c4countdown

On today's show, the subtitles stated that DC got HOMMAGE, even though:

• that's not how the word's spelt
• there was only one M in the selection
• it was clear from that very sentence that they were talking about 6-letter words

What on earth is wrong with whoever writes the subtitles?

OK, so maybe these errors aren't all that rare. Some are quite obvious, like PLANES when only PLAINS is in the selection. In what must have been episode 2271, I was almost screaming at the screen for their allowing ASSURE even though it wasn't in the selection. Only later did I realise it must have been a subtitling error and the contestants actually gave ASHORE.

But if only the subtitler looked what he/she is doing (and didn't just ignore when something seems amiss), errors as ridiculous as this wouldn't happen.

Anyway, what are your "favourite" subtitling errors on Countdown?

I suspect it's because there isn't much time to devote to subtitling, even for recorded programmes, so it's done "as live". And as not many people can type at talking speed, there must be a degree of editing done by the subtitler, and there'll be shortcuts for common letter groups. Plus they've also got to think about where the subtitles are positioned on the screen in order not to obscure anything important. Oh, and you'd need to be constantly aware of how much text is on the screen at any particular time and for how long, so there's enough time for the average reader to read it. And you have to colour code for different speakers to distinguish who is saying what. With all that (and probably some other stuff I'm not aware of) it's amazing how few mistakes are made if you ask me.

I thought that for life shows they used a speech recog program.

Joseph Krol wrote:I thought that for life shows they used a speech recog program.

For live shows, the subtitler uses a special keyboard where keys and combinations of keys represent different sounds rather than different letters, similar to the stenographer's keyboard used in court reporting. Then some software uses a dictionary works out what words the sounds are most likely to represent. Occasionally you get errors where the software picks the wrong word, so it might say "she red the report" rather than "she read the report". Or "for life shows" instead of "for live shows".

Graeme Cole wrote:

Joseph Krol wrote:I thought that for life shows they used a speech recog program.

For live shows, the subtitler uses a special keyboard where keys and combinations of keys represent different sounds rather than different letters, similar to the stenographer's keyboard used in court reporting. Then some software uses a dictionary works out what words the sounds are most likely to represent. Occasionally you get errors where the software picks the wrong word, so it might say "she red the report" rather than "she read the report". Or "for life shows" instead of "for live shows".

I was at a cafe back in February and there was a woman on the telly called "Kate Middle Son."

JimBentley wrote:I suspect it's because there isn't much time to devote to subtitling, even for recorded programmes,

Why would they need to devote time to it? Why is it not adequate to have the subtitlers at the filming and editing sessions? Or can the production company not afford to pay them for that many hours?

JimBentley wrote:so it's done "as live". And as not many people can type at talking speed, there must be a degree of editing done by the subtitler, and there'll be shortcuts for common letter groups.

But Countdown doesn't have live subtitles. What does happen? As the programme goes out, is there somebody watching it a few seconds ahead of transmission who plonks the subtitles on?

I think the accuracy gains from both of your suggested measures (having subtitlers in the edit; having an extra layer of checking) have to be weighed up against the money it would cost them to pay people to do them.

Whether or not they have it right is open to debate, and probably depends on how many people use subtitles. I know I never do.

Subtitling mistakes happen all the time, but I think they're much less common on Countdown than on most other shows. Hommage was obviously a typo that slipped through. And as somebody who uses subtitles all the time, I don't mind the occasional typo or spelling mistake so long as I can understand, or at least get the gist of, what is actually being said.

And WALES today ... what has the world come to?

Stewart Gordon wrote:And WALES today ... what has the world come to?

And record unemployment. But you're right, mostly subtitling errors.

It's not done "as live". I've seen it done live once, when for some reason the proper subtitles didn't come up, and while you can't fault the subtitler for effort, it was a bit of a disaster.

From what I've seen of American TV, which isn't much, when they're doing live shows the subtitler types it out, rather than using the language interpreter, and gets it rather more accurate. They do it all in capitals, presumably because it's quicker.

We use subtitles quite a lot just cos life's noisy, and the TV's an extra layer. Also my Dad's deaf so you kinda get used to the idea.

For accuracy they're crap - either horribly abridged or often use a homophone, especially in live broadcasts. I don't understand why they don't do them in advance with taped shows, though, and check it before it goes out. It's quite entertaining watching something with obscenities in just cos it's so weird seeing the words appear on your screen without patronising asterisking. Also when there's music playing it'll often tell you the track name and artist, and that's pretty cool.

