BGeeks Archived?
Buddhist Geeks podcast continues its life as part of the Falling Fruit enterprise, a "conscious media network". Some folks were dissapointed with changes, some thought the news were great, including additional podcasts, such as Conscious Business, Modern Immortal, and more recently New Man.
Another impression is that Buddhist Geeks took an "odd turn" in terms of both content and community - the comments section is rather quite, actually quite dead, which is quite a contrast to the vibrant discussions from less than a year ago. I only wished that the old comment archive wasn't lost for good, since at the new website old episodes do not carry original discussions (some of which were rather exquisite), and - behold! - now it's all available at BGeeks Archive, a bit tedious perhaps, derelict, or relict at least...
Well, better something than nothing. The search in the sidebar works if you're looking for something specific, the online streaming and download work fine. Too bad we need to recreate the momentum of inquiry, and once again a proof that such co-created conditions are easily lost if not taken proper care of. I know, all is impermanent and yadda yadda, but we're supposed to act against that stream in certain ways, while maintaining pristine awareness, right? Do we care enough? Any thoughts?
Another impression is that Buddhist Geeks took an "odd turn" in terms of both content and community - the comments section is rather quite, actually quite dead, which is quite a contrast to the vibrant discussions from less than a year ago. I only wished that the old comment archive wasn't lost for good, since at the new website old episodes do not carry original discussions (some of which were rather exquisite), and - behold! - now it's all available at BGeeks Archive, a bit tedious perhaps, derelict, or relict at least...
Well, better something than nothing. The search in the sidebar works if you're looking for something specific, the online streaming and download work fine. Too bad we need to recreate the momentum of inquiry, and once again a proof that such co-created conditions are easily lost if not taken proper care of. I know, all is impermanent and yadda yadda, but we're supposed to act against that stream in certain ways, while maintaining pristine awareness, right? Do we care enough? Any thoughts?
23 Comments:
I think a lot of us were turned off by the change in direction with the new big business approach to Buddhist Geeks. I know that I certainly have been. The new podcasts are kind of sad for the group that brought us Buddhist Geeks. Gwen leaving with no one willing to answer questions as to why makes me wonder what is up as well...
Yea, it's totally a bummer that we couldn't move over all the comments. Moving from WordPress to Drupal, there's just not an easy way to do so. The BGeeks Archive was a way to keep the old discussions. Hopefully people will start new discussions on the new site.
In response to Al, Gwen moved on to other projects, like Expatriette.
Hey Hokai:) Thanks for this balanced post. Vince and I really value your feedback and we appreciate that you do indeed give a balanced perspective on this.
Losing the momentum of the comments is certainly sad and disappointing. It was a decision we made for what we believe allows us to sustain Buddhist Geeks and help it thrive (by making the move to FF, which we did at the cost of the comments). Although we stand by the decision we have made, that doesn't we don't resonate with the loss felt with the comments being lost. We do. It's not a black and white situation here, and there are more factors at hand in trying to maintain and grow a show like BGeeks, and this was part of our decision to make that happen.
As for the content, I'm not sure I will say this more than once: our content has NOT changed in the least. We are doing the same interviews with the same type of people we always have. Period. I understand people have certain views on what FF is and what it means that Vince and I co-founded FF and BGeeks, and what it means for BGeeks to be part of FF. That's fine. People might impose those views onto our content, but I think those are unfounded and I've yet to hear anyone actually point out a specific example of an episode and say the content is different for whatever reason.
That being said, Vince and I have experimented with a group dialogue a few times, which is of course slightly different. It has nothing to do with "business", only that we thought it might be neat to do so. In fact, it's something that lots of listeners have requested. In our experiments, we realize that we like that format mixed in, but we also find the 1:1 style to be solid for us in most instances.
Hokai, you mostly referenced the commenting issue, which as I have said, I resonate with you on it, but you also made a comment about an "odd turn in content", which I don't see. Like I said, I really value and trust your feedback, so could you elaborate on this?:)
As for Gwen, we have intentionally not made specific public announcements, other than that Gwen was leaving. This is coming from all three of us. I'm personally not attached to keeping it all private, but given that I know what happened, I also don't see the specifics as being relevant public knowledge.
thanks Hokai for bringing this up:)
-ryan
Hi there, Ryan and Duff. Ryan, thanks for the thoughtful reply... I was playing the devil's advocate a little bit, and the specifics of what I wrote are actually not verbatim to what I remember of reactions.
