Points of View Message Board 7: A New Host
Post categories: messageboards
| 08:43 UK time, Wednesday, 15 April 2009
So Rowan has said goodbye and the Points of View message boards have a new host in the form of Sarah.
We also as previously discussed moved to reactive moderation for the POV boards last week.
A good time for me to make a couple of points.
The closure of the Radio board has caused some inconvenience to some people and I regret that.
But I've explained the reasons for this decision many times including on Monday in the comments on Martin Kelner's article in the Guardian. It doesn't make sense to have a radio section on a board called Points of View. Points of View is a television programme about BBC television which does not routinely discuss BBC radio. The board will now be hosted by someone from television who will be working closely with the programme. To ask them to host a radio board is not a sensible use of their time.
This does not mean that the BBC doesn't want to know what licence fee payers think about radio. It simply means that there are better places to do it (as Jem says).
Regarding the technical improvements to the boards (as mentioned by Tom), we are still going to do these, but they are taking longer than I thought they would. We will update you about progress as it happens. Incidentally these changes will benefit all BBC boards not just Points of View.
With hindsight if I'd known it was all going to take this long I might have started this conversation a bit later, rather than way back in November of last year.
But I'm still glad I started it. It's been less than perfect but still worth doing.
I wish Sarah the best of luck, and I expect this to be the last post I write on this subject (although you never know...)
Update 1 p.m. 8th May 2009: Sarah has just posted this explanation on the POV boards of how off topic threads and threads about Radio will be dealt with.
Nick Reynolds is Editor, BBC Internet blog
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Waffle,waffle, waffle. Just answer me the one question that you have have avoided constantly. On which BBC Message Board - NOT BLOG - can we post our observations and comments on BBC Radio2 and BBC 5Live? It is not a difficult question is it Nick?
Complain about this comment
Average,
He still can't answer it though!
H
Complain about this comment
Nick, Jem may say there are other places to discuss radio, but THERE AREN'T on the BBC.
We'll keep up this discussion with you and Jem til we get a radio board.
We're not going away !
Complain about this comment
Average40. Yes. At the moment there aren't specific BBC message boards where Radio 2 and Five Live teams host topics/comments about their presenters. However the BBC does host various boards/spaces devoted to music, news and sport, various presenters on Radio 2 and 5 Live have blogs where users can leave comments, discussion about R2 and 5Live takes place on a whole host of non BBC spaces and there are obviously more formal ways to register complaints or leave feedback about these issues at the BBC.
This has been the case for several years. The now closed POV radio board was one such space at the BBC but it was unhosted, not integrated into the networks, and unpopular. Which is why we decided to close it, in that form.
Jem Stone (Audio and Music)
Complain about this comment
#1: Surely the people to be asking rather than Nick are those responsible for the radio channels in question. After all what's the point in having a radio board where those in charge of the stations don't monitor comments and respond to them.
For Radio 2 maybe people should pester them via http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/contact-us/website/ to add a specific board for discussing Radio 2 programmes/content.
Complain about this comment
Goodbye Nick.
5 months on, and we are worse off than we were before you arrived. Lets look to the future with unjustified optimism.
Complain about this comment
Jem - The radio board unpopular? Maybe with Victoria Derbyshire, Alan Green, Steve Wright, Sarah Kennedy, Stephen Nolan etc etc but certainly not with me, Kharly, PhilW, Quizzmo, John H, Peter the Meteor, Barrington Womble,Archie,Sarnia, Muskadash, Counterblast, S.Kellington, Phras, Antony J et al. All excellent posters, I didn't always agree with their views, but respected them and their right to an opinion - something the BBC does not at the moment.
I do not want to comment on the BBC's radio output on "non" BBC space, I want my points registered with the BBC.
Other formal ways?? Oh come on Jem, we are in the 21stC now, we want instant comments made and seen by all, not a hand written letter to some faceless clerk which then disappears.
It is so simple, give BBC Radio it's own Message Board. Let it cover all stations from Radio1 - Radio7. I am sure there is someone available at the BBC to "host" it.
Radio is the heart of the BBC, please do not ignore it.
Complain about this comment
Seven Archers messageboards and none for Radio Five. BBC powers that be want only comments on fantasy programmes and any feedback or opinions about rolling news channels well, forget it. I notice one of the Archers boards is for discussion about anything you want so maybe the fight should adjourn to the bar of the Bull until we win it. I suggest domination of the discussions on it and a lock-in of huge proportions to show who has the power.
Complain about this comment
Did I just read in post from Jem that the radio board was unpopular ?
I've heard some excuses in my time but that takes the biscuit.
Unpopular because it exposed how poor Radio 5live has become I suppose.
It was used everyday from what I can see.
Why not close one of your Archers boards instead ? I don't find all those very popular.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC wants to just ignore the views and wishes of licence payers who pay £140 a year towards to what is public service then dispense with the licence fee and then and only then will you be entitled to do what ever you want and run the BBC as a commercial enterprise.
I have been absolutely disgusted by the attitude , excuses snd responses we have been given on here and over the past weeks on the message boards.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for spoiling the messageboards, Nick.
You've probably enjoyed upsetting loads of people and then twisting and turning your way out of answering the direct questions sent your way.
Complain about this comment
Can you show me one direct question that has not had an answer from either Jem or myself?
Complain about this comment
You are having a laugh aren't you Nick? I have asked you at least 3 times on which Message Board - NOT BLOG - we can comment on the output of BBC Radio2 and BBC Radio 5Live? For your colleague to say there is nowhere IS NOT AN ANSWER!!!!!!
YOU have avoided my question every time. In fact it is the first comment on this BLOG!
Complain about this comment
Exactly.
Where can we post comments about Radio 5live on a BBC, ( I repeat )BBC message board?
What don't you understand about the question ?
We have not had an answer yet and please don't direct us to digitalspy again.
Complain about this comment
Nick said: "Can you show me one direct question that has not had an answer from either Jem or myself?"
????
YES! loads!.. not least the one about how do we quote on this blog, what is your opinion on the success of your Open Blog, what are the rankings of traffic for each MB (Radio was NOT unpopular) , the REAL reason for DOG on iPlayer (not just your guess) and loads more too numerous to mention.
I am not waiting anymore for your answers Nick... but I had to answer such a brazen reply.
oh and why should I get Your comment contains some HTML that has been mistyped.
Name cannot begin with the '?' character on line 1 ?
Complain about this comment
....some people have far too much time on their hands. If you're that bothered about talking specifically about a radio station, start your own fans forum.
I don't want my licence fee wasted on a platform for a load of moaners, full of self importance and nothing particularly interesting or constructive to say.
(rant over)
Complain about this comment
It's called feedback, SteveoBagins. It allows the programme originators to meet the needs of their audience better.
It's also the freedom to express your opinion in the correct area - just as you have done.
Complain about this comment
"what is your opinion on the success of your Open Blog..."
I did answer this question Officer Dibble and others.
What do you mean by "the real reason"?
There is no quote function on blog comments as far as I know.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm...
Doesn't appear that the moaning SteveoBagins has anything interesting or constructive to say.
Nick can you answer the question about where we can post our comments on 5live on a BBC message board ?
Complain about this comment
Leonard-Zelig - Jem has already answered this point in his previous comment.
Complain about this comment
Nick: "what is your opinion on the success of your Open Blog..." I did answer this question...
Where Nick? Instead of just enigmatically saying you have and appearing to be deliberately obtuse, why not answer it in as many words- or link it... No-where in your blog history have you answered my question.
Complain about this comment
PS instead of answering "there is no quote function" why don't you as Man in Charge of these blogs do something proactive (as well as responsive to 4 years of feedback from the users) and instigate one?
Does not a slightly enquiring mind create loads of questions for you when we all experience bugs galore on your blogs and boards?
Complain about this comment
With the reasoning that Nick Reynolds gave for the closing of the Radio message board in mind, can I propose again what others have already proposed: a message board for Feedback. I believe this is the logical answer to all of Nick Reynolds' concerns, and I hope I would satisfy those message board users who are disappointed at the loss of the Radio message board as well. These are my reasons:
* Feedback is the radio programme for feedback on all of the BBC's radio output, not just Radio 4.
* Points of View has a long-running tradition of airing a sampling of message board comments to complement the phone calls, letters and emails from viewers that they receive. Feedback could do the same if it had an associated Feedback message board.
* Like the Points of View message board is now, the Feedback message board could be hosted by someone working closely with the programme, allowing the comments there to be fed back to the Feedback programme and to the BBC.
* In terms of where the message board is placed, I would suggest the best place would be under the Radio 4 message boards (where there would be no conflict with the Points of View "brand", although it would be nice if there were a link provided from the Points of View message board) and links could be provided from the other BBC radio station websites.
Complain about this comment
Nick as regards Jems post to which we are directed to non BBC spaces or making formal complaints about radio stations output to the BBC.......
Has anyone tried the making a complaint to the BBC ?
I have and all you get is some patronizing drivel back which virtually says ' ok you've had your moan,I'll pat you are the head if you like, now go away and don't bother us again '.
Complain about this comment
BTW good suggestion andrew.
A Feedback message board was put forward as an idea on a thread on the BBC board but all we got back was the usual negative responses from the powers that be,
Complain about this comment
Andrew 646 said :
Like the Points of View message board is now, the Feedback message board could be hosted by someone working closely with the programme, allowing the comments there to be fed back to the Feedback programme and to the BBC.
Andrew, we don't know that the new host has anything to do with the programme. That was only implied by Nick. She is paid by the programme but as far as I can see she has not said she has POV production experience.
Complain about this comment
..also the POV team have had access to the board for the last 4 seasons. The new host makes no difference to their ability to work with the audience. The new host is merely there to meet the BBC's operational requirements without impinging on Future Media's budget.
Complain about this comment
Just a quick final comment. Nick says "But I'm still glad I started it. It's been less than perfect but still worth doing."
So by your own admission you've done a less than perfect job, Nick. Why didn't you stay on and do a proper job?
Complain about this comment
"It's also the freedom to express your opinion in the correct area - just as you have done."
The correct area is a forum that the person expressing is paying for rather than everyone else.
There is no reason for the BBC to have any message boards at all. The feedback from them is statistically unreliable and worse than useless - it would be incredibly dangerous for it to be listened to. Only statistically viable sampled studies are useful.
Phazer
Complain about this comment
@Phazer: Are you really saying that the BBC should disregard every letter, email and phone call that they receive about programmes? They are surely just as "statistically unreliable" as message board comments. Also, I presume you think that the Points of View TV programme and the Feedback radio programme are "worse than useless" as well, because they do not rely on "statistically viable sampled studies", which you claim are the only useful feedback method.
Complain about this comment
Phazer - are you Nick in disguise...?
Complain about this comment
@andrew656 Yup, pretty much. Felt that way for decades. Keep a compaints service to allow for submission of complaints about factual innaccuracies that can then be verified and corrected if valid, and the Trust should take complaints on the BBC breaching it’s remit. But otherwise individual viewer comments have absolutely no validity whatsoever. Listening to tiny groups of self moralisers has lead to most of the bad policy decisions by broadcasters and governments for the last twenty years - several government consultations recently have been textbook examples of exactly why.
@Chosun "Phazer - are you Nick in disguise...?"
No. As I've said, I would have just shut down all the message boards. All of them. And why would I have had any kind of consultation process about it? The consulation would have been invalid because it's a self selected sample.
This whole saga is a great example of why the BBC shouldn't do message boards. It cannot do them properly, because people have expectations of them that cannot be matched by a publically funded service. So it shouldn't do them at all.
Complain about this comment
To The_Phazer,
So should people disregard your comments and complaints?
Complain about this comment
Just to clarify that myself and The_Phaser are not the same person.
I always welcome his forthright and intelligent contributions to this blog but unlike him I do believe that message boards have a role to play in getting feedback from licence fee payers. But as Jem points out they have to be well hosted, well loved and producing useful stuff. The radio board in my opinion was not doing this.
Chosun - although I am not hosting the POV boards any more I will still be pushing for technical improvements which will benefit all BBC boards and there'll be more news on these on this blog when we make some progress.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Are you now saying the rest of us do not produce intelligent and forthright contributions ( such as you remarked about Phazer ) because we disagree with your actions ?
If you are, I happen to find that extremely offensive.
The Radio board was in place so that listeners could comment on their choice of radio listening.Whether the BBC took any notice of the criticism is neither hear nor there.It was a focal point to discuss BBC radio and I do hope we have a better and more friendly attitude from the new host to our concerns and the board is replaced sooner rather than later and we have a better response than from previous disinterested people who are bogged down in blogs.
Complain about this comment
BTW Nick if your same lame point about message boards having to be well loved and producing useful stuff was also applied to blogs, then the majority of BBC blogs should be closed down.Another big waste of licence fee money.
Complain about this comment
Nick says: " But as Jem points out they have to be well hosted, well loved and producing useful stuff. The radio board in my opinion was not doing this."
Where is the evidence from the consultation to support this? No one came up with any of those critisims. None of the users said it was unloved (except for criticism of the design of ALL BBC MBs), no one said poor hosting was an issue on Radio (except you), and how can you differentiate the "useful stuff" from the TV board as opposed to the Radio board? I think you and jem are making it all up -show us the evidence that drove these conclusions, because what you came up with has no relation to what was highlighted as issues and solutions?
I think you are also confused as to the role of the host. The suggestions from the users is that we would prefer a dialogue with relevant people in the BBC - that is nothing at all to do with hosting. You are the only one that has a bee in his bonnet about hosting -ie. you don't want to be responsible for it.
Complain about this comment
.. and as for well loved, the TV board used to have two good hosts... we lost those, and got one good host and someone from Future Media, and almost instantly it became less "well loved". Now we have a new host (but not improving the dialogue with the BBC.) so we are now 5 months on and we and the BBC are worse off.
Complain about this comment
Exactly.
I have never heard a previous host come out with such a perverse analysis of a message board before.
All I've read recently is that the radio board was unloved and unpopular which is not only a bizarre thing to say....it is totally incorrect.
Complain about this comment
@NickReynolds: What did you think of the proposal I outlined in comment 23 about creating a Feedback message board?
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble - if you look back at the very first blog post I wrote you'll find a link to a comment on the boards that identifies poor hosting as a key problem. Getting a host who can encourage better interaction with BBC people is what I've tried to do.
As for the radio board being unloved, if you look at the numbers in this blog post you'll see that it was not very popular, and low traffic.
And this is not a "consultation" it's an informal conversation.
andrew646 - I think this is an interesting idea and I will pass it on to my colleagues in radio.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You said.............
"As for the radio board being unloved, if you look at the numbers in this blog post you'll see that it was not very popular, and low traffic"
---------------------
but if YOU look at THIS comment from the bbc.co.uk Review
---------------------
"We have also been cautious about comparing very different types of sites against each other as, in television and radio, it is more usual to accept that different genres of programming get different levels of appreciation"
---------------------
THEY at least accept that comparing Television and Radio is like comparing oranges and apples. Television and Radio may be covered by the umbrella "broadcasting", and oranges and apples by the umbrella "fruit", but we don't ban oranges because more people eat apples. We encourage orange eaters to live side by side with apple eaters, for the simple reason that BOTH are healthy, and BBC SHOULD be ENCOURAGING Radio listeners to access a "General" Radio board side by side with their other CORE product "Television", thereby fostering EQUAL/HEALTHY user generated commenting for Radio as well as Television. Instead, YOU chose to go counter to the above advice from the Report, and close the "General" Radio board, as opposed to encouraging MORE commenting.
Complain about this comment
Great post again niclaramartin.
One says one thing.....one says another.
Absolutely no reason at all to have so hastily closed down the Radio Board....
...and even if it is/was going to be replaced with Feedback connected board, there is still no excuse for not keeping it going in it's present form for the time being.
Complain about this comment
Leonard,
AND, renaming the bbc.co.uk Message Board so shortly before it was closed down. Wonder how many meetings they had to decide it was worth doing that? BUT, of course the answer is that the site was being re-branded, so it HAD to be done, even if they knew it was being closed so soon.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I agree that 5live used to be a terrific station.
Whoever the controller has been in charge, it's dumbing down by the BBC has been an absolute disgrace.
No wonder they decided to ditch the Radio board as the complaints on there mounted about the poor presenters and the downward style it has taken.
Complain about this comment
Nick said (but without providing the links) "if you look back at the very first blog post I wrote you'll find a link to a comment on the boards that identifies poor hosting as a key problem. Getting a host who can encourage better interaction with BBC people is what I've tried to do.
As for the radio board being unloved, if you look at the numbers in this blog post you'll see that it was not very popular, and low traffic."
Nick, you again fail to read our posts correctly, nor answer the questions informatively. Poor hosting was in issue, but not an imperative -and closing a board seems a "Nose to spite your face" approach to a solution!
How can you conclude that hosting was the principal issue? Accountability was. Of the hundreds of comments made directly to you, you have ignored the majority, and eventually addressed just one- hosting. As we have seen Hosting is NOT a solution to the BBC's lack of accountability (as we all said) and the new host is not showing she is a better conduit to interaction with the BBC. You seem confused as to what a host can achieve and we offered a number of ways of improving that -none of which you commented on, let alone adopted.
You clearly state ratings mean quality and "loved", which is stupid. No-one has ever said the Radio board was unloved, nor unpopular. You also won't contradict my statement that the Radio board was actually amongst the top traffic boards - proving that Future Media are simply scraping around for reasons to justify illogical decisions.
Please don't respond without the facts and comparative traffic numbers requested a week ago.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble - I did provide the links, they are all there in my previous comment.
Hosting and accountability go hand in hand. A host closer to Points of View the TV programme will hopefully provide better hosting and more accountability.
The Radio board was not amongst the top traffic in boards. 60% of the traffic on the POV boards was to the television board. The Radio board was both unloved (not many people visited it and it was unconnected to BBC Radio networks, as Jem has said) and not very popular.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You saying it was unloved doesn't make it unloved, nor unpopular - no-one was complaining that they didn't like it. As for the spurious traffic argument, why aren't you consistent and close all the oards I highlighted that have just 1% of the Radio boards traffic?
We didn't have problem with it being unconnected with a Radio Network - especially as hardly any of the boards are connected and there is no dialogue with producers. and please don't kid yourself that the TV boards is now aligned with the POV programme just because a host who hasn't worked on POV is the part time host. (and hardly any of the message boarders care two jots for any alignment with the TV programme as it clearly is part of the accountability problem).
5 months on we have less functionality, less opportunity to discuss the core BBC offer of TV and Radio, no more accountability and no change in repairing the design issues of the boards. We have been ignored, again.
I wouldn't put this project on your CV.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble - fortunately or unfortunately at the moment I have no power over any other BBC message board, so I can't help you in your desire to close low traffic boards.
I think you are contradicting yourself. You say you want more accountability and yet that you don't care that there was no connection between the old radio board and the radio networks.
In what way do you have less functionality? As I've said above when we make technical improvements to the boards these will benefit all boards including the POV boards.
Complain about this comment
Nick, twisting my words is not becoming. This dialogue is like putting Eels in a bucket. There is no point in continuing - you haven't listened to any of us in the past 5 months.
Complain about this comment
Well some have followed Jems advice and posted comments on Victoria Derbyshires blog and I can't say that Victoria feels to happy about it from a reply of hers I've just read.
Complain about this comment
Nick
We are struggling over ONE word - Accountability. YOU think ACCOUNTABILITY is putting a host in charge of the boards, who has some connection to a 15minute seasonal programme. As I've said before, you simply have to read ANY thread on the Points of View programme to see what Message board posters REALLY THINK of that programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6498032
YOU inferred a host(who by the way seems to be missing in action) MAY in some way report to SOMEONE at Points of View programme. You see Nick, you NEVER actually explained to us what the CONNECTION was. Whether our postings would be read by a Host who had some input to the programme, or whether the Host was employed by POV simply to read the threads, and do.........what? You failed in this discussion with posters for the simple reason, that at no point did you tell us what your remit was, and having completed it, you did not tell us how it would be implimented.
OUR idea of ACCOUNTABILITY was getting BBC staff to come to the boards and talk to us there. Danielle Nagler writes blogs, with about 140 comments for bloggers on the subject of DOGs. The message Boards have several threads of over 1,000 comments on DOGs, and yet no-one from BBC feels they are ACCOUNTABLE to their message boarders in the way they are to their bloggers.
As to Hosting being "the most important" feature for posters. NO. When we asked you what was the feature YOU felt was most important, YOU said better hosting. To which, we asked exactly WHAT input WE could have to Hosting. (You seem to have misunderstood Hosting and moderation - which IS a gripe - what have you done to tighten up on this moderation by an external company?) I don't think there has been mention of sorting out the company doing moderation/3minute rule/WUMs/too short opening hours etc. which WERE points we DID bring up. But, hey, YOU got a host (who we have barely seen), aligned the boards to a twee and farcical programme, closed three boards, saying that as Radio is not television it can't appear on POV, used "hits" as a reason to close, rather than accepting that Television is THE major board, and NOTHING can compete/compare to those numbers. The "General" radio board had reasonable numbers, and was well-loved by the many posters who have continued to argue for it's retention.
To summarise, YOU wanted better and more closely aligned Hosting - WE had no input to this. WE wanted BBC staff to come onto the message boards and talk DIRECTLY to us. YOU gave us a POV employee, of indiscrimate power. WE enjoyed the diverse boards on POV. YOU closed three of the five. YOU kept telling us that you were closing threads/moving them because they were NOT on the CORRECT board, and WE now have the ludicrous situation of being, BY YOU, told to go to post what are effectively "OFF" topics (on someone elses' boards) because YOU closed the CORRECT boards for THOSE comments. If YOU had told us what you were thinking of doing, we could have told you what would work and what wouldn't (we're the experts on messageboarding, you admitted you are a blogger, who loves blogging and knew practically nothing about message boards). Unfortunately, whilst on the message boards you NEVER threw yourself into learning anything about message boarding. Just kept linking us to YOUR blogs, and expected US to embrace and learn how to use YOUR blogs, when you would not reciprocate with OUR message boards.
All in all Nick, sorry, but a complete farce. A complete waste of our time. A complete waste of your time, and a complete vindication for those posters from Day 1 who said, "improvements" is BBC code for "closures".
Complain about this comment
Nick,
From your comment above.........
"Hosting and accountability go hand in hand"
................
The problem we have is that YOU have decided that it is US who is ACCOUNTABLE, and have set up force-fields to stop us talking DIRECTLY to BBC High Heidjins. The point of ACCOUNTABILITY is meant to be the other way around. BBC are supposed to be ACCOUNTABLE to US. Having set up a new Host, and aligned the boards to a trivial little programme, which is held up to ridicule on the VERY boards named after it, can you please tell me WHERE IS BBC's ACCOUNTABILITY to US, in THIS exercise? What you have done is make BBC LESS Accountable, by removing our ability to comment on various matters (Radio/Online and Digital). The last one is a hoot, as YOU have removed the Digital Board at the VERY time we are moving over to DIGITAL.
Complain about this comment
Hopefully the new host will input into the programme. That indeed is the idea.
The Digital board was very low traffic indeed. Should low traffic boards be kept open just for the sake of it?
I've explained here why message boards may not be the easiest place for BBC people to participate.
Complain about this comment
"Hopefully the new host will input into the programme. That indeed is the idea. "
----------
And, what about BBC's ACCOUNTABILITY to us. Getting a post read out on POV appears to make NO DIFFERENCE to the Senior Staff (I've had four read out by the way, and ALL four were frivolous, frippery - not one of my postings on more weighty topics has been read out - so I HAVE experience of "input" to Points of View). We do not want postings read out on Points of View. We have NEVER wanted postings read out on Points of View (it does your street cred no good on the boards). We WANT BBC staff like Danielle Nagler or yourself to come ONTO the message boards, and discuss our points of view/complaints/suggestions THERE. So, AGAIN, I ask, how has this exercise of "improvements" actually improved BBC's ACCOUNTABILITY to US? Or, does the Graf Report and BBC Trust Report NOT say, that BBC should be MORE ACCOUNTABLE to it's viewers/listeners? You have side-stepped what THOSE reports asked BBC to do, and instead chose to make US more ACCOUNTABLE to BBC, and not BBC more ACCOUNTABLE to US. Please address that point.
As to the Digital boards. (doh smiley Nick) Low traffic (doh)
------------
"Should low traffic boards be kept open just for the sake of it?"
------------
Erm, Nick, perhaps it would have been judicious to keep the Digital board open, in case there was an INCREASE in postings. Given that there is the switch-over to Digital. It absolutely beggars belief that a BBC employee would close a board for discussion of Digital matters at this VERY time.
------------
"I've explained here why message boards may not be the easiest place for BBC people to participate"
-------------
NO, Nick, what you have done, is show BBC employees up as frightened to stand up for their opinions. You have made out that we would be unruly (close offensive posts, but answer truthfully justified comments in that case). What comes out from THAT statement is that BBC employees are running scared from the licence payers, and don't want to open themselves up to scrutiny. If they are concerned about the press reading the boards, then do their job properly and make sure that their answers are truthful. What is now happening is that YOU have used the tiny minority of nasty comments as an excuse for NO interaction on Messageboards between BBC staff and viewers/listeners. You admitted that BBC staff LIKE blogs, because they can CONTROL them. I honestly don't think you appreciate just how bad that comment was. Re-read it, and see if you think it shows BBC staff in a good light.
Complain about this comment
"What comes out from THAT statement is that BBC employees are running scared from the licence payers, and don't want to open themselves up to scrutiny."
This is untrue. It is why we have blogs like this one.
But I do think that BBC people should have a choice about how and where they do this. They should not be forced to go onto a message board if that's somewhere they are not comfortable.
Complain about this comment
Just a curiosity.
Down the bottom of the screen is a list of "buzzwords" called - "Categories - These are some of the popular topics this blog covers."
Let's think of a few words that might have featured in a (relentless) series of blog posts recently.
POV - nope
Points of View - nope
Messageboard - nope
Consultation - nope
But...
Ugc (?) - yep - one post in 2008
What we do - yep - two posts in 2008
Identity - yep - one post in 2008
Now, either someone's forgetting to add "Post Categories", but surely the editor of the BBC Internet blog wouldn't do something like that, or someone doesn't want messageboards polluting their blog.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I think it is a little rich for the person who closes boards to say you think people should have a choice of where they communicate with the BBC. Who says people are uncomfortable with Message Boards? You are making this all up! Your list of things to justify your own inexperienced opinion of what we want seems to be diametrically opposite to the clearly stated wants of those that have contributed. Blogs were never on the wish list from anyone... indeed until you arrived no-one knew the BBC had any blogs.... and looking at the recent "improvements" there is still nothing to attract people.... indeed they appear unpopular (proven), unloved (proven) and relatively low traffic (incontravertible). Better be consistent Nick and close them down.
Complain about this comment
OK Nick (using my best Jeremy Paxman mode I shall ask AGAIN) where is BBC's ACCOUNTABILITY to US. YOU have told US .....
"But I do think that BBC people should have a choice about how and where they do this. They should not be forced to go onto a message board if that's somewhere they are not comfortable."
-------------------------
which is unbelievable, since THAT is exactly what YOU did to US. Change THAT sentence to.......
------------------------
"But I do think that POSTERS should have a choice about how and where they do this. They should not be forced to go onto a BLOG if that's somewhere they are not comfortable.
------------------------------------
Do you not see the incongruity of you saying BBC staff should NOT have to go onto the Message boards if THEY are not comfortable, but that you did not show us the same courtesy you are insisting for BBC staff.
BBC staff are ACCOUNTABLE to us. We are NOT ACCOUNTABLE to you, and until you get your head around that little conundrum you are going to continue with the misconception you have, that WE should just do as you TELL us.
-----------------------
You then quoted from my message.......
""What comes out from THAT statement is that BBC employees are running scared from the licence payers, and don't want to open themselves up to scrutiny." .............
This is untrue. It is why we have blogs like this one."
-----------------------------------
AND YET AGAIN WITH THE BLOGS. I SHALL WHISPER THIS - we do not want to blog on BBC, we choose to message board when we come to BBC.
----------------------------------------
And to finish I shall ask AGAIN - why do you NOT think that BBC staff should be ACCOUNTABLE to their message board community ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS, and NOT on the blogs.......as you so very nearly say.....
"people should have a choice about how and where they do this. They should not be forced to go onto a (replace blog for YOUR use of the words message boards) if that's somewhere they are not comfortable."
(Nick can you please get a quote function on these blogs, so that we don't this visually unappealing and long-winded way of quoting and viewing those quotes, where all the text just runs into each other)
.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Just a suggestion for your blogs - have a wee look at the Commenting section on Google's Matt Cutts' Blogs. (Just Google "Matt Cutts")
You will see obvious delineation of posters by colour (grey or white for alternate posters with the blog author in green). Visually so much easier to differentiate the posters' comments.
And the use of a quote box, is an absolute Godsend to blogging, and again, so much more pleasing, visually.
Any chance of BBC attempting something approaching the appearance of Matt Cutts' blogs?
Complain about this comment
If you need evidence that blogs are all about CONTROL, not communication, just look at the Roxana Saberi posts on The Editors blog (the link to it is up the right hand side).
Several blog messages and lots of comments... but now all the comments appear to have disappeared, despite two recent ones still showing 28 and 58 comments.
Of course there could be an innocent explanation.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
"the were closed because they are unloved and unpopular" were your words. Can you tell me when the blogs will be closed? or is simply a case of double standards?
Complain about this comment
Seurat of the Yard is clearly a very fine detective - Mma Ramotswe would be proud.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble - again I don't have responsibility for all BBC blogs so I can't help you in your desire to close them. I'd like to know your evidence for them being unpopular. Many BBC blogs are very popular. Certainly Robert Peston's blog or Nick Robinson's blog attract many more comments than some threads on the Points of View boards.
Suerat - good call. I will add a "messageboard" category.
Complain about this comment
Nick - you know I am not calling for their closure. and ignoring the clear double standards by you just gives us the impression you are hiding your real reasons for the decisions you made.
The evidence Nick? The traffic is well below that of the Radio board - so by your criteria you should close your own blogs. I have seen nearly unanimous antipathy to the Blogs - I don't see that written about MBs - so again for consistency, you should close the "unloved" blogs at the same time you close the Radio MB (which has never been stated as being unloved).
I could link many many posts that show the support for the MBs you closed, and can also show you many more that were against the blogs you preside over. I see no statements in support of closure of the MBs. (other than Phazer wanting them all closed) and I don't see droves of people using the Blogs compared to the MBs.
Evidentially your reasoning is unsubstantiated. A little bit of honesty would increase your credibility. Without it there is little point in you being here.
Complain about this comment
And, again, in Jeremy Paxman mode.....
Nick can you tell us how the BBC plan to be ACCOUNTABLE to THEIR message boarders.
From YOUR comment above.....
"But I do think that BBC people should have a choice about how and where they do this. They should not be forced to go onto a message board if that's somewhere they are not comfortable."
-------------------------
where I responded.....
which is unbelievable, since THAT is exactly what YOU did to US. Change THAT sentence to.......
------------------------
"But I do think that POSTERS should have a choice about how and where they do this. They should not be forced to go onto a BLOG if that's somewhere they are not comfortable.
WHY do you think that BBC employees have MORE RIGHTS than the people they are ACCOUNTABLE to? If you insist on using skewed logic, it will come back and bite you on the bum.
WE are asking that BBC employees come onto the BBC Message boards and speak DIRECTLY to the general public, who "do not feel comfortable" on BBC blogs.
Complain about this comment
This baffles me.
If you have a question you go to where you are most likely to get an answer, don't you? Doesn't matter whether it's a blog, a message board, a letter or a phone call to a relevant programme. You just decide what's more likely to get an answer.
If you're more likely to get an answer on a blog then you go there. It's getting an answer that counts, not where you are.
Complain about this comment
Before I deal with your comment above, I think I should post THIS comment which Sarah (our new Host) - who YOU have said aligns us closer to POV programme, and would give us more contact with it.
Quote from Sarah on BBC Message Board...
"I do have closer ties to the Points of View team, but I wouldn’t say that I work for them. I can give them a "heads up" if there are any posts on the board that might be suitable for the programme, although there are researchers on the programme team who also keep an eye out. I'm not involved in choosing what actually goes into the programme."
So, I'm not sure where THIS "improvement" is that you have been telling us. We always had a Host, and POV used to check in on the boards (how else can you explain the "Message Board comments section" of the Points of View Programme. So, where is this new ACCOUNTABILITY.
YOU have delivered us nothing new and dressed it as "improvements".
Complain about this comment
Now to deal with YOUR comment above....
"This baffles me."
Doesn't take much does it!!!!!!
"If you have a question you go to where you are most likely to get an answer" -
and YOU have decreed that THAT will ONLY be on the BLOGS (we're NOT discussing phone calls, emails, letters etc, because THOSE are completely different from Blogs and Message Boards).
"If you're more likely to get an answer on a blog then you go there. It's getting an answer that counts, not where you are."
And, taking THAT argument and turning it to the CORRECT direction. YOU are saying that BBC staff will ONLY look at BLOGS for the QUESTIONS raised by the general public.
You constantly say that BBC staff won't go onto the message boards because THEY don't feel comfortable there. What about the public who are not comfortable on BLOGS. Using YOUR logic, BBC staff WILL NOT set foot in the message boards to ANSWER questions raised there.
WE choose to ask QUESTIONS on the Message boards, and YOU have decreed that the ANSWERS will be given only on BLOGS.
Can you not see how SKEWED, ALIENATING, INSULTING, DISCRIMINATORY, NON-INCLUSIVE, PATRONISING and plain WRONG that attitude is?
And, as you can see from Sarah's comment on the BBC board, we have now lost THREE boards, and gained a Host who is peripheral to POV Programme (which is the bee-all-and-end-all to you). You must think we are totally gullible.
BUT we said from DAY 1 that THIS would be the outcome.
Complain about this comment
Here's what I would do - I posted this "solution" on Ian Betteridge's blog, on a post about comments, a few weeks ago:
http://www.technovia.co.uk/2009/03/warning-this-post-contains-strong-language.html#comment-7397908
"These comments confuse me. Is this some kind of Turing test?
I would much prefer the BBC to figure out the bits of the web they do horribly first - like a permanent webpage for every programme and give up blocking content to non-UK Internet users.
My suggestion would be to be for the BBC to have a top 10 list of sites for each genre of output and assign an employee to each to interact with licence fee payers there. Anyone coming to the BBC pages get the list of sites where BBC employee will be participating.
This does a number of very important things:
1. It drives traffic from the BBC to other sites.
2. It moves the moderation headache to sites who get the benefit of BBC traffic.
3. It allows BBC people to participate without having to spend most of the time firefighting turf wars.
4. It cross-polinates to others who may not actively be using the BBC sites.
5. It removes the "dead-hand" feel to the moderation task the BBC has to enforce."
Complain about this comment
I see from the BBC message board that the very much missed and popular Radio Board is now under discussion.
I just hope it is reinstated as fast as it was removed for no acceptable reason at all.
It surely can't take that long for someone to make a decision.
Complain about this comment
Niclaramartin, - judging by his last comments, there is no reasoning with Nick. His comments make no sense, and if that is the sort of reasoning that is controlling the BBC's communication with its audience then there is little point in any discussion.
Jem, his BBC colleague, summed it up- Quote: "Nick is too thick skinned". Personally I think Jem said too much.
Complain about this comment
As for the new host. I don't think anyone actually believed the promised improvements - and evidently it has made no difference to the accountability. The so-called TV production person has no more BBC insight than any other poster on the boards - and probably less than a few I can name. The closer ties with the POV programme was a spurious statement. The Future media exercise was a sham - the benefits nil.
Complain about this comment
OK Nick
Do you think that BBC are accountable to their viewers and listeners?
If you answer THAT question "YES", then, YOU cannot pick and choose WHICH viewers and listeners YOU and BBC staff will enter into dialogue with. Perhaps BBC staff are more comfortable on THEIR blogs, exerting CONTROL over commenting. BUT, THAT is not an acceptable attitude to your customers. The Graf Report and BBC Trust Report said that BBC had to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE. It did not say, "BBC has to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE to bloggers". It said "bbc.co.uk has helped make the BBC more accountable but more can be done to meet the public’s growing expectation of open dialogue." AND.....
"The original terms of approval for BBC online included a condition that it should use the internet “to forge a new relationship with licence fee payers and strengthen accountability" (NOTE: "Licence fee payers", not "bloggers"
BUT we come to the MOST important point.....
"bbc.co.uk allows the BBC to engage easily with licence fee payers. The internet allows for easy distribution of information and, unlike in the case of broadcast media, the flow of information can be two-way. bbc.co.uk gives licence fee payers opportunities to provide feedback in many areas"
NICK - PLEASE NOTE - its says "in many areas" (not just one place - blogs, but "in many areas")
So, in the spirit of aiding BBC to find useful commenting in one of those "many areas", may I point you (and hopefully Danielle Nagler) in the direction of THIS thread
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=5439003&skip=0&show=20
where licence fee payers have clocked up 1107 comments on the subject of DOGs (as opposed to the 140 comments on Danielle's Blog). It would appear that the above thread is WHERE the general public have CHOSEN to discuss this subject, so, as the BBC Trust and Graf Report say, perhaps BBC staff should get over to discuss it with the licence fee payers in THEIR choice of the "many areas".
I should also point out that the BBC Trust Report AND the Graf Report were both keen to encourage User Generated Commenting, and where can you find that......Message Boards
Complain about this comment
Nick, you said...
"If you have a question you go to where you are most likely to get an answer, don't you? Doesn't matter whether it's a blog, a message board, a letter or a phone call to a relevant programme. You just decide what's more likely to get an answer."
So, in YOUR own words "doesn't matter whether it's a blog, a message board, a letter or a phone call...." So, are you telling me that if I write a letter I SHALL receive a reply. If I phone a relevant programme, I will be spoken to by a member of BBC staff. Or if I post a comment on a blog, I SHALL receive a reply (haha). BUT, if I CHOOSE to post MY comment on a BBC Message Board I SHALL NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE from BBC staff, because THEY are NOT COMFORTABLE there.
Absolutely derisory, and totally indefensible. Not to mention obscenely ARROGANT for BBC to take THAT (if you excuse the words which will make you shudder) Point of View.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble
I am ADAMANT that Nick HAS to DEFEND his decisions. We can all see them for what they are. BUT his responses are there for everyone on the internet to see, and judge. The more we question him, and make him respond (albeit in what can be seen to be poor understanding and responding) the more ludicrous this whole exercise can be seen to be. The Message boards are going to be closed one by one, BECAUSE BBC staff don't like them.
Complain about this comment
A point I should have highlighted in the following comment made by yourself...
-------------
"If you have a question you go to where you are most likely to get an answer, don't you? Doesn't matter whether it's a blog, a message board, a letter or a phone
-------------------------
I've been on the Message boards for some years now, and I CAN'T remember seeing ANY input from High Heidjins at BBC. There was a sorry attempt by Points of View Production Team to produce a sort of Blogboard - where THEY set the Agenda, and we were supposed to respond (so NOT QUITE answering OUR questions), but NO, no input from BBC staff. So, even when BBC blogs were in their infancy, BBC staff didn't come over to the message board to become involved in "open dialogue".
Nick you are such a card......
When we sign in, you have links to "606", "Archers", "Film Network", "h2g2" and "Radio 4" message boards. YOU were "in charge" of Points of View Message Boards, BUT no sign of a link to them. (doh) Maybe the ones you have linked to are deemed "safe".
Complain about this comment
niclaramartin wrote:
When we sign in, you have links to "606", "Archers", "Film Network", "h2g2" and "Radio 4" message boards. YOU were "in charge" of Points of View Message Boards, BUT no sign of a link to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite so, Niclara. As long ago as Dec 4, 2008 I pointed-out the fact the address given-out by Jeremy Vine, on Points Of View TV programme, for the messageboards, (bbc.co.uk/pov), wasn't working.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F2131439?thread=6123422
Now, I was not the first to point-out the problem with linking to the POV messageboards, nor was I the last. How anyone ever found the boards is a miracle, but the fact the given URL didn't work, and that there was a complete lack of links from across the BBC website, indicates there was, way back then, at the very least, a lack of commitment, on the part of the BBC, to the boards.
A lack of commitment may be rather generous, or naive, on my part - some might say it was more an on-going agenda at work to get rid of all these awkward viewer/listener comments post Hutton. It may be that agenda is still developing; I for one will be interested to see how long what is left of the boards continue, given their now 'closer links' to a 10-15 min seasonal, schedule-filler, a here one minute gone the next programme, (Points Of View), which is often derided and little respected.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia: The series has often been criticised for featuring too much praise of the BBC and its programmes, and playing down criticism. This tendency has been sent up by many comedians over the years, including memorable skits in Monty Python's Flying Circus and Not the Nine O'Clock News. In the latter, positive letters said such things as "I think the (television licence) fee is far too low. I would willingly sell my house and all its contents to help the BBC."
Further criticism came from comedians Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie on the duo's sketch comedy show A Bit of Fry and Laurie. During a sketch where Fry had supposedly removed Laurie's brain, Laurie said that he was "off to write a letter to Points of View", the implication being that only the brainless would engage in such an activity.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The latter part of that Wiki quote reminds me of the strange voice adopted by Nick Reynolds when he mimicked POVers in this interview:
http://blip.tv/file/702851/
As bluestar belgrade asked Nick on the messageboards: "Nick, why did you put on a stupid voice when you we're talking about people complaining about the BBC?", and he wasn't referring to Nicks apparent cold.
Complain about this comment
I remember at one time people at the BBC DID interact with posters on the POV boards,which was a good thing,so using an excuse that they would not be comfortable is totally wrong.
Complain about this comment
Niclaramartin - it seems clear that recently BBC people have not participated much on the POV boards (with a few honorable exceptions).
Why do you think this might be?
Complain about this comment
NickReynolds provocatively wrote:
it seems clear that recently BBC people have not participated much on the POV boards (with a few honorable exceptions).
Why do you think this might be?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick
1. How do you know BBC people are not participating much on the POV boards? They may be using a different identity.
2. You work at the Beeb, so why don't you do a straw poll of 'BBC people', outside the Future Media tribe. pop down the canteen, stop people in the corridor, stick your head into a production suite, and ask them an unbiased handful of questions:
a. Have you heard of the BBC Points Of View Messageboards?
b. Have you visited the boards in ever, in the last six months?
c. Have you ever contributed to the boards?
d. Why have you never visited / contributed?
Give a go and let us know the results.
Have a nice day!
john
Complain about this comment
or indeed ask a producer if he knows anything about what people think about their product?
Have they ever read the BBC phone logs?
Does the BBC info department tell him what the subject of complaints are?
Does he know where to find info about the likes/dislikes of "wobbly camerawork", overloud music, IPPs, film effect, coming ups and recaps, dumb VOs, presenter led programmes.
Have any of the BBC production staff signed up as MB members?
I for one have made many attempts to find a digest of complaints about camerawork style (I am a cameraman) and strangely even though we all know how much it creates a reaction from viewers, there is no log of how many complaints the BBC receives specifically for camerawork style. If I can't find it, then how can a producer?
The BBC have no idea what their audience thinks - and judging by their attitude to communicating with them -they are just all talk .
Complain about this comment
I'm interested in your thoughts.
Why do you think they don't go to the POV boards?
Complain about this comment
I'm more interested in reality:
1. The reality of where people who want to make general comments on BBC Radio should go within bbc.co.uk;
2. The reality of why Nick is so hung-up on 'BBC people' - if they don't feel comfortable using the messageboards is that justification for closing them? As niclaramartin has said 'What about the public who are not comfortable on BLOGS'?
Personally, I am quite happy for blogs and messageboards to co-exist side by side, and I think part of Nicks (or someone in Future Media), job should be to encourage 'BBC people' to make use of both these areas of the BBC to better inform themselves and their colleagues of the debate which are going-on within their customer base.
So, please, Nick, stop putting pressure on niclaramartin, (some might say bullying), to speculate only so you and your FM people can put her down - instead try making some real improvements to way both 'BBC people' and the licence payers interact. Now that would be useful.
john
Complain about this comment
You said....."Niclaramartin - it seems clear that recently BBC people have not participated much on the POV boards (with a few honorable exceptions).Why do you think this might be?"
AND after John and Leonard and Officer Dibble's comments....
You then said....."I'm interested in your thoughts.
Why do you think they don't go to the POV boards"
Nick, you can't see me, but I am laughing out loud. You see I have worked with a Professor who (amongst other things) explained how to read people's body language and speech - you know the sort of thing, Make steady eye contact, strong handshake, keep voice even, lean forward in chair/lean back to show willingness to listen etc. And the one you have just shown to it's full effect. WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, TURN IT AROUND BY ASKING A QUESTION. (hahahaha) As I say, rocking back and forward laughing, BUT NOT leaning back and showing a willingess to submit.
Now that you have been rumbled and your FAVOURITE tactic is highlighted, I am now going to turn YOUR questions back on you. Can you tell us why you are so evasive in answering what are very simple questions?
UNLIKE yourself, I SHALL answer the question you asked about BBC staff and message boards, BUT in another posting. (shakes head in utter disbelief at the amateur ploy-playing)
Complain about this comment
I know what I think and I've outlined what I think here.
Complain about this comment
Nick you are an absolute hoot. You've become a charicature of yourself.
If you think for one minute that I am going to trawl through a mini War & Peace so that I can interperate YOUR comments in any number of ways you are wrong.
You are running from the answers. As we have said, answer a simple question with a simple answer.
Do you have an idea how your "linked" answers come over on the internet?
I'm right into my stride now, and thoroughly enjoying this blog. It would be nice if you could make an attempt to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE, but, hey, I have plenty more questions for you NOT to answer.
Complain about this comment
Thank you John for your concern, but I have arm-wrestled with mightier brains than Nicks, and come out triumphant.
It is becoming more and more obvious that Nick has NO answers. He DOES NOT have to give answers. (or so he believes) He is employed by BBC and is sitting in a wee fantasy world of power over the plebs. What he is perhaps failing to see, is that others outside of this argument will be READING without posting to this blog, (and the message board threads). If I was reading what Nick believes are ANSWERS, I would be concerned about the running of the BBC. Nick is obviously used to talking to junior staff, but it appears NOT to the general public. I'm not big into the "we pay your wages mate" argument, but, nick, your attitude just beggars belief. We have simply put forward questions and arguments about your closure of some of the POV boards, asking the reasoning, the implimentation (which is still foggy) of alignment to the 14minute programme which is known as Points of View (doh). You have been asked hundreds of times, by a great many different posters, various questions, and I think you have probably answered half a dozen clearly and concisely. For someone working in the Communication industry, I am dismayed at the lack of communicative skills.
Complain about this comment
Why don't we start with the question you don't think I'm answering.
If it's about "accountability" then you might need to express it in a different way as I don't think I understand what you're saying.
Complain about this comment
"I am dismayed at the lack of communicative skills."
Nick, it would be worth your time to over to the boards again, and witness the thoroughly pleasant welcome which Rowan and Sarah and now Andrew have been receiving. THEY have realised that it pays to speak TO and WITH posters, not AT. I don't think I ever saw ONE nippy posting to Rowan, and she was given a lovely send-off (try doing THAT on your blogs). Sarah has now been welcomed, and although missing in action already, people are giving her the benefit of the doubt. Andrew has been a real tonic on the board. It is so nice to see someone from BBC who "GETS" message boarding. He even admitted he didn't know an answer to a question (how to delete blog posting history). So, a thoroughly nice chap, and, showing us the HUMAN side of BBC. Maybe we'll try to get Andrew to ask MORE BBC staff to come over. We don't bite (at least if we are treated with some modicum of appreciation for OUR liking of message boards, and not constantly being told to BLOG).
Complain about this comment
Just repeating and highlighting John's question, which is based in FACT.
"I'm more interested in reality:
1. The reality of where people who want to make general comments on BBC Radio should go within bbc.co.uk;"
So, nick, in your wisdom, WHERE do people post such comments on the MESSAGE BOARDS? (Sits back and waits for nick to post a link to a BLOG) (doh) (Or says I discussed it "here" link)
Complain about this comment
Nick's comment.....
"I know what I think and I've outlined what I think here."
or
I know what I think I think, and I think that if I link, they'll think I may think, I know what I actually think. So here's the link "here". (Do you think I got away with it, and THEY'LL never guess that I've forgotten what I think I thought I thought back then)
Complain about this comment
Nick
May I pose a question I asked earlier.
If as you say, we can write a letter and receive a reply from the BBC, and we can send an email and receive a reply from the BBC, and we can phone and get a response from the BBC, or we can write a response on a blog and have it read by the BBC. CAN YOU NOW TELL ME why can't I receive a response from BBC on the BBC Message Boards?
Simple question - simple BUT TRUTHFUL response will suffice.
Complain about this comment
Nick said....
"Why don't we start with the question you don't think I'm answering.
If it's about "accountability" then you might need to express it in a different way as I don't think I understand what you're saying."
Hahahahahahahhahahahahahhahah
As I say, an absolute hoot. Oh please Nick, ask me another. Hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
Complain about this comment
Good one Nick
"I don't understand what ACCOUTABILITY is"
What a gem.........only from the BBC
What a doozy.
Complain about this comment
Whatever the definition of accountability is, we are not seeing it - not on the blogs, message boards, nor complaints channel.
Put an open question to the audience - do you feel the BBC is less accountable now than 4 years ago?
I will wager the answers will be 90% negative. Nick, I'd class that as a failure on your part, no matter how you define it.
Complain about this comment
I understand what accountability is. I don't understand what you're saying about it.
But I can answer the other question.
The different methods of communication have different statuses. Some are formal, some informal. And it also depends on what you're doing.
For example leaving a comment on a blog or message board is not the same as making a formal complaint on the BBC's complaints website. You will get an answer if you make a formal complaint. But while its important that BBC people deal with comments on a blog it's an informal conversation. You won't necessarily get an answer.
Many people phone the BBC and the BBC doesn't phone them all back personally. It depends on what the phone call is about. We have customer call centres to filter calls and deal with them according to what they are about.
You're also confusing a comment on a message board being "read" with it being responded to.
BBC people aren't obliged to go on blogs or message boards in the same way as they are obliged to deal with a formal complaints letter.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I think most of us realise that if you make a "formal" complaint it is going to receive MORE ACCOUNTABILITY than a comment on a blog or message board. WE are talking about online commenting, in the vein of......this section of the BBC Trust Report
-----------------
"Does bbc.co.uk make the BBC more accountable to licence fee payers?
bbc.co.uk has helped make the BBC more accountable but more can be done to meet the public’s growing expectation of open dialogue.
The original terms of approval for BBC online included a condition that it should use the internet “to forge a new relationship with licence fee payers and strengthen accountability”. This remains an important goal and one that is now a responsibility of both BBC management – which offers accountability at both individual programme and corporate level - and the BBC Trust."
-------------------------
Note: "TERMS OF APPROVAL" and "use the internet to forge a new relationship with licence fee payers, and strengthen ACCOUNTABILITY"
I have made it as crystal clear as I can, what I am asking about ACCOUNTABILITY. If you like we can start with "Janet and John do ACCOUNTABILITY", but, I did think that BBC employees would be au fait with the term ACCOUNTABLE to licence fee payers. Obviously my mistake.
You said......
"BBC people aren't obliged to go on blogs or message boards in the same way as they are obliged to deal with a formal complaints letter."
---------------
NO, but "approval for BBC online included a condition that it should use the internet “to forge a new relationship with licence fee payers and strengthen accountability”.
As BBC Trust say "licence fee payers". YOU are NOT allowed to pick and choose WHERE BBC staff will be ACCOUNTABLE. It is part of the conditions of APPROVAL.
What has become even more clear than I think EVEN we believed, is that YOU and probably most BBC employees feel they are under no obligation to us. BBC staff WILL read comments on THEIR blogs, BUT they will NOT read comments on BBC Message Boards. That is a dreadful indictment of the people employed by BBC.
Complain about this comment
As a result of your obtuse reading of comments I shall make it perfectly clear that NOBODY on the BBC Message boards would ever expect a reply to EVERY comment. And to be perfectly honest, most have had their eye's opened about "mail shot" responses to complaints using the complaint's system, so we are NOT asking a lot.
Simple input from BBC staff on a level which recognises it's Message boards, reads it's message boards, takes some information away from the message boards, and occasionally post to the boards, when a matter of genuine concern is raised, as in the case of the numerous threads regarding DOGs.
Have you a response why Danielle has not put in an appearance on the message boards to address the THOUSANDS of comments posted on DOGs?
Again, where do Message board posters post general comments regarding Radio?
and one you may answer...
Why do you have links to 606, The Archers, Film Network, h2g2 and Radio 4, but none to POV? If we are going on NUMBERS h2g2 would not get a look-in, but you probably feel it is safe.
Complain about this comment
I think what YOU HAVE ACTUALLY done Nick, is open a can of worms. As Officer Dibble asks, would the general public feel that BBC is LESS ACCOUNTABLE than it used to be? And yes the answer would be YES.
BUT, you know what Nick, UNTIL YOU started THIS exercise we were sitting in our blissful ignorance of just how interactive you people are with bloggers. We used to have some input from BBC staff, then it became less and less, until what was happening last year when we hardly even had a host. We were effectively encouraged to "chat amongst yourselves". And, you know what Nick? I think BBC were happy with that situation. We were quietly coralled in the message boards, moaning and complaining but eventually accepting of what the situation was. NOW, YOU have taken us on a wander through BBC, and we can see how unfairly we are being treated. We are becoming vocal, and you know what, Nick. It is all down to you. You are now reaping what you sowed. I'll bet your bosses are happy to see the negative press coverage of "Message board closures". The situation has changed. YOU opened Pandora's Box, and you can't undo that.
Complain about this comment
NickReynolds wrote:
I know what I think and I've outlined what I think here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that you got many articulate, considered and well presented responces in the same place - riverbank is just one example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/points_of_view_message_board_3.html#P73278799
I might just add if managers and producers who work for one of the worlds greatest communications organisations are afraid of a few journos quoting what they say or a bit of 'argy bargy' from the public then the BBC is in a very sad state indeed.
I believe the reason lies closer to what Nick said about 'BBC people' not having to contribute so they just don't bother. That again is rather sad, but happily not entirely true as there are 'BBC people' who are prepared to take part in the debate because they are passionate and interested in their work.
As for the way in which Nick has aroused a lot of feeling from, particularly messageboard users, perhaps he only needs to re-read something he wrote in his blog in December last year:
"Since I started participating in blogs and message boards I've attracted abuse both on BBC Online and elsewhere. Indeed I got some only a few weeks ago.
So either I have a particularly repellent personality or there's something about blogs and message boards that makes people SHOUT".
Go figure!
john
Complain about this comment
The further down the road we go with this the less impressed I am becoming with Nicks answers.
The logical conclusion is just to reinstsate the radio board.
There seems to be more of a battle of wills going on between licence payers and Future Media rather than common sense.
Complain about this comment
John
Thank you for making me open your link, which was Nick's response to a question (a whole blog - ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH). Which brings me to the point which we have all moaned about - Nick's lack of straightforward answering.
Please read this conversation from John's link above.....
Giz wrote - "I've NEVER let any discussion I've had on the POV messagboards get personal. But I HAVE to say this.
Do you get paid for this? Is this really your main role, or is it just an add on, to something which is more constructive?"
To which Nick replied - "Well I do get paid. And I did try to answer the question - an answer is in the tenth paragraph down."
Then Giz responded - "Nic please could you quote which paragraph you believe is paragraph ten. As with the insertion of quotes in fancy font, photographs, and other asides which are seperated by lines above and below (normally a sign of a new paragraph) I count this
"(And incidentally this kind of argy bargy can also annoy and alienate other licence fee payers)"as paragraph ten. I'm certain you don't mean that one.
Quoting would help.
Nick then responded - "it's the paragraph above."
And Giz finally responded - "Thanks Nic
So the answer to this......"
As you can see, Giz was very polite, but, WHY couldn't Nick just reply with a short answer in his words, without sending someone to re-read a blog, and try to make out WHICH part of it Nick was talking about. It is that lack of courtesy (maybe an old-fashioned word, but, highlights good manners), TOWARDS other people, which is infuriating.
As I have said to Nick, if he went into a meeting, where lots of points were discussed, and one of the "team" asked him a question, Nick would NOT turn around and say "It is in document 4 - just go away, re-read the document and find the bit, you THINK I am talking about". HE would give a clear and concise answer to questions raised. We are asking no more of him, than THAT basic courtesy.
Complain about this comment
leonard
"The logical conclusion is just to reinstsate the radio board."
The problem is that "logic" never had much to do with the decision in the first place. Sarah and the POV team are in discussions about the Radio board (which in itself indicates that THERE IS in their minds something which has to be done to redress the situation created by Nick's closure). The problem, of course, is HOW do they re-open a board which the man "in charge" closed down (for whatever reason)
I'll be surprised if they backtrack on Nick's decision (simply because it would leave him looking very foolish). They CANNOT leave a member of staff out to dry being perceived as having POOR JUDGEMENT. I will be surprised but delighted IF they DO give us back the Radio board.
Complain about this comment
You have to also remember that Nick is the person who was so "pernickity" about people posting to the "wrong" board, and his annoyance at having to move them to the "right" board, BUT, when asked by posters where they could post about FiveLive or "general radio" he sent them to SOME OTHER HOST'S board to post there (even when he was told the posters had been told by the HOST THERE that it was the WRONG board and "off" topic, so was closing their comments.
Nick's attitude seems to be, "Well I've done MY job" and he really doesn't seem to care which other member of BBC staff has to clean up the mess. Not exactly a team player, our Nick.
Complain about this comment
"approval for BBC online included a condition that it should use the internet to forge a new relationship with licence fee payers and strengthen accountability"
is not the same thing as
"all BBC people must communicate with licence fee payers on message boards and not blogs".
It sounds a bit pompous but the blog you are commenting on now is precisely trying to "forge a new relationship with licence fee payers".
Regarding DOGs Danielle has already written several posts about the subject on this blog and I have linked from the boards to the relevant blogs (as have other people). Why does she need to do the same thing in two different places? I've explained why BBC people might be more comfortable on a blog than on a board here.
Leaving open low traffic, poorly hosted message boards with little participation from BBC people doesn't seem to me to be an obvious way of strengthening the BBC's accountability.
Complain about this comment
niclaramartin.
I think it would be a good idea as regards public relations and general communication ( the BBC don't seem very good at it )to put the people who actually pay for the BBC first for a change and reinstate the Radio message board regardless of employee's poor judgement and reputations.
Complain about this comment
niclaramartin wrote:
As I have said to Nick, if he went into a meeting, where lots of points were discussed, and one of the "team" asked him a question, Nick would NOT turn around and say "It is in document 4 - just go away, re-read the document and find the bit, you THINK I am talking about". HE would give a clear and concise answer to questions raised. We are asking no more of him, than THAT basic courtesy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, this is exactly what Nick himself proudly says he does do when responding to people who leave comments on his blog. See and hear him in full flow here: (skip to 2'55" for relevant comment together with funny voice)
http://blip.tv/file/702851/
As to whether or not he does the same in meetings at the Beeb, well I kind of think he probably does in his own sweet way ;-)
BTW, Nick, I should point-out here I have nothing personally against you - please be assured all my comments here and on my blog at http://jtemplar.com/ are to do with the debate we are having and the actions you have taken, for whatever reasons; and I fully understand the reasons you have given for those actions - I just happen to think your judgement here is wrong.
