Talk:Digital on-screen graphic/Archives/2012

Controversy section needed
This article needs a section on the controversy caused by bugs. Although as noted in the discussion above, they are useful to ID channels and programming, some bugs are (intentionally?) annoying and distracting from the program. Some of the worst offenders include Spike TV which for awhile aired a bug advertising Stripperella that took up nearly half the screen, and YTV in Canada tends to run animated bugs which, honestly, ruin the program they're on. Of course due to NPOV rules I can't just add my own complaints about the bugs to the article, but surely there have been published complaints and controversy about them? 23skidoo 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * YTV tends to just show the colour "YTV" bug, moving slightly up and down and it appears for like once in 10 minutes, lasting like 15 seconds. And that bug excludes their programming block and evening programs. tablo (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There also needs to be some information about bugs creating burn-in on lcd and plasma screens. These kind of screens are highly susceptable to prolonged static graphics causing burn-in.

---

+1 on this. Additionally, the article's intro reads like PR spin from a TV station. It should be stated from the off that bugs/dogs are controversial among viewers. If I can I'll try to dig out some articles as it must be mentioned somewhere (because viewers have complained if nothing else).

Actually I just found this from the BBFC:

"There has been a long standing objection to the use of DOGs as these are often deliberately designed to be large and intrusive."

and

"The [BBFC's] overriding principle is that no DOG should obstruct the visibility of any significant material. Regardless of other points if a DOG does obstruct significant material then the work will require resubmission with the DOG adjusted or removed as necessary"

I also found this MORI poll which states:

One in six were in strong agreement that the DOGs are intrusive – claiming that ‘they get in the way of the programme being shown’. A third agreed that they are ‘irritating’; and nearly 4 in 10 agreed that they are ‘distracting’ [...] However, what the results clearly showed was that although 1 in 4 may have an anti attitude towards the presence of a DOG on-screen, many of these still consider DOGs to be helpful for channel identification. So whilst they may be irritating and distracting, they can see the point of having them.

(I find the wording used there rather arbitrary, I mean is it possible to be distracted without being irritated? Wanna bet the question, "do channels NEED to be identified on-screen all the time" was missing. And since when was 4 in 10 for "distracting" not at least partly "anti"?)

There's a BBC blog about the poll.

(Interesting comment: "wonder how these people find their required channel in the first place? I presume they channel surf until they find the one they are looking for, with the DOG they recognise, that's the only conclusion I can come to from the above research." ;-) )

From the NYT technology blog:

"A New Campaign: Squash the Bug! [...] 'Do you think we can get the TV networks to stop placing those annoying channel logos on the screens of our lovely HD TVs? And on widescreen TVs, those logos aren't neatly tucked into the far corners, but are shifted more toward the center.' ... Man, I couldn't agree more. ... Is there good reason why the bug couldn't remain on the screen for 30 seconds after every ad break—and then fade away?"

There could be more, getting relevent searches with common words like "bugs" etc. is a hindrance. But I think lack of fuss over it reflects the way they've crept into social awareness, young viewers are reliant on them, and that TV watching is a passive activity so it takes more than minor irritation to get huge amounts of complaints, but doesn't mean to say the irritation isn't there. Vespadrun (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-transparent bugs
I don't like bugs, but what's really annoying is those that aren't transparent. Take Nickelodeon GAS, for example. They put it in the lower right, right where the clock for Legends and GUTS ends up. Why can't they just have station IDs? It'd be much nicer.

As for the large animated bugs, those are actually advertizements. I agree, those are annoying. Because of them, I will never watch another movie on a station other than Encore, Starz, etc, ever again.

Screenshots
It is possible to create free images to illustrate the various types of DOGs, so unless a specific DOG is being discussed (with reason) in the article, don't use copyrighted screenshots to illustrate this concept (WP:FUC#1). ed g2s &bull; talk 12:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have some reruns of Rocko's Modern Life (with the 2005-present Nicktoons Network Bug), and I might upload a screenshot of the bug. WizardDuck 16:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

section needed
I think there should be a section saying that when a station or network changes its network branding and slogans that usually the "bugs" change too.Animereadabouter2 06:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Self references
Do the images contained within this article violate the Wikipedia "no self references" policy? (jarbarf) 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At least they're free... maybe the Jimbo thingy should be changed. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Commons:Category:Television news has some images that look more believable. It'd be nice if the new images were more accurate regarding the size of these bugs: clock bugs aren't usually quite that big, or they'd at least include the temperature. The 3D effect is also a bit tacky; seems that beveled bugs are pretty rare these days. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FSN DETROIT SAMPLE 2.jpg
Image:FSN DETROIT SAMPLE 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Scorebug Baseball Crop.jpg
Image:New Scorebug Baseball Crop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology distinctions
I've had a difficult time determining the correct terminology for various types of on-screen television graphics. For example, what's the difference between lower thirds and DOGS/bugs? What about those increasingly intrusive full-motion video ads for upcoming shows that appear across the lower portion of the screen during a program? What are those called? Other on-screen television graphics terms: graphic show opens, commercial bumpers, in-show transitions, credit beds, news tickers, opening credits, closing credits.