First, I wished to draw attention that the Archive is in fact available with the old comments, and then also that the new comments section is less then thriving.
I have nothing of substance to say on the way you made the transition from pre-FF to the new platform, since I don't know enough of what went on, what sort of feedback you got from users if any etc. But something did happen, since BGeeks has lost the discussion, both quantity and quality. Discussion is an invaluable asset (even if we'd wish to quantify it), and I'm just thinking of ways you guys (or we guys) could bring it back.
For example, the Multiplex at I-I has similar problems. Good stuff initially generates a sense of community and enthusiasm, spontaneously and almost miraculously, but it seems this space is fragile and extremely vulnerable to some interventions.
As to content itself, there's a danger to become a billboard for professional individuals, instead of also a forum where people from various communities can meet. There's a huge difference in gusto. Let's look at it this way: you have a podcast with a famous or well-known speaker, writer, teacher, what have you... and you're fortunate to have it downloaded or streamed hundreds, even thousands of times. And then, few weeks or month after, you have zero comments. Is something wrong, or is that what you're after? Also, the guest/s should be obliged to take part in the discussion if one ensues. I'm not an expert, but I believe the present situation is a waste of opportunity. Any thoughts?
Duff,
I am well aware of what has moved on to doing. I do read her blog. This doesn't change the fact that one third of a group of people that started a successful podcast (with a lot of excitement) moved on and there was barely a whisper of commentary.
In the meantime, several new people were brought in (all male, white, Boulder people though I don't know if that is meaningful), a new site was set up, and a business was built around a whole bunch of new podcasts and a new direction.
I was excited by Buddhist Geeks because it was Buddhist oriented and Geeky (and interesting). I am completely underwhelmed by everything else that Falling Fruit has started and it feels, to me, as yet another "consciousness business" like Zaadz or II has tried to be. I don't care one little bit about such things and they leave me cold. I care about interesting Buddhist content.
Buddhist Geeks has continued to be interesting. My criticisms are not particularly around its content. Of course, it is one of four podcasts now and the only Buddhist one at Falling Fruit.
I quit bothering with comments because I quit caring about the success or failure of the enterprise. It isn't interesting to me so I've moved on to other communities and things (like trying to get OpenBuddha.com going, loosely).
I wish you guys the best but I think you took a strong beginning and effectively moved away from or even alienated your core fans and audience with your move into "conscious media." If I was ten or fifteen years younger (your age), I might find it interesting but I don't need podcasts telling me about being a "New Man" or life coaching. This isn't a personal criticism. I think all of you guys mean well and are good people. It is just an uninteresting direction for me and I think that it may apply to others as well.
Hey Hokai - thanks for diving into this further. your thoughts are helping me dive into solutions and innovations on how to bring the energy back to the community. I think you and others are right on about the community losing a significant amount of quality and quantity in participation. I also want to thank you for being a part of figuring out what to do better.
One quick side note - when any of us, including Vince and I say "a lot of listeners", we're actually talking about a very small number of listeners:P right now we get between 25-30,000 downloads/month, which factors into about 3,000-5,000 regular listeners, either through subscription or through visiting the site manually. If we go back and count up the people who comment or actually give feedback, it's a small percentage. So, in some sense, unless we do a survey, which we probably will, it's hard to tell what the collective thinks. On the other hand, we have a deep respect for those listeners who do participate and give feedback, as a large number of those people are "power users", like yourself. So, just wanted to put all of this in perspective.
That being said, as for your thoughts on the content and comments, you could be onto something. So, the thought is that, based on the lack of comments, this could mean a change in content. Entirely possible, though I strongly feel that this is not the case. Nonetheless, it's clear that something has changed that's affecting the participation via comments. I don't think it's the content because we've had a number of episodes on the old site that had few or no comments, Alan Wallace being an example. Also, controversial episodes have the highest number of comments, such as Daniel Ingram's interviews. Since we've made the site change, we've not had any controversial episodes air, but that's not intentional at all. We just recorded an dialogue that is definitely on the controversial side and I suspect we'll see comments galore on it, at least relative to the current number of comments on the site. These types of episodes are a big part of BGeeks and will continue to be. I think our episodes of late of been more of the Alan Wallace nature - extremely helpful, but not dialogue provoking per se.