Lesley Hines wrote:We use subtitles quite a lot just cos life's noisy, and the TV's an extra layer. Also my Dad's deaf so you kinda get used to the idea.

For accuracy they're crap - either horribly abridged or often use a homophone, especially in live broadcasts. I don't understand why they don't do them in advance with taped shows, though, and check it before it goes out. It's quite entertaining watching something with obscenities in just cos it's so weird seeing the words appear on your screen without patronising asterisking. Also when there's music playing it'll often tell you the track name and artist, and that's pretty cool.

Even live subtitles are better than nothing, but it's the lag that annoys me the most, sometimes 30/40 seconds behind the action, especially on talk shows. Most of the time I would end up trying to follow the conversation live, then inevitably miss something and have to wait for the subtitles to catch up, then back to live again , but now I've missed something else. After a while I'd just get frustrated and switch over or switch off. Why can't "live" shows be broadcast with a small lag to allow the subtitles to be shown at the the same time as the person is speaking? 1 minute isn't a lot to ask for and most people would never even notice anyway.

Liam Tiernan wrote:Even live subtitles are better than nothing, but it's the lag that annoys me the most, sometimes 30/40 seconds behind the action, especially on talk shows.

I agree. Moreover, I've seen Big Brother use live subtitles even in the daily highlights shows, where the footage is pre-recorded, and yet they still lag just as badly as they do in live shows. Does this still happen?

Liam Tiernan wrote:Most of the time I would end up trying to follow the conversation live, then inevitably miss something and have to wait for the subtitles to catch up, then back to live again , but now I've missed something else. After a while I'd just get frustrated and switch over or switch off. Why can't "live" shows be broadcast with a small lag to allow the subtitles to be shown at the the same time as the person is speaking? 1 minute isn't a lot to ask for and most people would never even notice anyway.

Because then they wouldn't be live. OK, so maybe the definition used in the industry allows some lag - but how long is this lag allowed to be? Though it could still filmed only 1-2 minutes in advance and just not claim to be live.

Moreover, programmes like those put on to see the new year in wouldn't work if they had a lag.

It seems to me that a programme like this shouldn't be skimping on the subtitler's wages. I can imagine that people who have been deaf for all or most of their lives, and who therefore rely on subtitles, might have difficulty recognising homophones.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Semi-relevant

Do you get the feeling that the people commenting on that story believe it's true?

Stewart Gordon wrote: programmes like those put on to see the new year in wouldn't work if they had a lag.

Yes, that would be a special case, along with news and live sporting events, but for everything else, I can't see why a short delay in transmission would make a damn bit of difference, live chat shows being a prime example.

Today's R13 had the subtitles say MISTAKES instead of MISDATES. No K in selection.

It was being ironic.

The solution to the second TTT in today's show was given as "DISCRETE" in the subtitles, even though the correct spelling "DISCREET" had already appeared on the screen by this point.

So clearly the subtitles are done by only one pair of ears, and not a single eye. As if that wasn't obvious anyway....

Stewart Gordon wrote:The solution to the second TTT in today's show was given as "DISCRETE" in the subtitles, even though the correct spelling "DISCREET" had already appeared on the screen by this point.

So clearly the subtitles are done by only one pair of ears, and not a single eye. As if that wasn't obvious anyway....

Both spellings are actually correct, so why DISCRETE wasn't put up is even more bizarre, considering the clue given by Nick.

James Robinson wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:The solution to the second TTT in today's show was given as "DISCRETE" in the subtitles, even though the correct spelling "DISCREET" had already appeared on the screen by this point.

So clearly the subtitles are done by only one pair of ears, and not a single eye. As if that wasn't obvious anyway....

Both spellings are actually correct, so why DISCRETE wasn't put up is even more bizarre, considering the clue given by Nick.

What was the clue?

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:The solution to the second TTT in today's show was given as "DISCRETE" in the subtitles, even though the correct spelling "DISCREET" had already appeared on the screen by this point.

So clearly the subtitles are done by only one pair of ears, and not a single eye. As if that wasn't obvious anyway....

Both spellings are actually correct, so why DISCRETE wasn't put up is even more bizarre, considering the clue given by Nick.

What was the clue?

"Be confidential if you talk bad about a Greek island", so DISCREET makes more sense.

Innis Carson wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:What was the clue?

"Be confidential if you talk bad about a Greek island", so DISCREET makes more sense.

Cool, thanks (saved me trawling through 4oD ).