It seems like there ought to be some larger-scope Wikipedia article that defines the various types of on-screen television graphics terms and distinguishes them from one another, with appropriate links to more specific articles. Is this article the appropriate place for that, or do DOGs/bugs refer to a specific type of on-screen television graphic? Bryan H Bell 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A 'snipe' is the term for those "NOW" and "NEXT" type banner ads. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Weather?
I'm surprised that there's no mention about television stations' use of "bugs" to run severe weather alerts during programming. I specifically remember when I was little and living in Arkansas and having severe weather watches/warnings shown as a bug in the corner of the screen. For example:



Surprised this never got mentioned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I'd class that as a bug; it's an on-screen graphic alright, but it serves an important purpose in the same way a scrolling ticker does on a news channel (just as well cos otherwise that one would be horrendous!). I guess part of the difference is that you don't really need to see weather forecasters or news readers but you do need to see what's happening in a drama or whatever, so it depends on the balance of what is being shown in backround vs. bug ("foreground"). Vespadrun (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just my POV
When I worked at a TV station, on one channel we broadcasted the bug in the corner of the screen. The other channel we broadcasted no bug.

I hate bugs. Seriously. I have two older TVs and one computer monitor that I used as a TV and a PC from the 1990s that have bug burn-in (bug-in?).

People (the same five people I think), would constantly call the station and complain about the bugs, regardless of how transparent we'd make it. And wholly agree. Perhaps the people at networks think it's good, but to me, it ruins the product.

(Rumor has it that Roone Arledge created the bug, but I can't confirm that.)

What really gets annoying is the constant ads during my TV show. It's for that reason I hardly watch TNT, because I feel they're the worst.

To me, a TV channel should be bug-free on the screen, or fade it out as the networks did in 1993/94 season, and get rid of tickers, ads, pan-and-scan the widescreen stuff (this goes for both standard and HD when the screen isn't filled), and other such stuff. Also, I don't mind credits rolling. I don't need a freaking ad to run there, too! Just let the credits roll and have a voice-over about what's next on channel.

But what really makes me crazy more than anything is no commercials between shows. It used to be that a 30 min. show was actually 28:30 or 28:50 depending on the channel. Not fill in the full 30 minutes, sometimes taking up 31 or so minutes.

Okay, so I ranted. To comprise, make the bug very small, transparent, professional (no running the damn thing during credits, theme songs, or commercials), and no more on-screen ads during the shows. When to talk to real viewers out there, they HATE bugs. Seriously, go around and ask 1000 people. It's hated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee4binky (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In the US?
I've worked in and around some of the broadcast industry, and I've never heard this 'bug' term for channel logos (everybody I know just calls it that; "that annoying animated (channel) logo!"). Then again, maybe it's a dialectical thing for the Pacific Northwest? Can anybody else chime in on the prevalence of 'bug' for the US and Canada, and possibly what regions they are in? -- Washii (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you mention the station callname so I can basically get a clue... :) 68.150.33.179 (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Asia - too much countries
Making a Asia map and color it is better, for more better make the world map.

In many countries remove logo during commercials like China, South Korea, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

--125.25.15.175 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a name. And external links.
It would be great if there was a web searchable name people could use to denounce this practice. Since there doesn't seem to be, there needs to be external links to any kind of information/activism links on the internet, and Wikipedia seems like the right place to indirectly try to help orient concerned viewers.

The movie guilds should organize to litigate against this practice because it can be argued that it scars and therefore harms the work of all of the people involved. It's one thing for a logo to appear on a topical program, or even a non-syndicated network sitcom, but it's a real affront to everyone to pockmark a movie this way. It is criminal from an art appreciation point of view. --72.173.160.50 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See what I added near the top of this page (shoulda created a new section maybe, but the topic of annoyance was already broached). Agree it's hard to get searches when there's no common agreed term. Vespadrun (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

UK Section
It seems this section has been written by someone who really, really hates DOGs. Overuse of words to describe quantity (Many, Majority) and stuff. this section probably needs rewriting to be more about the stations that use them & their rationale and less about the few people who complain about them. 90.219.17.107 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)