[peachy]

I think it is unfortunate that many commentators do not accept kibitzer messages. It would be nice if they remember that they are there for the kibitzers, and not to hear their own voice/text.

[JLOGIC]

Whenever I commentate I get bombarded with messages. It is difficult and distracting, so I understand why some commentators turn that off.

[Phil]

I sometimes forget to put my +++ on.

[fred]

peachy, on 2011-October-22, 04:25, said:

I think it is unfortunate that many commentators do not accept kibitzer messages. It would be nice if they remember that they are there for the kibitzers, and not to hear their own voice/text.

Maybe they do understand that they are there for the kibitzers, but think that a better way to serve them is to spend their time and energy directing comments to all of the kibitzers instead of reading the comments of individual kibitzers? Those who criticize the quality of the commentary might want to think about how much lower the quality of the comments coming from the audience tend to be (not to mention how distracting it is to be bombarded by such comments).

You suggest that some commentators are mostly there to seek attention, but maybe those kibitzers who get offended when commentators find their chat messages distracting also have issues in this area?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[FrancesHinden]

I do accept messages for spectators when I commentate, but to be honest:

10% are from friends and often not strictly relevant (although sometimes amusing)
10% are helpful (telling me something about the players' system I don't know, or pointing out something clever about the play that I'd missed)
15% are genuine bridge-related (or event-related) questions, some of which I can answer
30% are telling me that I am wrong about something when I'm either right, or have already changed/retracted it
20% are offensive
5% are sent to me by accident
5% are compliments
5% are random witter (smiley faces at a joke, saying 'oh I agree with you' type things)

If I could filter out 50%+ of them, life would be much easier.
And as I'm not a 'star' in the way fred or JLOGIC are, I imagine I receive many fewer random messages than they do.

[paulg]

Apparently I'm at the bottom of the food chain of commentators. I always accept messages, just need to find someone to write to me.

[Walddk]

It is hardly a surprise that I get many more private messages than anyone else. The thing is, however, that I can't avoid them even if I wanted to (+++ will not work for 'yellows').

Do the messages bother me? Generally speaking no, but sometimes it is so overwhelming that I must ask people to slow down via a message in the room. Will I ever interfere with what my fellow commentators do? No. They have the option of disallowing spec chat and are entitled to use that option if they wish. Anything they choose is fine with me.

And to Raija (peachy), believe me when I say that you would also choose that option if you got as many messages as fred and I get. Because if you are going to respond to all of those messages, you would not have time to commentate, and that's what you are there for: to service all kibitzers with comments related to the play and the event. Furthermore, if you try to be selective and ignore some of the chat, you also know that you will offend some people when they don't get a reply.

In my view it's a perfect mixture that some allow chat and that some don't. Those who don't have a reason for not having +++ up. Fair enough.

Roland

[SimonFa]

Firstly, I would like to say thank you to all commentators, the vast majority of what they say I find really informative.

On the rare occasion I have asked a question or made a comment I have found the replies, normally on screen, to be polite and timely.

Please keep up the good work and to those expert kibs, please remember that for some of us B/I kibbing is a great learning tool and the commentators have to talk to us as well.

[mycroft]

Almost always, when I have commented to commentators, it has been:
- something weird I found (like an old system card for a pair in a tournament where they don't make available system cards)
- a correction (which, I will admit, they probably got 100 of), or
- the occasional "thank you" for particularly appropriate for me commentating.

Once or twice I had an actual question.

Whenever I get the first three cases, I preface or suffix my comment with "no need to reply" - because I know that commentators get swamped, and I want to make clear that I am *not* requiring a response. If I get one - great. If they see it and it helps them - or if they see it and it's another one in the "yeah, everybody's told me I misspoke, I'm fixing it" - then that's all that's needed. If they feel they have to reply to everybody, they're not going to get any, you know, *commentating* done; and that's poor for everybody, including me.

[broze]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-October-22, 11:49, said:

20% are offensive

I know that anonymity is basically the cancer of the internet but I was upset and actually greatly surprised to read this. I hope that you always report the individuals who make up this percentage.