Topic: Podcast Change suggestions

[Beleth]

Even great things can be improved upon!
What changes should the Panel make to the podcast?

NEW!
A few ground rules:
1) Do not suggest changes to the cast.  No one is going anywhere.  Saying "I don't like <insert name of Rogue here>" is insulting whether you mean it to be or not.
2) We all miss Perry.  Lamenting his death or saying how much better you liked the show when he was on it is not constructive.

[Ratiocination]

Longer episodes.

[Jay]

We limit the shows to 1hr 18 min so they can be burned onto a CD.

[Boßel]

On occasion have a special guest rogue on (while keeping the same rogues, or when one isn't available), like Phil Plait, for example. They would participate in science or fiction and etc.

[Dolomedes]

You may not want to hear this, but I consider "Who's that noisy" a failed segment. Most fall into one of two categories:

1. A skeptic or true believer says something, and whoever googles what is said first wins. It's usually solved in minutes.

2. Some noise is played, and if somebody accidentially works in the field etc., that one wins. Everybody else doesn't have the slightest idea.

It seems to be very difficult to find a middle ground, ie. something that is not solved in minutes, but that the general audience still has a chance to solve ever.

And worst of all, when the solution is revealed in the next episode, it mostly happens without any context, e.g. in case 1 the panel usually goes "great guy" or "what a douche", and that's it. That's a bit lame for the huge buildup.

So should you decide to drop this segment, I wouldn't miss it.

[Sordid]

We limit the shows to 1hr 18 min so they can be burned onto a CD.

Who uses those anymore?

Also, MOAR Phil Plait.

[Mark7300]

More episodes without interview. I really like the extended conversations that take place when there is more time. I feel that when there is an episode we get some science news and then science or fiction. There's not room for a whole lot of skepticism that way.

I like the interviews in general but a bit more balance would be nice.

[stands2reason]

I really like the extended conversations that take place when there is more time.

Yes.

[Green Ideas]

I really like the extended conversations that take place when there is more time.

Yes.

Indeed.

[pandamonium]

On occasion have a special guest rogue on (while keeping the same rogues, or when one isn't available), like Phil Plait, for example. They would participate in science or fiction and etc.

I like this idea. I like when Mike takes someones place on 5x5, just for the refreshing break from the all too familiar voices I've come to know and love. And I'm sure that the Rogues could use a break now and again, if only so that they can do more activities of a skeptical nature.

[Ah.hell]

Axe "who's that noisy".  More interviews would be good and if you can get more true believers even better.

[seaotter]

More episodes without interview. I really like the extended conversations that take place when there is more time. I feel that when there is an episode we get some science news and then science or fiction. There's not room for a whole lot of skepticism that way.

I like the interviews in general but a bit more balance would be nice.

This

[Ockhams Spork]

I really like the extended conversations that take place when there is more time.

Yes.

Indeed.

Double-indeed

[Ockhams Spork]

WTN doesn't take that long, as segments go, so why not keep it?  However, it is my least favorite part of of the show, but it happens at the end and I can skip ahead. 

How about bringing back "Name That Logical Fallacy"?

Guest panelists are nice in place of a missing rouges.

I think every fan would love to hear some more true believers interviewed/debated on the show, but I think it might be a little counterproductive  . Additionally, I'm sure many true believers are invited but decline the offer.

[zen_arcade]

Sorry to say I agree with others here re: Who's That Noisy? Sometimes cute or interesting but most of the time something I skip past.

Extended conversations (when there is no interviewee) are always great. Would be excellent to hear more discussion about (science) books that are making waves. Perhaps a "What are we reading?" segment would be interesting -- talking about new science books presents an opportunity to discuss how research is or is not effectively communicated to the literate public. Just an idea.

Keep up the great work!