger it I haven't found it lacking.
It use to be that I'd point anyone with an interest in Astronomy at the show. Anyone else feel the quality went down? There were always minor mistakes and omissions but not anything that glaring. If I recommended the podcasts to a newbie now I'd probably tell them to listen to all podcasts below a certain number. I have this sinking feeling...a bit like someone's just axed (or badly remade!) my favourite TV show. Leaving shows full of misinformation basically undoes all the wonderful (and unpaid!) work they did.