Apples rules are common sense to me but this should have been standardized 15 years ago. More evidence Apple doesn't care about Podcasts.
Rather than “Apple doesn’t care” I think this is evidence “Apple didn’t care”
The fact that they are tightening any policy relating to podcasts is evidence the do care now.
Why now is anyone’s guess. Spotify? Changing listener habits? I listen to more podcasts than I used to. Business reasons? Podcasts don’t cost Apple anything (no royalties).
Well we can only hope. Apple had the market cornered and still does.
Some of this seems pretty stupid. Episode numbers in the title are perfectly fine. I hate when book series don’t have numbers. When it’s a trilogy, it’s not bad, but when it gets up there, who really remembers the individual titles? It’s the same thing here.
if it’s woodworking. Ideas, as an example, it may have several episodes. I thing that having the title such as “Building the End Table: prepping for the finish. Episode #6” is a perfect title. Not everyone new to this will understand that earlier episodes need to be viewed in proper order. Numbers establish that. Having it directly in the title is very helpful.
If the episode number is stored in its own meta data field, AND they start using that field on the front end for ordering/labeling episodes, then it’s an improvement. You absolutely don’t need any other meta data in the title aside from the title itself, as long as they utilize it correctly on the front end. I’d take this as a sign that they’ll be updating the podcast app to display that episode number meta field separately.
Heaven forbid that Apple provide guidelines to podcast creators so they use the appropriate metadata fields.
The example given in this article is silly. If I were doing a podcast about, for example, Star Wars episode 6 or the 6th season of GOT, of course I can use the number 6 in the episode titles. I'm just not supposed to stick "6" at the front or end of my 6th episode just for the heck of it. As other's have referenced, no album tracks are prefixed with the number of the song.
As I look through the podcasts I listen to, it looks like 20-25% include the episode number and/or the podcast name in the episode title. That would be like if the songs on an album were titled "Abbey Road Track 3. Maxwell's Silver Hammer" or "Come Together (song 1)." Good on Apple (as the Brits say) for belately nudging people into sensible names.
I'm glad this is happening. I've been frustrated by the differences between podcasts, having to drill down to different fields to find the info I need. Also, addressing redundant, and/or useless info will help a lot. Some podcasts have no useful summary info, and it'd be nice to always have at least one sentence to help when deciding what to listen to next. Also, some shows repeat the name of the podcast in the title of each episode, pushing useful info off to the side, so you have to open it further just to read the unique title info.
Never liked numbers in titles; always preferred to organize my files by numbers in the background, not the title. But to ban it outright is ridiculous. Apple will always Apple.
If I may, maybe this would stand as an example of why. They have the metadata fields ready to go and the OS’s and applications are primed and ready to use them. Now if we could just get the creatives to take advantage of them, life would be easier for all.
if it’s woodworking. Ideas, as an example, it may have several episodes. I thing that having the title such as “Building the End Table: prepping for the finish. Episode #6” is a perfect title. Not everyone new to this will understand that earlier episodes need to be viewed in proper order. Numbers establish that. Having it directly in the title is very helpful.
It’s semantecs - numbers in titles are fine and can be helpful. In this example, perhaps a better title would be, “Building the End Table - Step 6 - Prepping for the Finish”. Seems arbitrary (and actually confusing) to incorporate an episode number in the title.
Apple is late to the game in getting this sort of thing straightened out but it’s a step in the right direction.
They are episodes. Step 6 can occur at any time within an episode. You can have several steps within an episode, particularly if each step being illustrated is shorter than the idividual podcast by a big fraction.
this isn’t so difficult. Just set rules as to how the concept of episode needs to be used. Also how a title should work in describing an episode, and the series as a whole. The way I showed it is perfectly natural, and is really pretty standard.
Some of this seems pretty stupid. Episode numbers in the title are perfectly fine. I hate when book series don’t have numbers. When it’s a trilogy, it’s not bad, but when it gets up there, who really remembers the individual titles? It’s the same thing here.
if it’s woodworking. Ideas, as an example, it may have several episodes. I thing that having the title such as “Building the End Table: prepping for the finish. Episode #6” is a perfect title. Not everyone new to this will understand that earlier episodes need to be viewed in proper order. Numbers establish that. Having it directly in the title is very helpful.
If the episode number is stored in its own meta data field, AND they start using that field on the front end for ordering/labeling episodes, then it’s an improvement. You absolutely don’t need any other meta data in the title aside from the title itself, as long as they utilize it correctly on the front end. I’d take this as a sign that they’ll be updating the podcast app to display that episode number meta field separately.
It could be done either way. But I’ve seen metadata confused and even lost. I think the entirety can stand on its own.
If I may, maybe this would stand as an example of why. They have the metadata fields ready to go and the OS’s and applications are primed and ready to use them. Now if we could just get the creatives to take advantage of them, life would be easier for all.
What possible reason could Apple have for creating these guidelines?
They added new meta-data fields, and are hoping to convince podcasters to start using them (which is going to be tough). They probably want to make their job easier when it comes to using voice to activate a podcast (ie: HomePod, Siri, etc.). And, I suppose, the more organized the meta-data is, the less sophisticated their search algorithms need to be.
Apple should really optimise their search engine. It's inexcusable that in 2019 you still have to write an app, song, movie name perfectly spelled to be able to find it. And that 'search by lyrics' featured on the music app, never worked for me. But hey, Tim is expending 3Bs on tv shows/movies, so that's something useful!
