AppleVis Revamps Podcast, Discontinues Open Submissions

Hi. I know this was a tough one, but I understand why you guys made this decision. Unfortunately it effects a guy like me, because if I ever wanted to submit a podcast to you, I'm unable to. On the other hand, I'm sure you've received many podcasts from people that weren't of the highest quality, which makes the listening experience not so enjoyable. Does this mean that only members of the applevis editorial team would be able to submit podcasts? Or how does this work now? What if, for example that you have someone who isn't a part of the editorial team, but their podcasts were well-produced and sound great. Would you guys turn them down simply for not being a part of the team? If so, that's a real shame because part of what makes the podcast great is hearing new voices, with different viewpoints and things. I've got real mixed feelings on this one. I understand why you guys did it but I'm not sure if I like the results of the decision if that makes sense.

Hi,
It would be good for the team to provide a way for users to understand and submit podcasts that the team can accept. Is the closed submissions of App Directoriey entries next?

Hi. This is a good idea. I won't submit a podcast simply because some of what has been submitted and i've listened to really weren't great. Now i can't come up with anything better, but my standards are such that just anyone off the net submitting a podcast with the phone to close to the mic, to far, or other in my view unwelcome distractions from the app or game, ruin the experience for me. there's one podcaster who always has done a fabulous job, but they have professional tools to do the job well.

I don't really think this is a good idea, especially when some people really need to understand what gestures or actions they are using.
Like for example if someone wrote on a forum how to do something, we might think it as something different.
I think using words is more better so then users can get a good hint of what is going on, where as if you were to write it out the users might get it a little mixed up.
Yes, I know you won't change your mind, but it's just that some users really need podcasts so they can get a good hint of what is going on.
And on YouTube, barely anybody uploads videos about audio games, or games that are accessible.

Hi! Even though,as I understand it, AppleVis will no longer allow all podcasts submitted to the site to be published, I would guess that AppleVis is not stopping its podcasts completely: after all, they use the word "revamp" in the title of this blog entry. Admittedly, they want to discontinue open submissions from absolutely anybody, but I would guess that means that some podcasts will still be allowed and published through AppleVis, and that they will only accept high-quality podcast submissions from now on: here's hoping someone from the appleVis editorial team will clarify exactly what they will allow. Will only certain people be allowed to publish AppleVis podcasts? Will they only accept podcasts which are recorded as professionally as possible, These are things we'd probably all like to know. I'm not a podcaster myself, but I can understand AppleVis's wish to give us the best-quality podcasts to help us get more out of our Apple devices.

First of all, I perfectly understand the quality differences and skills of various people posting podcasts to the site, I myself found myself occasionally speeding up Applevis Podcasts some times. However, I think this idea is detrimental to the community at large because it will most likely result in greatly narrowing the spectrum of topics discussed in podcasts. I'll freely admit I'm now going to make a few assumptions. Assuming the podcast will now be produced only by Applevis Editors, there are some areas which will no longer be represented very well - I can only think of 2, maybe 3 people using macs, 2 of which have recorded a podcast. Meanwhile on the iOS front no-one is using a jailbroken device, so we would no longer have podcasts about Jailbreak tweaks. Lastly, this will make material much harder for people to find, and to keep it on-line. Applevis is a popular site, and many people visit it, people who may not be on social media or subscribed to iOS and Mac mailing lists. So, recording a podcast for your site is good for everyone, you reach a much bigger target audience, the site gains more information and developers get a free advertisement which in turn would make their app more popular. Now people are forced to go elsewhere, either host their podcasts on their own website if they have one, but then they also have to take care of making sure that site is up, and spreading the word. Either that, or publishing to another podcast, but I can think of only one that accepts submissions. The Blind podcasting community is already fragmented as it is, but I'm pretty sure those other podcasts don't have as many followers as Applevis. The fact anyone that has information to share makes this resource what it is, and way more useful than yet another podcast produced only by a few people covering just a few topics. I'm not really sure if we need another one of those.

Agreed with the last post. I'm not sure why this decision was taken, I think podcasts by different users are a great way to learn and share their experiences. I personally love listening to different podcasts by different users depending on the topic that is covered in the podcast. For example: whenever I wanted to learn something about the Mac or any other Apple products I listen to David's podcasts, while if someone is new to iOS or wanna learn about VoiceOver I'd refer them to Thomas podcasts.
I personally didn't hear any gaming podcasts and demonstrations by the editorial team. So, Everyone has a different taste, and different voice. I think it's very hard to take a such decision at this time. I love to see new podcasts from time to time. I personally prefer listening different podcasts by different voices depending on the discussed topic.
I hope someone from the editorial team can make things clear for us to avoid confusions.

