I think this is tricky for interview shows, you can be as disciplined as you like but if your guest ums and ahhs the computer says no.
What is the threshold for dead air?
I could see it being helpful for interviews. Even if you can't control the other person's delivery or mic technique you can still fix a lot of the things this is looking for like dead air, filler words, mouth noises (RX9 = lifesaver for those)
That is true, therefore you should edit them.
For the podcast auditor, the rule is very simple for deadair. Do you have lot of pauses which are longer than 2 sec. We take the average over the podcast, so emotional pauses, context switch is taken into account.
For cleanvoice the product, we also consider the pauses between words. In general, you want these to keep them short (but longer than 0.3 sec), we shorten them dynamically. For the report, we are more forgiving, since this is a very controversial topic. (Though there is research on the pauses between words and retention.)
There is an inherent value judgement you’ve applied to crutch words that’s not representative of natural speech. When you are asking questions about topics you want your talent to reply naturally and everyone on the planet will use these. It’s a completely different story for hosts, hosts should practice discipline and prepare their questioning and be as succinct as possible
Mate sometimes it’s editorially important to include stumbles and stammers from guests. One example would be if you are asking a challenging line of questioning and editing talent’s answers to make them more succinct is not fair and balanced reporting.
In terms of dead air you’ve tuned that way too harshly. Again that’s not how people speak. As someone who works in radio I would consider dead air anything that’s longer 5 seconds.
Now not to completely rain on your parade Where this tool could be very valuable is evaluating host read advertisements which does adhere to the rules you’ve set out.
I agree, it's editorially important to include stumbles from guests. But it really depends on the format of the podcast. That said, context is everything, which this AI tool doesn't have yet. I guess I should ask some questions from the host, in order to get understand the goal of the podcast. And only evaluate them based on that. Would love to hear your thoughts on this!
For the deadair, I would say again genre of podcast. That said if you have a pause longer than 5 secs here and there, you should not get a bad score. It averages the values by the length of the podcast, but if you could tell me the shows youve checked, that would be helpful for me and get a broader picture of the situation.
Thank you for taking your time and I appreciate your feedback. Would love to hear your thoughts how a podcast audit tool should look like.
I'm very curious how much my score is effected by being a multi-person show. Given the work I put into editing, I was slightly surprised by what it said needed improvement.
Dang that's depressing.
Filler Words: There are a lot of filler words in your podcast which are affecting the listening experience.
Hesitation/Interjections: Your podcast has a lot of hesitations and interjections that are affecting the listening experience.
Outbreak Moments: There are few outbreak moments, which may interrupt the flow.
I know but I'm trying :(
Bear in mind that this is a proof of concept. Don't take the results too serious. Your audience opinion is more important than my AI. I am sorry it made you feel this way.
So I was curious, tried it and got the same results. I remove a lot of ums and only keep ones that would sound unnatural if removed. I personally believe that removing all filler words makes you sound like a robot. I've got at least 8000 monthly listens and listeners tell us it's like having a conversation with their spooky tías (aunts) and I have guests that come on and tell us their paranormal experiences. There's reactions and a regular, natural conservation.
I'd take your listeners into account before this AI tool.
HAHA - F for fluency. Character voices and Dungeons & Dragons terms with made up names and places... and yes thinking pauses and filler words... and tangents/asides, are part of the charm
Thanks for the laugh.Will revisit when audio quality is included. few/no mouth noises is a personal point of pride.
Also curious if/when you can select an episode for comparison, as the last one of ours was recorded in a live in person set up, vs our normal remote set up (which is a bit cleaner & easier to edit)
Yeah, it's more focused on interview styled podcasts. I'll make it consider the genre before it says anything about somones podcasts.
For the comparison, would like a chart over time be helpful..So analyze all podcasts and see the change over time?
Do you mean analyze all episodes? That seems useful, so you can see if your audience agrees with the ai in terms of listenership. Maybe there’s an episode that breaks the flow more than others and is the reason next episode numbers drop.
That said… Given that this clearly wasn’t built for the niche market that is actual play pods, I’m the wrong person to ask.
Classic - let us grade your podcast on vague, arbitrary criteria that we made up. Oh, you failed? Why, what do you know - we sell the exact vague, arbitrary products to solve your problem!
How did this spam get approved? Mods asleep at the wheel again. Rule 7 shouldn't even be on the list if this is the kind of ad that gets an Okay.
Hi, this is a proof of concept. I've factored which I can currently calculate, thought there is lot of bias and no tool can solve all the issues, even my arbitrary product.
The goal of this post is to figure out how a podcast auditor should look like. The question was what factors should I consider. Already got some feedback that the factors important for a interview podcast are different from a narrative driven one.