Also, getting interviewees lined up is a big X factor that we don't have as much control over. We do set out with plans as to who we want to interview and what we want to talk with them about, but how that lines up in airing on the site is a whole different ball game:P so, that can affect the string of episodes that appear on the site over a given time. We're getting ahead in having episodes recorded which will allow us to have more freedom to line up episodes the way we want, whereas before it was almost a week-to-week endeavor:P
Now, as for why we don't have comments, I think the biggest reason is that we moved sites. As I said, I think you're right on that this affected the community online (note that many of our listeners are actually not that tech savy and many don't even know what a comment is:P). This is the biggest cause. I also wonder about the technical layout of our site, which is not so easy to change, at least not quickly, and costs money. One thing is that on the WP site, you would see the "comments" link right on the homepage. On the Drupal site, it's only apparent on the single episode page. So, I have some wonderings about the usability side with respect to drupal, which is something that we can change.
Aside from that, I think there are some efforts that we can do to bring some energy back to the community and the comments section and this will be something we'll brainstorm on. Of course, we'd love to hear your and other's opinions on how to do this:)
Oh, and as for the guests participating, we strongly encourage this. We usually contact the guest to let them know someone has commented and we encourage them to participate. Of course, not all of them do so:) I think that is key, and Daniel is a big example of that.
Yea, I think the lack of comments is completely a usability issue with the new site--it's harder to find the comments now. Perhaps we can do some user testing and figure out a better way.
Hey Al, I'm glad the content still rocks! I'm curious why the addition of other shows affects your enjoyment of the wonderful Buddhist Geeks show though. Our overall Falling Fruit brand is definitely aimed towards Millennials like Zaadz and I-I (both of which I love, btw! :). I'm sorry this doesn't appeal to you, but hopefully you can continue to enjoy the geekiness of our free Buddhist podcast.
Have a great day!
~Duff
Thanks, Hokai, for pointing me to this post. In all honesty, I am not sure what to say, except that I put a lot of time into my comments and replies and was very disappointed by them vanishing and then being put in an old archive. While my iTunes continues to faithfully download the podcasts, I haven't listened to a one since that happened, so I can't comment on how their quality has survived the transition. I do remember the feeling that most of what was discussed there was not that high-level anyway, mostly defense and futile attempts to convince the skeptics, largely ineffective attempts to convince those who believed themselves to already be in the choir that perhaps they had a long way to go, and the like. That said, it was fun in its way for a time, though I do remember my wife asking me again and again why I was wasting my time conversing with people who were really very far from my core interests, those being insight meditation, the concentration states and mastery of the practices of Buddhism in general. That my straightforward message that the teachings of the Buddha could be effective and that there should be open, honest discussion of these topics ranks among the most controversial topics on BGeeks is a scathing commentary on modern Buddhism, but there it is. I hope you all are having a nice 2008. -Daniel
For the buddhist geek guys: I am a guy who disappointed in the new direction BG went, and I agree the content is "mostly" the same. I has a more vispassana vajrayana bend now since gwen is gone, and its a bit more male centric, but the big difference is the community, and the problem isn't the comments being lost. Buddhist Geeks and consciousness business people are not a very overlapping demographic. I am not interested in or comfortable with the other content, and am not sure what I would have to say to those people who have that interest.
It's nice to know that it isn't just me.
It certainly isn't just you, Al.
Buddhist Geeks was exciting beginning a year ago in part because it was fresh and seemed to have potential to grow.
The latest BG podcasts are very evident, IMHO, of a disinterest in learning the basics of interviewing. The first episode of the Judith Simmer Brown show, as an example, begins with a very long lead-in. In some shows the lead-in tells us the whole content of the show, followed by over-explanation by the host(s). There is no fun sense of urgency that there is so very much that needs to be said. The shows can be a painful display of airtime fill. Consider the Hokai & Dan interview, the atmosphere in that show was full of things to be said. That show was stuffed with ideas in the air and people eager to speak.