The decision of AppleVis to get less comunity centric and aparently more staff focused instead is something I feel sad about.
Although they probably have their reazons, and I am not here to judge anybody, what made AppleVis so different than what we already had om the net in terms of blindness related resources is exactly its comunity centricness so to say.

I have submited some accepted podcasts, including some aspects of interoperability.

There was one remaining in the series and it was going to turn into two, of them cinse I have now to cover Apple TV and I have found a very good application on Apple TV eco-system that will play anything you have on your network even on windows machines without needing iTunes. Glad they did let us know before I had the work to record and edit it all, but it`s sad anyways ..

Strangely enough, I have found that even podcasts submited by non editors usually have good quality. I have never found a really unacceptable quality podcast.

Sure we had podcasts with VoiceOver too fast and such even if I can recall from editors, but if this is an anoiance one has the option of not listenning to it at all.

For a mather of respect for all contributors who have spent their time to produce podcasts on AppleVis I think we should at least get an explanation as why it has been done and AppleVis has to think treally seriously to decide if they want to become less comunity centric. As another commenter wrote, are the Apps submission going to be the next? If so again that`s ok for me, AppleVis is not my buseness although I like to colaborate, but then such change towards a less comunity centric website will render AppleVis just like everything else we already have, a bunch of guys talking about a topic and this would be really sad.

I for one bilieve in AppleVis`s model of working. I hope it does not change or it does not change very much ..

I find this a bit over reactive. I say this due to the tone of, yep, we did this. Thanks, bye. Considering also that there was not any detail of the reasons you came to this decision. There was also no reassurance of whether or not you welcome community input.

I myself don't really look at the forums, and instead go for the blogs or podcasts. To indirectly give the view that the community aspect of this site is being taken away in favor of a few, volunteer editorial team members really does not in my mind tell others that they can come for help. The fact that there was no vote or input from the "AppleVis community" leaves me a bit sad, because not every team member knows everything, or writes or podcasts in a way all users can understand. I'll say that before you publish a post like this, you go more in detail so you don't have to field comments like this, and others that may come out. This was not the way to handle it at all.

Since this decision has been taken by the AppleVis team, can you explain to me what are the goals of AppleVis? What contents exactly are you trying to deliver to users after taking this step? How users can contribute and share their experiences with other users?
I think podcasting is the easiest way to deliver clear information to users. I think the goals of this site have been changed.

I have very mixed feelings about this, too.

I'm sure an Applevis editor will come on and explain all this to us. but, though I understand the desire for the highest quality, I think this is bad for the community as a whole. It may discourage new users from even trying to do podcasting. Personally, I like to occasionally hear a podcast that does not sound picture perfect or like it was produced by an audio engineer with a perfectly written script in front of them. It really gives me the feeling that any person can and should give it a try, even if you make a few mistakes.

If the quality of a podcast bothers a person, they have the option of not finishing it, and/or writing to its creators to politely suggest improvements.

I have learned much from podcasts on this site over the years, and I think most were not created by the site editors, though some of them also do fantastic podcast work as well.

I hope we get a much deeper explanation of this decision in the near future, and that podcast will not be limited to those produced solely by the editing team.

I respect you have factors, either to protect people's privacy, or other things we don't need to know about, but let's be realistic here. I along with others have stated why we have come to be disappointed in the decision, and you have fed us the same lip service. It wasn't an easy decision, you didn't take it into account lightly, you have support from your social media outlets as well as personal inbox, where it counts, you still leave everyone wondering. was that your intent? Being that there is no change in your decision forthcoming, because you have decided what's done is done, show us really, what's going on. Show us why you made this decision even in a broad spectrum of reasons, you had to much podcasts submitted, there wasn't enough time to review them, you don't have enough bandwidth to keep uploading the size or amount of podcasts you were hoping for, you want to slim down to the lower price server space, whatever it is. giving us platitudes of it wasn't easy to decide it, you have support, you feel this is the right thing to do, only shows you hiding behind a smoke screen. If that should be the case, and i expect no answers to this, I will gladly once the log in option fades look elsewhere for content. If only so that what was once a free open source place of discussion is slowly but surely going the way of the dodo bird.

