Winston wrote:Mr S wrote:Constructive criticism on first podcast:
Since I do interviewing for a living practically I'll just comment on some things that could be improved.
The info is okay but it's a bit too scattered about and not focused and some of it is repeated at times. I think instead of a long 2 hrs it's best to truncate these kinds of interviews to 30-45 min segments and focus on specific topics and issues with already made up lead in questions that can be expanded upon during the discussion.
Winston, if you're going to be an interviewer you need to pick up the persona and be more energetic communicating also need to minimize or eliminate the stammering on words and uh's and um's which can be distracting. I understand it's difficult to think on ones feet if they are not used to it but that's also why its good to have list of preconceived questioning to help align the conversation as it goes along and bring back any drifting that may occur during the interview.
The sound quality is off where Winston is really loud and then Rock is in the background softer so it's annoying having to turn the volume up and down all the time. You each should have a microphone to speak into that will make both your audio match the same. IF you can't do that you need to place the mic even distance from each other and talk at similar decimal levels.
Try not to go in circular discussions where you mention the same thing or similar over the conversation, things should not be repeated or keep them minimal as possible.
You might want to try a round table discussion in the future with multiple people discussing particular topics, that might be interesting.
I haven't listened to the second podcast yet so can't comment on it yet.
Otherwise it's okay for a first time go at it, but it could be better.
Thanks Mr S.
But you aren't making sense on a lot of points.
First, you forgot to notice that my stuttering was a lot LESS in these recent podcasts. I did stutter a lot before. But there is a big improvement in that area now. Anyone who listens to my podcasts in the past will notice the difference. You failed to for some reason. Even Rock, who is very critical, noticed the big improvement. I stutter much less now. Are you sure you heard our interview? It sounds like you are referring to my interviews years ago.
Deep thinkers and introverts cannot speak as fast as they think or write. So it sometimes comes out as stammering. Deep thinkers also overthink things, which slows down our speech as well.
Second, I don't see how you could say that the interview is scattered and not focused. ALL my questions were VERY relevant and ON TOPIC. How did we jump around? That doesn't make sense. All interviews do the same.
Third, why should I have a more energetic voice? This is a serious authentic discussion, not an entertainment show. Your voice is not energetic either. Your voice is solemn and serious and with no bull. Why would you cite that as a flaw? Content is king here. I would like to see you try to do better. How about we interview you?
Fourth, the interviews you do are for students taking an English exam. That is totally different than a radio show or podcast show. Come on now.
The discussion was not circular at all. The same questions were repeated maybe once or twice, but not much.
You have a point about the sound though. The smart phone was closer to me, and Rock didn't speak up. But he did speak louder in the second interview though. And in the second interview, the phone was placed the same distance between us.
Yes a round table discussion would be great. Maybe we could have Rock, Ladislav, Jester and Mr S. But too many people talking could get too confusing though, as the listeners would not know who is who. lol
Maybe three people at the most.
Would you be interested in doing one over Skype? We just have to find a way to record Skype conversations. I could use my smart phone for that of course, but the sound may be inconsistent. I'd just have to hold it close to the computer speaker.
Yes, I did listen to the first one and not the second. I also understand how deep thinkers and introverts process info as I am one myself, so I don't need the lecture or information about the reasoning behind the way the podcast sounded to me, as I mentioned, it's my opinion, not necessarily fact as everyone will have different standards and communicative style likes and dislikes.
Why do you shoot down the messenger when you asked for an unbiased opinion about the podcast in the first place? I'm not going to give feedback in the future if it's just going to be refuted point by point and then rebuffed with a personalized attack in retaliation for giving a personal opinion, which is just that, an opinion that should be accepted as just that. You should have just said thanks for the feedback but I disagree on this and that and leave it at that. I don't need to hear how my speaking appears to you or others, I'm quite aware how my voice sounds in various circumstances as I have to listen to myself being recorded hundreds of times a month. Most people don't like the way their voice sounds and the ones that care try to change how it sounds to others. I know my voice sucks if I'm under general circumstances, at least I'm aware of it whereas most people go through life in complete denial. Thus, because of previous work and situations that had to deal with extensive talking, I've learned to modulate my communications depending on the situation. It hasn't been easy but I'm aware of how I am perceived by others, which wasn't the case in the past. Everyone is going to have a different impression of a persons voice through personal experiences in life. All I was doing was giving you feedback, if you don't agree fine, don't lambast me for it. You should appreciate that I even care to take the time to give feedback, most people don't give a f**k to respond.
I'm not a 'verified' or 'degreed' communication expert but all I'm trying to do is give you feedback based on my own extensive communication experience. I've worked in the military as an RT communicater, face to face civilian communicating in government office, over the phone extensive internal and external customer service communications, communicative English teaching and testing both one on one and group. This was mainly a karmic way to improve upon my initial speaking deficiencies in life, the hard way. I'm just giving personalized feedback based on my own listening experience.
I'm not sure now if I'd want to do an interview cause it may be a bait and switch where you would just try to criticize me after the interview to justify how you were right in the previous post regarding how I sounded and that what I gave feedback on was unjustified. I never said that the feedback I gave was 100% correct, all it was was general feedback and that's it. I'm not really into the i'm right you're wrong paradigm anymore. It's too much energy wasted on nothing constructive.
If you want my feedback in the future don't criticize it cause I just won't do it again if that's what I'll expect. You're a sensitive guy and so am I and we just express it in different ways, you should know better as it's just ends up being disruptive to the feedback process ya know...
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher, 121-180 A.D.