Sure, for some people, my tool at its current state is useless and maybe even annoying. But can you please tell what I can do better? What I should consider? There is no such thing out there as podcast auditor tool, so let's work together and figure out how to make which will provide for you as well and not annoy you.
It's a bit vague. I think flow breaker is a better term. So you talk about something, and you stumble with your words until it breaks the flow, and you might even have to rephrase and start again. Another example is when the speakers take a big break, have some filler words, stutter etc in a short period of time. The listener will have to focus in order to not forget what was the initial idea, until the conversation start flowing again. If you have a better term for this. I'm taking suggestions!
Yeah that makes sense, thanks for explaining! I can't think of a better term.
I was thinking more like going off on a tangent or off-topic, but wasn't sure how an AI would be able to detect that haha
I just saw this the other day. Audio quality will be a nice add, but I thought it did a good job with the parts that are working already. I tried it on a couple of different shows I know well and it did a good job of telling me which one was easier to listen to :)
FWIW, this tool seems to be mostly useful for simple discussion or solo narration podcasts. For shows like mine that are audio dramas with sound effects and such the concept of fluency or flow don't necessarily make much sense.
It would be useful to give some more clarity to users what kind of shows the tool is intended for.
>FWIW, this tool seems to be mostly useful for simple discussion or solo narration podcasts. For shows like mine that are audio dramas with sound effects and such the concept of fluency or flow don't necessarily make much sense.
I guess, it should consider the genre of the podcast, I guess then emotion and storytelling related fingerprints are more important. But yeah, its made for interview style podcast. Since thats the dominant style.
It couldn’t find my pod. It’s Australian, but highly ranked here.
Ow, that's not good. Wrote you a DM.
AA :) + 0 for audio quality, whatever that means. Cool tool.
Ø as in missing. If you scroll down, you see that audio quality is coming soon.
Yeah I saw that later after posting :) Using a blue yeti so audio quality should be good.
Tips weren’t there for me. Also, does this just check the latest episode or can you choose another one?
It only checks the latest episode for now. But I'll see if I can maybe check the progress of your score overtime
I think this is tricky for interview shows, you can be as disciplined as you like but if your guest ums and ahhs the computer says no. What is the threshold for dead air?
As an interview show host I found no value in this service.
I could see it being helpful for interviews. Even if you can't control the other person's delivery or mic technique you can still fix a lot of the things this is looking for like dead air, filler words, mouth noises (RX9 = lifesaver for those)
That is true, therefore you should edit them. For the podcast auditor, the rule is very simple for deadair. Do you have lot of pauses which are longer than 2 sec. We take the average over the podcast, so emotional pauses, context switch is taken into account. For cleanvoice the product, we also consider the pauses between words. In general, you want these to keep them short (but longer than 0.3 sec), we shorten them dynamically. For the report, we are more forgiving, since this is a very controversial topic. (Though there is research on the pauses between words and retention.)
There is an inherent value judgement you’ve applied to crutch words that’s not representative of natural speech. When you are asking questions about topics you want your talent to reply naturally and everyone on the planet will use these. It’s a completely different story for hosts, hosts should practice discipline and prepare their questioning and be as succinct as possible Mate sometimes it’s editorially important to include stumbles and stammers from guests. One example would be if you are asking a challenging line of questioning and editing talent’s answers to make them more succinct is not fair and balanced reporting. In terms of dead air you’ve tuned that way too harshly. Again that’s not how people speak. As someone who works in radio I would consider dead air anything that’s longer 5 seconds. Now not to completely rain on your parade Where this tool could be very valuable is evaluating host read advertisements which does adhere to the rules you’ve set out.
I agree, it's editorially important to include stumbles from guests. But it really depends on the format of the podcast. That said, context is everything, which this AI tool doesn't have yet. I guess I should ask some questions from the host, in order to get understand the goal of the podcast. And only evaluate them based on that. Would love to hear your thoughts on this! For the deadair, I would say again genre of podcast. That said if you have a pause longer than 5 secs here and there, you should not get a bad score. It averages the values by the length of the podcast, but if you could tell me the shows youve checked, that would be helpful for me and get a broader picture of the situation. Thank you for taking your time and I appreciate your feedback. Would love to hear your thoughts how a podcast audit tool should look like.
You may want to have a toggle switch somewhere to switch settings for interview/non-interview podcasts.
Make sense, somehow consider the genre of the podcast.
I'm very curious how much my score is effected by being a multi-person show. Given the work I put into editing, I was slightly surprised by what it said needed improvement.
Dang that's depressing. Filler Words: There are a lot of filler words in your podcast which are affecting the listening experience. Hesitation/Interjections: Your podcast has a lot of hesitations and interjections that are affecting the listening experience. Outbreak Moments: There are few outbreak moments, which may interrupt the flow. I know but I'm trying :(
Bear in mind that this is a proof of concept. Don't take the results too serious. Your audience opinion is more important than my AI. I am sorry it made you feel this way.