Hi Applevis team.
I'm really sorry to disagree with you, but not allowing user submitted podcasts is a rather bad idea in my opinion.
I really feel that not allowing well intentioned people to submit podcasts takes away from the community surrounding Applevis and everything that goes on within the Applevis community as a whole.
Also, some people learn something better with a podcast to help them through it, rather than following a written set of instructions. The recorded nature of podcasts give a feel of realism that the written word does not.
Of course someone from the Applevis editorial team could produce a podcast, but maybe an alternative view point may help a struggling user with something that wasn't pointed out previously.
If podcast quality is an issue, perhaps a listener or a member of the Applevis editorial team could contact the submitter of the podcast with some constructive feedback. There's always room to improve.
These are just my thoughts, and you can take them or leave them. I just wanted to share my disappointment with this decision.
Thanks for reading,
Matt C [@eyelessmac]

I've been following this thread closely today and am rather shocked by how this whole thing was handled. Tra la la, we're all going about our business when suddenly, hey everyone, you can't submit podcasts anymore and we can't tell you why.

I'm completely on the outside of this but it's obvious to me that your community is craving explanations that you're unwilling to give.

In my opinion, some transparency would ease some of this tension. Perhaps some answers from editors not logged in as AppleVis. A personal touch might help. This all feels rather shadowy.

I have been submitting podcasts for years, and I can promise you that some of them would not have been submitted by anyone else, period. I have found some apps, like Noatikl, that most blind people would not have touched with a ten foot pole, simply because it seemed inaccessible. Through the podcasts I put on the site, I was not only able to raise awareness of this awesome app, but the sighted developers listened in too, and realized that the app could be made much more accessible than it was, and they did. Now the community can't do this kind of thing any more? Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Furthermore, the community wasn't even allowed to weigh in until the decision was already finalized? Also ridiculous. Try pulling this kind of stunt on a mainstream community forum sometime and see how long it lasts. While I understand that server space is limited and that the podcast's have to be stored" somewhere, if money is an issue than you ask for donations specifically to help keep up the service. If the community doesn't donate, then you explain that as the reason, and if people want to hear new podcasts badly enough they will donate. I'm 42 years old and don't need this parental overprotective nonsense. While I'm not a big listener of podcasts, I have enjoyed making them from time to time and knowing that I was helping people learn new and interesting things. Why not take app submissions out next? After all, someone might say an app is accessible when it's not, or vice versa, and whwe all need protecting from this, right? WRONG. Sorry to come off sounding so oppinionated, but I already had some pretty bad feelings when the Applevis channel on Zello was disabled. This is not a good trend.

I agree with all the comments above. This, if nothing else, is not a good idea. True you are the ones who make the decisions., You decided this, but for what? For you're benefit? I honestly think that if a podcast hasn't very good quality, what does it matter? I have seen many podcasts on this website, and none of them are of bad quality. Sure, some are worse than others, but that's just the way it is After all, hey we can't be perfect. Not to mention, you've disappointed many people. I mean, seriously, sometimes people just understand better if it is in a podcast. I am not meaning to offend anybody, but seriously, I as well as many people are disappointed with this decision. Think this for a moment. Will it be better for us as a blind community in the long run?

Hello,
I can tell from the very unhelpful comment posted by appleviz to this thread that apple viz has never believed in transparency.
As a widely respected community resource, a certain level of information is expected from the editorial team, and this is not forthcoming.
The attitude of we're doing this, we actually don't care what you think will drive people away more then you might actually realize.
Regardless of the positive you might get, if you, the editorial team don't want your reputation being demolished by people showing this rather unhelpful post and it making the rounds, more information is a must in this case.
What does
<blockquote>
There were factors to be considered which it would be inappropriate for us to discuss publicly.</blockquote>
tell anyone?
Also
<blockquote>
You will have to trust in us that these factors were valid and that we addressed them with the best interest of the community at the forefront at all times.
</blockquote>
That's not good enough, what started this review, where was the community input, your a community driven site, why wasn't the community approached?
Actually answering the questions people are posing instead of giving boiler plate answers would be a good start.