No doubt. Their search functionality is absolutely about the worst around. As I often say... I'm not even sure it's up to AltaVista level from the mid-90s.
blurpbleepbloop said: It’s semantecs - numbers in titles are fine and can be helpful. In this example, perhaps a better title would be, “Building the End Table - Step 6 - Prepping for the Finish”. Seems arbitrary (and actually confusing) to incorporate an episode number in the title.
The problem is that Apple's Podcast app is just one of many (though it is the most widely used by a good margin). The meta-data fields for episode number and such are relatively recent additions to the RSS spec and Apple-centric. If you want your podcast to display properly, even when not using Apple's Podcast app, then you probably want to keep the number in the title.
There has actually been quite a bit of debate over this in the podcast community - before Apple even added those fields. But, the debate centered more on how necessary they are and if one wants to give up valuable 'SEO' potential with some numbers vs more words... and/or valuable screen real estate on mobile where a title might get cut off after just a few words.
Personally, I HATE podcasts that don't include numbers in the title. It is how I mentally note when I want to reference something in an episode, or go back to it, etc. It's a lot easier to remember... xyz was in episode 344 than it was in episode titled "something, something, something" on around January 5th.
AppleExposed said: Well we can only hope. Apple had the market cornered and still does.
Sort of. They certainly are the proverbial 800-lb gorilla in the room. BUT, they don't control podcasting, and that's a really, really good thing. Yes, Spotify is coming on strong, but they are still small potatoes. Google has the most potential to compete, but they seem to be being silly (well, and that kind of by design, they'd have problems getting a Google player on each device the way Apple can.... which is the key to their getting in the game substantially).
As a future podcaster, and as someone who has helped launch podcasts and has very closely followed the industry for many years now... we have to be careful what we wish for or allow to happen. Podcasting is starting to gain the interest of some big players lately. Apple was good, in that they were mostly hand's off. But, lots of people now want to jump in and control (a.k.a. ruin) it.
They want to start stuffing ads in, like radio. They want to control tracking and metrics. And, like Spotify, some want to pull popular podcasts as 'exclusive content.' Some even want to get rid of the RSS-feed nature, or control how they are distributed. We (the podcast community) need to fight anything that smacks of any of this, tooth and nail. Podcasting is kind of the last of independent media, and it needs to stay that way, no matter how commercialized some aspects of it might get.randominternetperson said:
Heaven forbid that Apple provide guidelines to podcast creators so they use the appropriate metadata fields.
Well, there's a difference between encouraging podcasters to use their meta-data fields properly, and threatening to ban podcasts that don't. I've heard a few different stories on this, so far, so I'm not sure which was initially happening, but it seems to be more the former now, which is good.
Comments
Well we can only hope. Apple had the market cornered and still does.
Heaven forbid that Apple provide guidelines to podcast creators so they use the appropriate metadata fields.
The example given in this article is silly. If I were doing a podcast about, for example, Star Wars episode 6 or the 6th season of GOT, of course I can use the number 6 in the episode titles. I'm just not supposed to stick "6" at the front or end of my 6th episode just for the heck of it. As other's have referenced, no album tracks are prefixed with the number of the song.
As I look through the podcasts I listen to, it looks like 20-25% include the episode number and/or the podcast name in the episode title. That would be like if the songs on an album were titled "Abbey Road Track 3. Maxwell's Silver Hammer" or "Come Together (song 1)." Good on Apple (as the Brits say) for belately nudging people into sensible names.
this isn’t so difficult. Just set rules as to how the concept of episode needs to be used. Also how a title should work in describing an episode, and the series as a whole. The way I showed it is perfectly natural, and is really pretty standard.
They probably want to make their job easier when it comes to using voice to activate a podcast (ie: HomePod, Siri, etc.).
And, I suppose, the more organized the meta-data is, the less sophisticated their search algorithms need to be.
No doubt. Their search functionality is absolutely about the worst around. As I often say... I'm not even sure it's up to AltaVista level from the mid-90s.
The problem is that Apple's Podcast app is just one of many (though it is the most widely used by a good margin). The meta-data fields for episode number and such are relatively recent additions to the RSS spec and Apple-centric. If you want your podcast to display properly, even when not using Apple's Podcast app, then you probably want to keep the number in the title.
Personally, I HATE podcasts that don't include numbers in the title. It is how I mentally note when I want to reference something in an episode, or go back to it, etc. It's a lot easier to remember... xyz was in episode 344 than it was in episode titled "something, something, something" on around January 5th.
Sort of. They certainly are the proverbial 800-lb gorilla in the room. BUT, they don't control podcasting, and that's a really, really good thing. Yes, Spotify is coming on strong, but they are still small potatoes. Google has the most potential to compete, but they seem to be being silly (well, and that kind of by design, they'd have problems getting a Google player on each device the way Apple can.... which is the key to their getting in the game substantially).
As a future podcaster, and as someone who has helped launch podcasts and has very closely followed the industry for many years now... we have to be careful what we wish for or allow to happen. Podcasting is starting to gain the interest of some big players lately. Apple was good, in that they were mostly hand's off. But, lots of people now want to jump in and control (a.k.a. ruin) it.
They want to start stuffing ads in, like radio. They want to control tracking and metrics. And, like Spotify, some want to pull popular podcasts as 'exclusive content.' Some even want to get rid of the RSS-feed nature, or control how they are distributed. We (the podcast community) need to fight anything that smacks of any of this, tooth and nail. Podcasting is kind of the last of independent media, and it needs to stay that way, no matter how commercialized some aspects of it might get.randominternetperson said: