German Shepherds Forum banner

Clicker versus Voice for Marker Training

3K views 19 replies 9 participants last post by  Squeetie 
#1 ·
While I completely understand people using clickers, I much prefer my own voice.

I do marker training just not with a clicker. It does require me to be on my game, ready with a quick Yes! or a drawn out Gooood.

Advantages: My voice is always there, not left behind in a bag and can provide a greater variability on the reward (e.g. super excited YES!! for him nailing the command versus a "yes" for following the command).

Disadvantages: Timing is a little more difficult with a voiced marker and perhaps not as precise. I need to keep the "Yes" utterance very short so the dog can associate his behavior with the reward. If I am not ready, it can also take a little longer to begin saying the marker. I've been working on timing and have improved.

I will be honest. I am a novice. Voiced markers work for me and my dog but I am always open to improving my training.

So, what do the members here prefer and why?

Do you think I am making a mistake using voiced markers--keeping in mind that my goals include at least CGC, BH and TD titles. I haven't committed to IPO yet but am doing the ground work and keeping my options open.

Thanks all,

Michael
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I don't think you're making a mistake.

I use both, for my dogs, and many times both for other dogs that I train or foster as well. Sometimes I just use one or the other depending on the dog. I tend to use the clicker to get precision and understanding in a behavior at the beginning, then use my "yes" to mark it as time goes on.

I also use No Reward Markers with my voice. Mine is "nope".
 
#3 ·
Fascinating. I would have expected a verbal "Yes!" to get initial understanding and then a clicker to get more precision due to the inherent quickness of the clicker sound.

Do you find behavior shaping easier with clickers or voiced markers? I've been shaping on Fetch and Out and making some nice progress using voiced markers but am wondering if it would go faster/easier with a clicker.
 
#8 ·
Interesting.

My assumption was that the variability of my voice is an advantage as it permits me to give stronger/weaker feedback for great/ok performance. Your post seems to imply the opposite.

I'm one of those dogs that need to know why before I understand something completely. So, why is the perfect consistency of a clicker better than the feedback-variability of my voice?

Please understand that I am not being snarky or disrespectful in my question. I truly want to learn and understand.

Marker training is the foundation upon which so much is built so understanding this concept thoroughly is important to me.
 
#7 ·
Voice. Just not coordinated enough to handle dog, rewards, maybe leash, etc. I know that one point of theory behind clicker versus marker with voice is that the clicker shows no emotion and somehow that is supposed to be good. However, I just don't see that as being a big deal and in fact I think, sometimes, the dogs respond better to an emotional marker. JMO.
 
#9 ·
....I know that one point of theory behind clicker versus marker with voice is that the clicker shows no emotion and somehow that is supposed to be good. However, I just don't see that as being a big deal and in fact I think, sometimes, the dogs respond better to an emotional marker. JMO.
Thanks JanaeUlva.

So some believe that no emotion is good for markers. That's helpful.

But WHY is no emotion good for marker training?

Maybe its dog-specific as you noted. I still don't understand this concept like I want to, however. I really want to grok this.
 
#12 ·
I use the clicker and treats to teach behavior and later, once it is what I want it to be and ingrained, more casual with "good" or play.
Many use the clicker too long and dogs (and owners too) become dependent on it; not performing unless they know you have the clicker and treats with you.
 
#16 ·
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective wolfy dog. Do you think dogs become also become dependent upon voiced markers? I suppose so.

I am just starting to fade treats for Sit! command. At 5 months, Linus is pretty consistent and does it with all three Ds (distance, duration and distraction) combined. I am still using treats for Down!, Place! and stays but will start fading that too in time.

I guess I should fade the marker at some point but not sure when--seems too early just yet at months old.

I'm not giving all kinds of different inflections when I verbally mark. But yes, sometimes emotions (positive emotions) do slip in. However, I just haven't seen an issue with that. Just like my commands, for the most part, are spoken with the same intensity and volume. But sometimes it helps to use a calmer command, a sterner command, a happier command. Depending on the state of mind of the dog, is one example I can think of. When I first start working my male I have to keep everything low-key or he goes into overdrive. He still understands the command and the marker word even if they sound different sometimes. Anyhow, I like it this way more than the clicker (and yes I have used a clicker and changed up to voice markers). Again, just my experience.
On my solo, early morning walk I use very softly spoken commands and markers. My idea is to increase his focus on me while the neighborhood is quiet. It seems to be working as he was showing some of his best OB work during those walks. But maybe it was the lack of distractions.

On the flip side, when Linus finally caught his first frisbee I threw a huge party for him. The "Yes!" was really amped for that performance and he got a bunch of pets and happy play time too.

Gib_laut's comment above gives me pause on using emotion in the marker. I don't want the dog to ignore the low-key verbal markers. Maybe the solution is an even-keeled verbal marker and a variable other reward (pets, play, etc) for particularly good performances?
 
#13 ·
I'm not giving all kinds of different inflections when I verbally mark. But yes, sometimes emotions (positive emotions) do slip in. However, I just haven't seen an issue with that. Just like my commands, for the most part, are spoken with the same intensity and volume. But sometimes it helps to use a calmer command, a sterner command, a happier command. Depending on the state of mind of the dog, is one example I can think of. When I first start working my male I have to keep everything low-key or he goes into overdrive. He still understands the command and the marker word even if they sound different sometimes. Anyhow, I like it this way more than the clicker (and yes I have used a clicker and changed up to voice markers). Again, just my experience.
 
#15 ·
I started out with a clicker when he was a pup, but I realized I was getting similar results with voice markers. I couldn't tell you where the clicker is now.

I will say the clicker was just a tad more precise on shaping, but not enough to make any real difference for me.

Maybe I should go looking for the clicker and use it with my students, they ignore my verbal cues pretty often... this could be fun.

ETA that I don't currently intend on any competition, trialing, etc.
 
#17 ·
Thanks ApselBear.

So what do you charge the clicker with when training students? Maybe you shouldn't answer that question. :D
 
#20 ·
I'm pretty new to training, but I'll throw in my 2 cents for fun. Like most responses so far, I use the clicker when Red is learning a new behavior or when I want to improve his performance with an already known behavior. I switch to a voice marker when he behavior is more understood (and when I just don't have the dang clicker with me!). I also use voice markers in situations when the clicker gets him too excited (for us, this is when we're working on not crying when other dogs are around and when we're working on calming exercises - this way, he doesn't pop out of his calm state because of the CLICK, and instead gets rewarded after a softer/less jarring/calmer verbal marker).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top