First off, Patrick Kelly and Ken downy, i hope i got that right, have expressed the same as I have, granted with a little less Irish fueled annoyance behind it. ;) seriously you gave no one any hints you were doing this, you, like audioboom took away the ability without leaving any choice for us. Is really that the front you want to put up? You strive to be the site to go to, to "empower" those to use their Mac or IOs devices, is my understanding of your tagline. so how is it prudent to take away the ability that let's be honest, you wouldn't be as far in the black so to speak as you are, without the submission of podcasts? Also since i was the one who brought up quality, please let me make clear a few points. what one considers good versus not, is in the eye of the beholder. Having said this, at no time was I unimpressed with the podcaster's submission nor did i feel the need to correct anything he or she did. Just because a certain pace of learning was set, doesn't mean i need to agree with it, nor does it make the person to tell them to improve whatever i would want when a newer device owner might love the person's approach. I threw out money as an objective, simply because in my heart of hearts I suspect that may be the case. I admit to feeling like you took the coward's way out. You don't owe anyone any explanation, yet when we ask for it, you hide behind your it's inappropriate for us to discuss publicly. why bring that up? We're not asking you to leak sensitive information, or name names here. If you take away our choice to understand why a decision is made in as polite a term as we know how to ask you, why not just have blocked comments on this topic? better yet, realistically how long will it be before we see another, Come joint he Applevis team! blog come out. When that happens, do you expect people to "Trust you" that it will be an enjoyable experience given what you're reading right now?

I would like to ask about one more sentence from your second statement:

We know and accept that this decision will disappoint some. However, there have already been enough comments made here, in our inbox and on various social media to show that this has been the right decision

I would be interested to know what comments you're referring to. At least under this announcement, pretty much every comment seems to be voicing confusion for the most part, and constructive criticism. I also did a Twitter search, and saw 1 person that agreed with your decision, while most of the other tweets was just more confusion.

Like everyone else, I am very much wondering what the issue is. Is it something that the community could help with? If you are getting a lot of submissions and are having problems handling all of them, I'm sure there are people here that know their way around an audio editor that would be willing to help.

It's never a good idea to do what you just did right now. No offense here, but to just decide something, without asking the community first... At least you should have asked our opinion, and not stabbed us in the back, so to speak. Seriously, why do you think you are getting such a huge backlash right now with this decision? Life is full of choices, and this one is not a good one at all.

For all of you who are upset by Applevis's decision to stop accepting podcasts from the community at large, you need to think outside the box. Just because you can no longer post podcasts on Applevis doesn't mean that you are forbidden to record them. If you have a podcast idea or are dying to demonstrate an app for everyone, record it anyway and post it to twitter, FB, audioboom or some other forum where folks can listen to it. I only ever submitted one Applevis podcast, but in general, whenever I feel the need to demonstrate something, I simply record it and then post a public dropbox link for people to listen if they're interested. I'm sure the Applevis team has perfectly valid reasons for coming to the decision they did, but it doesn't have to be the end of the world by any means.

I preferred podcasts recorded by people who were not on the AppleVis Editorial Team because it was a way of people who might not know as much about the product or app that they are demonstrating to still get a voice. I am also a little concerned about the comment that was posted above from AppleVis. I have a feeling that this may not be the only area taken away from the "community" in the future.

All,

First, we want to express our sincere appreciation to each and every person who has taken the time to provide feedback about our recent decision to stop allowing unsolicited podcast submissions. . We knew at the outset that not everyone would agree with our decision, and please rest assured that as we continue to move forward, we read every critical comment and take it to heart.

As has been stated previously, we feel it would be inappropriate to detail all of the specifics of our reasons for discontinuing open podcast submissions. This is not because we don't want to be transparent or to hear negative feedback, but because there are behind-the-scenes aspects of operating a user community that it would be unethical for us to air the specifics of in public. While we could take the easy road and simply detail every factor which went into our decision (something which sounds increasingly appealing, given the amount of frustration expressed here), we feel that in the long run, detailing all of the less-than-glamorous aspects of site administration would not be helpful or productive.

In very broad terms, one of the difficulties we had with our previous open-submission policy was ensuring quality of podcasts. Some podcasts we received required an extensive amount of editing, and a team member wasn't always available to do that work--we are all, please remember, volunteers with lives and commitments besides AppleVis. Other podcasts offered very little in terms of helpful information, though the podcasters themselves most certainly tried their best. .

Some comments above mention that all of the podcasts we've posted have been of a certain level of quality. Put bluntly, this is because we've had to reject podcasts which do not meet our guidelines, and the number of rejections we've had to write was steadily increasing. I've written a few rejections myself, and there's nothing fun nor easy about it--especially when you consider that the news you are bringing to a person, no matter how nicely you present it, is most certainly not what they want to hear.

At this point, I realize there are going to be people who would accuse us of raising our standards for podcasts--thereby also raising the number of rejected submissions. From the inside, I can assure you that this is not the case; on the contrary, we've let a number of mediocre podcasts through simply to avoid rejecting them. And in so doing, we're doing a disservice to the podcasters who literally put hours into the production of high-quality content.

On a related note...several users have asked about whether we have plans to limit the submission of app directory entries and the like. The simple answer is, "no."

In closing, we realize that it's impossible to please everyone. We also realize that there are going to be people who won't accept this response as good enough, or who will find fault in just about anything we say. Such is the reality of life. We appreciate all of those who took the time to read this message, as well as all of the feedback we've received. We hope that this message will help to clarify and answer some of the remaining questions you have about this new direction.

Michael Hansen
AppleVis Editorial Team

Michael,

thank you very much for your response. I am grateful for everyone at AppleVis and recognize you all have personal lives. I understand that you can't give specific details, but having a little more information makes this all easier to swallow. I only listen to the podcast once in a blue moon and didn't have much of an opinion, but from all the responses, I was worried about the future of a community which has helped so many.

I'm sure you're all tempted often to throw up your hands and walk away. thank you for sticking around.

Thank you, Michael, for giving us some more information. I have a question: users of apps like to show apps through podcasts. Traditionally, AppleVis has discouraged that users link to other podcasts (see the help section of this website). Because there will no longer be apps that show many apps and services, will users be more free to reference content that they have produced on websites other than applevis.com?

Thanks for the responce, Michael. Will there still be more podcasts from applevis? It is hard, but I understand why.

I'm amazed by the bashing the AppleVis editorial team is getting from this decision.

If I'm reading the statement correctly, they are only putting an end to "unsolicited submissions", not putting an end to all 3rd party submissions. I don't know how they will go about getting 3rd party submissions now, but I think they will be doing something to ensure that the only podcast producers aren't just AppleVis's editorial team. Maybe an audition process for potential podcasters perhaps? I don't know.

I think deep down the thing people find most upsetting about the decision is that AppleVis is going to limit the ability for random blind people to enjoy the sound of their own voices being hosted on a popular website. I've rarely listened to AppleVis podcasts in the past because the hosts in the few I heard tended to waffle on and on instead of editing out pointless rambling, hesitations, etc. Hopefully, this change will improve the listening experience for those of us who don't enjoy listening to someone fumbling through an explanation of something just so they can enjoy the sound of their oh so melodious voice.

The point about some people learning better from an audio explanation than a textual description is valid, but AppleVis doesn't need to host these audio demonstrations for them to be valuable and easy to find. We do have Google, and producers can use appropriate keywords in their descriptions to make them easy to find.

The argument about unprofessional podcasts inspiring blind people to try podcasting is laughable. In my experience, anyone who really wants to record their voice will record their voice no matter how everyone else sounds. Professional sounding podcasts, if anything, inspire people to do better, instead of just recording their voice without bothering to clean or edit it.

Overall, I think the reaction to this announcement is seriously overblown.

Hello TJT,

Good question. Users are always welcome to post links to external resources in the context of a discussion or app directory entry, . So, if users had a demo of an app on AudioBoom that they wanted to share, they would be welcome to share it in the comments of an app entry or existing forum topic.

Hi,

I personally think that now that that's about to happened, there isn't gonna be that many podcasts. Now, if there is lets say, a new app, we're gonna have to wait for someone to do a podcast witch would most likely gonna be like 2 weeks later. This is sort of effecting the reputation of this website.

I'm use to going to coming hear to submit podcasts, look for podcasts, or just browsing this podcast library to see what I can find.

Now, I'm sure there will podcasts, but not as many.

thanks for the answers, but i'm a bit concerned about this entire thing. i too wonder why the community wasn't asked about this in a forum topic or something to vote on this? this is the kind of stunt i would expect from a different company not applevis.

Hello,
I find this decision to be a bit sad. I was an Android user for a bit over three years. One of the big reasons I came back to using an iPhone was because of this site and the podcasts that could be found here. I have not seen any other community with this much engagement from its users. I have also never found a single source of information like here. You can find text based as well as the podcasts. Now it looks as if the information will be spread all over the place making it difficult to find and this is a very saddening thing.

Regards,
Greg Wocher

I really enjoyed user submitted podcasts, so it's very disappointing to see that this will change. Especially considering how many people have contributed out of their time towards the dedication as more and more things progress which therefore many people supported and contributed podcasts for others to listen. This means that all the work that they have done is not being continued and fewer podcasts will be shown throughout and may not be as updated as often. I ugly disagree about the move, and if this were to happen there should have been a vote to ask before final decision.