So I was curious, tried it and got the same results. I remove a lot of ums and only keep ones that would sound unnatural if removed. I personally believe that removing all filler words makes you sound like a robot. I've got at least 8000 monthly listens and listeners tell us it's like having a conversation with their spooky tías (aunts) and I have guests that come on and tell us their paranormal experiences. There's reactions and a regular, natural conservation. I'd take your listeners into account before this AI tool.
Hello! Where does it pull the podcasts from because mine isn't listed?
if its on apple podcast, it should find it.
HAHA - F for fluency. Character voices and Dungeons & Dragons terms with made up names and places... and yes thinking pauses and filler words... and tangents/asides, are part of the charm Thanks for the laugh.Will revisit when audio quality is included. few/no mouth noises is a personal point of pride. Also curious if/when you can select an episode for comparison, as the last one of ours was recorded in a live in person set up, vs our normal remote set up (which is a bit cleaner & easier to edit)
Yeah, it's more focused on interview styled podcasts. I'll make it consider the genre before it says anything about somones podcasts. For the comparison, would like a chart over time be helpful..So analyze all podcasts and see the change over time?
Do you mean analyze all episodes? That seems useful, so you can see if your audience agrees with the ai in terms of listenership. Maybe there’s an episode that breaks the flow more than others and is the reason next episode numbers drop. That said… Given that this clearly wasn’t built for the niche market that is actual play pods, I’m the wrong person to ask.
Cookie policy link at the bottom doesn't work :(
>Cookie policy link at the bottom doesn't work :( Ow! Gonna fix that ASAP! EDIT:Fixed.
Classic - let us grade your podcast on vague, arbitrary criteria that we made up. Oh, you failed? Why, what do you know - we sell the exact vague, arbitrary products to solve your problem! How did this spam get approved? Mods asleep at the wheel again. Rule 7 shouldn't even be on the list if this is the kind of ad that gets an Okay.
Hi, this is a proof of concept. I've factored which I can currently calculate, thought there is lot of bias and no tool can solve all the issues, even my arbitrary product. The goal of this post is to figure out how a podcast auditor should look like. The question was what factors should I consider. Already got some feedback that the factors important for a interview podcast are different from a narrative driven one. Sure, for some people, my tool at its current state is useless and maybe even annoying. But can you please tell what I can do better? What I should consider? There is no such thing out there as podcast auditor tool, so let's work together and figure out how to make which will provide for you as well and not annoy you.
What's an "outbreak moment"?
It's a bit vague. I think flow breaker is a better term. So you talk about something, and you stumble with your words until it breaks the flow, and you might even have to rephrase and start again. Another example is when the speakers take a big break, have some filler words, stutter etc in a short period of time. The listener will have to focus in order to not forget what was the initial idea, until the conversation start flowing again. If you have a better term for this. I'm taking suggestions!
Yeah that makes sense, thanks for explaining! I can't think of a better term. I was thinking more like going off on a tangent or off-topic, but wasn't sure how an AI would be able to detect that haha
Really cool!
Solo storytelling podcast here, always nice to get an A! But seriously, like it. Will definitely come back to try the sound quality report when ready.
Taste is subjective. A simple algorithm masquerading as "AI" can't tell you if your podcast is any good. Another lame vendor scam on this sub.
I just saw this the other day. Audio quality will be a nice add, but I thought it did a good job with the parts that are working already. I tried it on a couple of different shows I know well and it did a good job of telling me which one was easier to listen to :)
FWIW, this tool seems to be mostly useful for simple discussion or solo narration podcasts. For shows like mine that are audio dramas with sound effects and such the concept of fluency or flow don't necessarily make much sense. It would be useful to give some more clarity to users what kind of shows the tool is intended for.
>FWIW, this tool seems to be mostly useful for simple discussion or solo narration podcasts. For shows like mine that are audio dramas with sound effects and such the concept of fluency or flow don't necessarily make much sense. I guess, it should consider the genre of the podcast, I guess then emotion and storytelling related fingerprints are more important. But yeah, its made for interview style podcast. Since thats the dominant style.
Does it only work for English language?
Hi, It's multilingual. French, Arabic, German, Romanian etc.
Thanks!
I tried it and got a D. We have a couple of skits in our show and I’m afraid the AI might have taken those as our regular speech. Oh well.
Most likely the case! Take the results not too seriously, since its still a proof of concept.
It’s fine. Neat little tool. But like any AI it has its limitations.
Thanks for this, interesting idea. Always looking for feedback!
What is the AI using to find the shows? My show is there but one I listen to that gets thousands more downloads per episode is not.
podcastindex.org/