I think interviews at FF are unmapped and done as spontaneous conversations. For Oprah, that can always work, but -- back to the Judith episode -- Judith went on for six minutes making the simple point that it is good for a Buddhist teacher to practice the religion. Instead of the host moving things along, he buttressed her point with his own experience of this. That's good in a conversation, but deadly in a stalled-out interview.
BGs interviews nowadays STILL begin with "explain your path" and end with "do you have anything more to say" from the host. They aren't focussed. They are broad, like conversations, not narrow topic-themed interviews that perhaps should feel spontaneous, but are mapped and researched with the guest having a clear idea beforehand what the line of inquiry is and the host bustling with ideas and having a feel for the pacing of the show.
[Also all the inveigling language at the website and before and after an episode's core audio is kind of creepy. I guess '1984' is passe, eh? Maybe if you're under 30 you don't have this built up resistance to 'over sell.']
You know, I read Ryan's long comment in this thread and wonder if he is just stuck in used-car-salesman mode.
In the mid-year staff-hug podcast in 07, the then-three BGs spent a lot of time, at the end of the second episode, talking about how they didn't want anything to do with comments. They were each far too busy, busy, busy for all of that. The listeners should just babble amongst themselves, they said, leaving the Geeks to experiment with new fun podcast formats that were something other than the drudgery of interviewing -- and I guess all the work that would go into learning how to do that in a way that was high quality.
I don't think that the recent "interviews" have not gotten comments because they lack controversy, they are so painfully empty of content there isn't anything to comment about.
Hi, Tom. Tough stuff! Yes, they were learning as they went, which is fine by me if they keep improving the operation. I see what you're pointing to, but I also believe some of their reluctance comes from a sincere attempt to remain neutral and not take sides and go about your work of creating space for others to present their case... Surely, authentic space is not without strong critical distinctions, and so a no-bias quickly becomes a strong bias in itself, and a regressive one, boiling down to sheer quantity (or lack of it). Having a clear, transparent agenda is much better as a strategy, and much more effective in creating a community, but then you have to deal with that community and its dynamics, and in this case it wasn't a group of aging people looking for a place to reassure themselves but a mixed constellation of bloggers and practitioners of quite disparate backgrounds and experiences. Again, tough thing. Anyway, thanks.
Hokai,
I don't think there is a trade-off in the way you see things.
A dynamic interview can be conducted that is objective, appeals most directly to interests of a certain demographic, and delves into the knowledge that an interviewee has.
Recent interviews of Judith Simmer Brown and Noah Levine are incredible wastes of opportunities. Levine's new book, which I recently read, is provocative once one gets past the first chapter or two on the most basic of Buddhism basics. There are myriad "hooks" in the book that offer means to delve into Buddhism theory and Levine's thinking. But 'delving in' isn't something the BG interviewer is prepared to do. The Simmer Brown "interview" goes nowhere, becoming just an 'advertisement for myself,' because Simmer Brown isn't really asked anything much and it is almost wholly left to her to fill the airtime without much more than grunts and the word "interesting" coming from her host.
Hokai, you wrote a great post in this blog, "Karma of Excellence" that may be instructive, here. I don't think the BGs' weakness is overmuch an effort at nuetrality, it is more in the arena of a lack of motivation for doing one's best.
Perhaps, Hokai, you are right that you and I, being well beyond twentysomething, should just go away and leave the whippersnappers to their youthful exploits, but I think the people being interviewed have at-the-ready potential of saying interesting things that would inform and entertain anybody ... if only
Tom, well:-))) I was being nice. I don't really think there's a trade-off. Reluctance rarely is, while lack of a clear agenda never is. Actually, I'd rather hear what Vince and Ryan have to say about their experience, in addition to describing the loss of comments as "certainly sad and disappointing". How does the issue look from where they're acting, and what are the viable modalities to rekindle the show? Is it an educational, promotional, or entertaining form that best serves such purpose? Falling Fruit promises to "entertain and empower", which is certainly palatable. How about enlighten and awaken? If so, what are the basic steps in securing that edge? How about actively inviting some qualified discussion? Any thoughts? This sort of conversation can help clarify, perhaps, where it could go further.
Well, Hokai. At this point, I am sure my comments have chased away Ryan and any prospect of Vince coming along.
I re-listened to the Levine and Simmer Brown interviews tonight, and while I feel they do have more content that my memory of them, Vince's deficiencies as an interviewer are amazing.
Vince is a very smart guy, is able to talk, and knows enough Buddhist stuff to rather-easily transform himself into a good podcast host, but what he is doing now is ridiculous. I defy anybody to do as I just did -- listen to 4 Vince-hosted FF podcasts back-to-back -- and not be groggy and delirious.
In the last post of Amy Cunningham's Beliefnet blog, she relates a story of her first on-camera interview where she just started talking non-stop. At the end of the disaster, the host said something "that rained down on [her] as if he were Yoda." He said, "When you complete a thought, just stop and I'll start talking. That's my job."
Vince doesn't take responsibility for the interview/discussion. It is painful listening to the sometimes-flailing, poor interviewees having all the responsibility dumped in their laps.
Vince's grunts and interjections are passive-aggressive judgments of the interviewees' statements. It's oppressive like the whole conception of Failing Fruit. While it may be inadvertent, Vince is worse than Lou Dobbs in his effort to manipulate the audience to see things as he does.
Also, Vince doesn't just, merely, straightforwardly ask questions. There is all this pointless patter in front of it that goes something like, "You know, that makes me think of this whole other topic area that perhaps we can get into and you can respond to ... blah, blah, blah ..."
It would be a world of improvement if Vince could (1) TOTALLY STOP GRUNTING; (2) Stop all other forms of judging interviewees' every expression: "Interesting." "Nice." "Gotcha." (3) Cut the crap and get straight to the questions at least most of the time. (4) ASK questions instead of just saying some vague meandering thing that doesn't end with a question mark and dumping the responsibility of what to do next onto the interviewee. (5) Move the interview along. Don't say something supportive from your own experience [that is, basically, repetitious of what the interviewee just said] and then abandon the interviewee.
From how things went here, it would seem some have a rare partybreaking ability. Or, say you, is it them again? :-) Whatever be the case, I'm moving on with this one, hoping to spur the conversation in some place, and in a way, that will warrant its not being sidetracked by acerbic insistencies. I remain with noting my sympathy and strong support to the Buddhist Geeks project as it started, and as it continues, to deliver in-depth conversations on real, living Dharma in the 21st century West with all its ups and downs.
Godspeed,
Hokai
I confess to being a 'bull in the china shop,' but sometimes the worst thing a person can do is dance around the edges of things. Better to be upfront and outright.
This seems to be especially necessary when, in the case of Falling Fruit, they are so intent on using wheedling, Orwellian and coercive language to promote their Leftist idealism. You, Hokai, living where you do in the world, ought to be sensitized to all this -- I would suppose. But I don't know how in touch with all of English's subtle nuances you are.
I am all for advanced technology and thinking. Hooray the 21st Century and all that. But we should learn the lessons of history and not re-experience the mistake of letting in Leninist thinking into our culture, again, just because some twentysomethings don't know about the mistakes of the past.
Tom, you've pretty much just invalidated any trust I would have in your previous comments.
To equate the American left with "Leninist thinking" is a position of extreme hyperbole. American left thinking is, by the standards of most of the rest of the world, rather centrist. There is almost no true political left in America. You sound a bit like Bill O'Reilly and his right wind ilk at this point and it throws all of your previous commentary into question as to their veracity.
Al,
I'm not damning the Left, I'm equating THEIR (FF's) leftist thinking with Leninism -- which is the extent of my hyperbole. Only with a corporate Bolshevik tilt.
May I have your trust back now, please?
How is that even a defendable statement? I'm a critic of some of their changes but I don't disagree with their work or see any particularly weird political slant. They are a bunch of Buddhist Boulder 20somethings. That's hardly the same as being a standard bearer for "Leninism" (whatever you think that is...).