Now that I have read Michael Hansen's comment above, I am starting to agree. AppleVis is a community that strives to provide accurate and high-quality information. Providing podcasts that are not of a good quality could discourage some sighted people from using the website. There have been a few podcasts that I have heard where the recording quality was not very good, and the users' familiarity with the content of the podcast was questionable. If users still want to make podcasts, there are several other websites where you can place them.

Applevis is gaining visibility and building a reputation. It's in everyone's best interest if that reputation is positive. This means providing accurate information in a quality presentation. It's reasonable there should be some standards for podcast quality. It follows that someone must be responsible for insuring these standards are met. I can see how that could become an overwhelming task.

Reviewing podcasts for publication could quickly become a very time-consuming effort, especially if many of them need significant post-production work. I can see how this could eventually tire and burn out volunteers.

Then there's the matter of rejections. I can't imagine that anyone would consider it a pleasant task to have to reject someone's podcast for quality reasons. To make matters worse, some podcasters might take the rejection personally and become offended -- even abusive toward the reviewer.

Eliminating public submissions of podcasts would eliminate these problems. Although I'm merely reading between the lines here, I can fully understand that no one, especially a volunteer, would want to perform this job indefinitely.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, no one is being prevented from producing podcasts. Go ahead and produce your podcast and make it available through one or more of the many options available these days. And let's be thankful that Applevis provides the resources it does. I, for one, am grateful.

Hello everyone. First off, let me say in all honesty that I have never recorded a podcast episode in all my years of computing. I don't believe I even own all the necessary equipment to do one of these. Having said that, I think this was the right decision to make. I can tell just from reading the original post and comments from the Editorial Team, that a lot of thought went into this decision. But I truly feel it was the proper one. I've listened to several podcasts over the years, and some were honestly of better quality than others. But I also hope that a more wide variety of Apple topics will be discussed. For me at least, the only other source for formal Mac training in my neck of the woods seems to be the Apple store. It can get pretty crowded though, so it might not always be the best training option. I've only been registered on here for just over 2 years, but during that time I've come to rely on the site to deliver great content that is up-to-date and I hope that continues.

I think I can read between the lines here...
A lot of podcasts were being submitted, but a vast majority of them were of poor quality, or at least, not up to the high standards that Applevis strives to have, which I totally get. What if you guys were to add someone to the editorial team who was purely in charge of podcast submitions, and who could help people submit ones that were of a high quality standard? I understand that that's a lot of hard work, but I've heard podcasts that were recorded on lower quality recorders, but the content was still very good. It's just a shame that the only people to produce them are the editorial team. If this is the case I'd like to suggest that they continue to produce podcasts about games, jailbreaking apps, and all the other topics that people come to the podcast to hear about. Yes there might not be as many eppisodes, but all of them will be high quality, which is a very good thing. I understand why it had to be done, but I still think it's a real shame that so many voices won't be heard, in the official capacity of the podcast. A lot of people have done great demos, and from now on, those voices won't be heard. It's a shame, guys.

I thought that there was one member of the editorial team whose job it was to edit podcasts. If you go right back to the beginning of the AppleVis podcast, all of the episodes that are visible seem to be just highlighting apps. These were done by only a few people, and they seem to be okay. Perhaps it will not be so bad if the podcasts go back to how they used to be.

AppleVis editors said that there are not so pleasant tasks to do on managing a comunity based website.

This is true, but this is the price one pays to manage this kind of site.

Speaking on some of these tasks, I would say how I think the whole thing would be done:

First, if there are podcasts being accepted even being really bad only to not cause a reject action, like one of the editors said in an above comment, this is not honest neither with the producer who really bilieved he / she has done a good work nor for the comunity who has learned to trust on the editors. This is something to be completely avoided.

I, for example, do not have english as my first language. I have tried to do my best to bring quality, at least as much as a non native english speaker could bring and have demonstrated stuf that hadn`t been covered before.
Having been accpeted, I assume I have quality good enough, but now I start to wonder whether I was somewhat cheated.

Second, if you are dealing with people, you have to give them some sense of security and confort. Do you want to stop the submission process? Well, if you have to then go ahead and do it, but warn people ahead of time so that folks who would start to record things, such as me, wouldn`t start it and folks who are already working on stuff and therefore spending their time on productions have a chance to submit them before submissions are closed.
The comunity would have time to organize itself, to understand the decision and to adapt itself to host stuff in other places .. the very same thing (e.e stop submission process) would be done, but in a respectfull, confortable way ratter than the way you have done it.

Now, of course, you do not have to give us explanations after all you manage stuff not us, but once you have an engaged comunity you either treat it in a respectful way or you risk loosing the engagement which is possibly the worse thing that might happen for sites that still want to be build around an engaged comunity.

Please note that this is constructive criticism only.

Some of the readers are talking about reputation. There is only one way to built a trustable reputation: depending only on yourself.

If you are comunity centric you will have to engage the comunity and let it give back the reputation you want but this is never gonna be as much controlled as if it was a single or a bunch of guy`s site.

Getting podcasts as an example again: if there are a lot of really bad podcasts then something needs to be made.

First, ;letting the comunity know there are ungoing problems would help.
Second, building a comunity centric reputation about podcasts would be something that would solve the problem.

Put all podcasts on a kind of second site and let folks evaluate them. If it is bad edited, does not add value, bla bla then they would get no votes at all. If they are voted enough it means they are very well edited and then the editors team would have no work at all.

Eventually, podcasters recognized by the comunity wouldn`t have to go to that pre site anymore because they would have some reputation and would post directly.

Newer podcasters would have a chance to learn by trial and errors and by getting valuable feedback from the comunity on that pre site and would develop theirselves because they want to be published and they will need to work harder to get better voted in the next stuff.

Again, this is only sometghing I have thought but I am sure the comunity could give other good ideas if it was discussed before.

To give a basic summary:
1- Respect folks by giving them time to know what will happen ratter than letting everyone know of imediate decisions. Respect people because they have helped you to be where you are now.
2- If possible ask the comunity for help when you have something that is not working as expected.
3- Never ever be disonest with people. If something is not acceptable, make it clear.

Ok, I know I've been commenting on this a lot but this is my last one. I think, for a lot of people, creating podcasts, specificly for Applevis means a whole lot. They do it because they want to help the Applevis community, and if anyone else hears it as well, so much the better. I think it's the idea of producing a podcast, with the idea that you're part of something bigger, and knowing that you'll be helping others. Now that podcast submitions are over, that chance for someone to do it is taken away. Oh sure, you can submit a podcast by means of the forums, but not everyone reads them. I'm willing to bet you guys dollars to donuts that there are people who've subscribed to the Applevis podcast, who have never visited the site. If podcast submitions are only posted there, people could miss out on a really helpful podcast that answers a lot of questions people might have. I just hope that the same attention to subjects is maintained. Lately, gaming has been a huge part of the forums, and I only know of a few games that've been featured so I'm hoping that those can be covered in the same way they always have been. It's sad that a few bad apples had to spoil the whole bunch, pardon the bad pun.

From what we have seen from AppleVis in the past, they probably won't listen to our suggestions and ideas for the future. Once the editors have made a decision, nothing will change. It is unfortunate that this website for the community does not give the community much choice as to how the website should work. Before I became an AppleVis member, I had been listening to the podcasts and reading all of the information on the website for at least a year and a half.

Hello Splyt,

Thank you for your feedback.

The decision to close the podcast feed to unsolicited podcast submissions was reached late yesterday, 1/16/2016. We elected to post the announcement this morning, 1/17/2016, precisely for the reason you spoke of...we didn't want people to record a podcast, only to find that we were no longer accepting podcast submissions. Given that we only made this decision late yesterday, I feel that we did our very best to notify the community as soon as realistically possible.

hi all, I'm sorry to point this out, but to the first comment we got about writing rejections, guess what? if your on an editing team, that's part of your job. my question is if you figured this was going to be hard to do with increasing demand, how come you didn't think about this and hand the job over to someone else if it was to much to handle/ I also would like to know, why weren't the comunnity involved in this announcement/ sorry to say, but by coming up with this late yesterday and springing it on everyone this morning wasn't a smart move at all. this should have been talked about on the forum and discussed with everyone here who has contributed to this site. I'm sorry but saying things like we came up with this yesterday and made the announcement this morning sounds alot like something apples marketing quade would pull.

I think that this is a very bad idea, for a lot of the reasons stated in a lot of comments above. Yes, one or two of the podcasts that got through were a bit dicey in quality but the vast majority were absolutely fine. I appreciate your position in that it it's not nice to reject podcasts, but as someone has previously said, as an editorial team that is part of the job. On the note of quality,. Even the editorial team are fallible and quality has slipped. I really like Thomas - he sounds like a really nice guy and I don't want to upset him personally by my next comment. In his podcast in the Beginners Guide to the Iphone, the second part of the Introduction to Iphone Gestures, he demonstrates the two finger flick up gesture, and before demonstrating it, says doing it would read the elements backwards on the screen, I imagine from the element one is on back to the top of the screen. This is incorrect as the gesture reads everything from the top of the screen down, wherever you are focused on the screen. In the podcast Thomas spends about a minute trying to perform the gesture three times, hoping it would read the elements in reverse order, without success. In the end it is blamed on the phone not doing what it should at the time! I don't want this to sound like a personal attack on Thomas but it proves that even the editorial team get it wrong and have less than 100% quality. Ironically, this podcast was posted on the same day the editorial team posted this bad decision.

brandon armstrong wrote:

saying things like we came up with this yesterday and made the announcement this morning sounds alot like something apples marketing quade would pull.

Clearly I am missing something here, as reaching a decision and then telling people about that decision seems to me like a very normal and logical way of going about things. And, also note the distinction. What we said is that we reached our decision yesterday, not that we “came up with this yesterday”.

brandon armstrong wrote:

I'm sorry to point this out, but to the first comment we got about writing rejections, guess what? if your on an editing team, that's part of your job.

We’ll possibly come back to ‘job’ later, but lets take a look at those rejection emails for now.

What needs to be stressed at the offset is that this was only one factor in our decision.

But, as the person who typically wrote and sent most of those emails, here’s my thoughts on them. I hated having to write them; I hated knowing how it would disappoint the person who had submitted the podcast; I hated the fact that they had spent time and effort in simply trying to help and inform others, only to be disappointed; I hated the way that some people chose to express that disappointment. But, despite all of that, I have kept writing and sending those emails for the 4 years that we have been accepting podcasts. So, why did I do it? I guess that there were 2 main reasons. The first is that the feedback that I typically tried to provide in those emails was generally well-received; and as a result we often got a second version of the podcast which addressed that feedback; did what it set out to do; and was something that the podcaster could be rightly proud of. And, that leads on to the second reason I did this, which is wanting to ensure that the podcasts we post to the site are as clear and accurate as possible, and as relevant and helpful as possible.

Having to reject podcasts was hard, but necessary.

What it is not, is the only or primary reason why we have chosen to stop accepting unsolicited podcast submissions.

At this point, I know from earlier replies to this thread, there will be people not only expecting to be told what all of those reasons are, but demanding that they be told because it is their right to know. I am sorry to have to disappoint you again, but sharing some of the things that we had to consider would simply be unprofessional and unhelpful.

And, yes, I am perfectly aware and prepared for the fact that this response will already have some reaching for their keyboards.

I could try asking again that you simply trust in us that the reasons for our decision are valid and that there are also good reasons for not publicly sharing them. To trust that we only ever have the best interests of our community at heart.

But, some people have already made it very clear on here and elsewhere that they do not trust us and our judgment. There is no escaping the fact that this is both disappointing and hurtful.

This isn’t the first time that people have said things like this or that we have been called out with open hostility on decisions, but that doesn’t mean that it no longer hurts or that I don’t personally take great offence at the tone and content of some people’s responses to this latest decision.

Of course, you are all entitled to your opinions and to express them on here. I don’t expect everybody to always agree with our decisions; and I also accept that we may on occasions get things wrong.

What I am not personally willing to welcome or accept is when that feedback is toxic. If you come on AppleVis and say that you do not trust me, accuse me of lying and of not wanting what is best for the community, then you should not be surprised if I take great offence at this and it makes me question whether my time could be better spent on other things.

And, yes, I am old enough and experienced enough to know that it comes with the territory (or, as Brandon would say, the “job”). I know that for some people being toxic is the only setting that they have. I know that others just see this as another opportunity to target us because of past decisions they have not liked or because they have their own agenda or axe to grind. I know all of this, and for the most part it doesn’t bother me.

You may not agree with the decision to stop accepting unsolicited podcasts. I get that, and I am certainly not unsympathetic towards many of the reasons given for disagreeing. As we have said, there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument. All that I can ask is that you also accept this is the case; that you accept that this was not an easy decision; that it was not taken lightly; and that it was only taken after much consideration and only with the best interests of our community at heart.

I have mixed feelings about this. I can kinda see why the team did this, but I also feel that it was a bad idea to not ask for input before making the decision. I myself submitted a few podcasts, and I enjoyed doing that. But now, aside from posting these to twitter, I may not be able to do it here. My main reason for submittig podcasts here was to help others and demo apps I thought some users might like. Take my ferrari sound and voice band podcasts. I had fun doing those. And it helped people aswell, I'm sure. But I digress.