Of course, I'm an out and out lefty socialist who thinks this country is being taken to hell by the right so what do I know.
[I tried to post this several days ago, though I see that it didn't come across. All in all though, I'll just say that it may not even be helpful at this point, but since Hokai seemed to be interested in hearing more from our perspective (that is Ryan and myself) I thought I'd share this.]
Hi Hokai,
I was having a slightly hard time following your last comment, though the basic gist of it seemed to be, How are Ryan and myself engaging with the continued evolution of Buddhist Geeks as a show, and working with all the various issues brought up here including: interview styles and quality, community involvement, actual breadth of listeners, how many people are listening, how deeply are we actually fulfilling our vision which is to inspire a community committed to awakening, how fully are we living up to our vision of the larger Falling Fruit project, which is to "inform, empower, and connect world citizens who want to become effective agents of change", and then other issues which people outside of our project aren't really aware of or don't seem to have much awareness about including: marketing, sales, issues of building and maintaining the technological infrastructure of that business, issues of building and running a business, and not only that but of trying to create a business which honors multiple bottom-lines and not just profit as is so traditional in business, and ultimately of creating a project which is deeply inspired by the integral vision?
Holding all of these issues in mind, which I am constantly working on doing, is extremely complicated on the best of days. It also seems totally worth it, and from my end there has been a tremendous amount of learning happening in many different areas.
On a related note, and to share my experience (which I might point out only Hokai has actually been interested in hearing before coming to any major conclusions) I've also found that I have more time and resources to focus on Buddhist Geeks, which I feel a deep connection with. To the contrary of what seems to be suggested I actually spend more time preparing for each interview then before, have worked on several aspects of my interviewing style--including being more clear with my speech, asking more leading questions, and trying to bring a sincere presence to the conversation. I also ask each guest for their critical feedback after the show, especially about the interview itself. Many of them have been on radio and video programs before (including Judith) and many of them (including Judith) commented in a very honest way that there experience with the interview was great. Jundo Cohen told us that many of his family were in the radio business and that we were as good as any of them. So, we've gotten mostly positive feedback, and also some helpful critical feedback which we try and learn from. And it's obvious that we aren't yet professionals and that we are indeed still learning. All together I find that both Ryan and I are sincerely open to feedback that is well-balanced in terms of care and discernment. Any feedback that isn't, we disregard due to the large amount of potentials we have for learning.
That being said the main piece of useful feedback I'm seeing from this discussion is that there is a disappointment from many of our core-users that the comment section isn't as thriving as it once was. This is a very real and valid point, and it's something I hear and have also noticed, and will do my best to work with.
We are currently porting over the old comments from the podcasts (though it'll take a bit of time), and are hoping that centralizing things on our current site will be useful for those that surf the archives, especially since there was a lot of killer conversations. The reason we are doing this, is because we heard the overwhelming feedback that our community wanted this, and so that is what I started working on the BGeeksArchive.com (although it wasn't finished when hokai mentioned it ... damn, next time I should put a hokai-block on the site ;).
So in short, I appreciate the above-mentioned gem of feedback, am honored that what we are doing seems significant enough to even discuss at such length, and basically am disregarding all the rest as not really having much to do with the bigger picture of what we're up to, which is much bigger then any single person's opinions of how it should look.
Best,
-Vince
P.S. - I got this e-mail earlier today from a listener and spiritual teacher, "I have to tell you how much I enjoy your program. I had listened to various interview throughout last year - but in the last month, especailly over Christmas, downloaded and heard them all. You in particular are an extremely effective interviewer. I understand why people are drawn to respond and tell you a great deal of information because your questions and they way you put them in words are so in tune and obviously tied to your life and your experience."
When I shared with them that I had gotten almost the complete opposite feedback from someone else, he responded, "As for naysayers to your style, Bill Cosby said that the only way to fail was to try and please everybody. Don't change a thing. You're approach is right on, and has been right on for over half a hundred shows. They can start their own podcast if they want something to be different." Amen.
Hey, Vince, thanks for sharing frankly your inside perspective and experience with BGeeks. I believe you're doing a great job, but hey, perfection has no limit!
Godspeed,
Hokai
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home