I have said before the BBC POV Messageboards were outdated in style
- so update not abolish them.
They were poorly managed and signposted
- so better manage and link to them
I have also said just because someone at the beeb, a long time ago, decided to call the 'Points of View' messageboards does not mean they belong to, are part of or should be linked with the BBC Television programme of the same name. That being the case then so no reason to get rid of the Radio board.
An updated, modernised, renamed series of forums for viewers and listeners, and users of the BBC website and other ventures would have been great. You would have got a lot of ideas, support and encouragement from the people here and on the MBs.
Instead, many contributors to this debate now feel, betrayed, abused, let-down, disrespected and some who said what it was really all about, (cuts), vindicated.
john
Complain about this comment
Nick said: " It sounds a bit pompous but the blog you are commenting on now is precisely trying to "forge a new relationship with licence fee payers".
Look back at the posts Nick... do you really think YOU are forging a new relationship? 98% of all posts directed to you are critical of your opinion and the actions of Future Media. 5 months ago 90% of the posts to you were contributory, constructive and open. You are judged by your record. How can so many unconnected people on a variety of blogs, and messageboards all have the same reaction - co-incidence?
Complain about this comment
John - excellent posting.
Leonard - I agree, but I don't see BBC staff hanging Nick out to dry.
Officer Dibble - Absolutely right. We did think at the beginning that Nick was here to close the Messageboards, BUT, we gave him the benefit of the doubt, and DID post constructive postings. Only when Nick began linking us to his blog, answering questions in an inscrutible zen-type manner and treating us as if we were hordes hellbent on making BBC staff "uncomfortable" did we THEN start posting complaining about his communication style.
-------------------
Nick said...."approval for BBC online included a condition that it should use the internet to forge a new relationship with licence fee payers and strengthen accountability"
is not the same thing as
"all BBC people must communicate with licence fee payers on message boards and not blogs"."
-----------------
You really have lost this argument haven't you. Nowhere has ANY message boarder (in all the thousands of comments) said that BBC staff should ONLY post on the Message boards (however turning that on it's head, until YOU came on the Messageboard, the situation was that all BBC staff communicated with licence fee payers on blogs and not message boards). See what I did there. I transposed your sentence to show you the TRUE situation which WE have put up with. By writing THAT sentence above, YOU obviously believe that BBC staff should NOT be posting ONLY to Message boards. By the same token, you obviously see nothing wrong, with the (until very recent) situation of BBC staff ONLY posting to their blogs.
I'll deal with the next part of your response in a different posting
Complain about this comment
Nick
"It sounds a bit pompous but the blog you are commenting on now is precisely trying to "forge a new relationship with licence fee payers".
Yes, it does sound more than a bit pompous, but, hey, we're used to it, so don't apologise.
---------
"the blog you are commenting on now is precisely trying to "forge a new relationship with licence fee payers",
---------
and has failed the cat food test (eight out of ten cats)- change that for "Message board posters" and change it to 9.99 out of ten posters, and you get the idea. Back to the drawing board for you, Nick.
-----------------
"Regarding DOGs Danielle has already written several posts about the subject on this blog and I have linked from the boards to the relevant blogs (as have other people). Why does she need to do the same thing in two different places? I've explained why BBC people might be more comfortable on a blog than on a board here."
---------------
OK Nick, I'll bite. Danielle has written several posts on this blog, and you've linked from the boards to the relevant blogs - but, have you? Did you go onto the Television Board and link to the Blogs? You may ask why I ask that question (see I'm getting into your head), and the answer would be - "Because THAT is where nearly every thread on the topic of DOGs is. And also where the posters of the thousands of comments are". BUT, let's disregard the fact that Danielle has written on her blogs HERE, again I ask, why is she not writing/responding/answering comments on the Message Boards, where the posters are. It is one thing for BBC to say they are in open dialogue, it is, however, another thing altogether to be "seen to be in open dialogue" with the licence payers (licence payers in MANY AREAS as the BBC Trust put it)
----------------
"I've explained why BBC people might be more comfortable on a blog than on a board here."
----------------
Yeah yeah Nick, we get it. BBC staff want to work in an environment where stress is removed, the plebs are gagged, hands tied behind their backs so they can't type, not allowed to ask the questions THEY want answers to, and told to sit quietly and READ the AUTHOR's thoughts on their chosen topic. You know what would be innovative Nick. If a member of BBC staff actually got involved in TRUE user generated commenting. Again, you trot out the same "the staff feel more comfortable...." comment, and again, I say that is contrary to the ideals of the Graf and BBC Trust report. BBC staff are ACCOUNTABLE to us - that means they should answer OUR questions, not talk about what they feel "comfortable" being questioned on. Again, I say, I don't think you know how badly your comments come over. You can side-step, evade, flannel as much as you like, but, it is all there for EVERYONE to read. (General public, MPs, MSPs,Journalists and fellow BBC staff, including the High Heidjins - it will just take one Message boarder to go on a round of golf with one of your bosses to highlight YOUR "dialogue" with us.) (shakes head smiley) Stranger things have happened you know.
Will discuss last part of your posting in my next post.
Complain about this comment
Me again Nick
"Leaving open low traffic, poorly hosted message boards with little participation from BBC people doesn't seem to me to be an obvious way of strengthening the BBC's accountability."
OK, I'll have a stab at doing YOUR job.
Low traffic boards - Make messageboards easier to find, link to them from various areas of BBC (including from blogs) And, there is also the point Nick, that some boards will NEVER have high traffic because they are not meant to have high numbers. They are specialist boards, or niche boards. They don't serve a purpose for you or me, but they serve a purpose for someone, and so closing a Digital Board at the exact time when the Digital switchover is taking place, would seem like VERY poor forward planning, appreciation of likelihood of increase in postings with queries and questions. As with the "General Radio Board" there are boards for certain stations, and they are covered. The "General" board took up ALL the other slack. The situation as it stands at the moment, is that YOU closed a board, without making sure that the general public had a Message Board to post to. And before you make the blindingly obvious comment - "There are blogs" - I shall make the equally blindingly obvious comment - "Some people don't want to blog"
------------------------
"poorly hosted message boards with little participation from BBC people doesn't seem to me to be an obvious way of strengthening the BBC's accountability."
------------------------
OK Nick, in answer to THAT part of your posting, I will simply say that you asked US waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in November what WE wanted to "improve" the boards.
Posters said....
--------------
"The obvious anomoly is that the POV programme does not deal with radio, but the radio equivalent of POV, R4's Feedback, has no message board."
--------------
"inconsistent moderation" - Nick note "moderation" NOT "hosting"
--------------
"There is just one aspect that I am sure we would all like to see added to them and that is a search facility, please"
--------------
"poor hosting issues " this poster also said...."We get the impression that you don't actually want real interaction with your customers. That's odd, as there are whole BBC departments devoted to this interactive agenda. What would happen to you all if we took the very heavy hint, and just went away?"
--------------
"I think some of the moderating has been rather over zealous and this has contributed to the boards becoming not only less popular than before but less pleasurable to post on."
---------------
Wanting an "Off" topic board...."I've noticed Jem inserts lots of off topic information in his posts. I know what he's had for dinner, if he's on the train, if he's going to the pub etc. Perhaps you could have a word with him about keeping his posts on the straight and narrow.
I'm kidding of course, it'd be ridiculous to remove posts that stray off 'topic. It'd turn the community into an extremely dull and sterile place"
----------------
"One thing which annoys a lot of board members is where a provocative apparently first post gets past pre mod, and then the poster does a runner"
--------------
"of late there appears to be a lot of bitterness about having messages pulled, or being in pre-mod for what appear to be trivial reasons. It hasn't happened to me, but most of the members who have, are normally reasonable posters, so it does seem odd. There is a great deal of discontent" - You were also asked about the "private" company which does the moderating.
-------------------
"The most irritating aspect of all boards is the blatent lack of consistency on the part of the Mods when applying the house rules...your house rules!
When a posting has been removed and you ask for a better explanation believing, and sometimes knowing, that the houserules have not been properly applied you never get a reply."
----------------
"i used to be a regular on the old radio 2 boards where we were given our own 'coffee shop' to talk off topic so as not to keep getting modded. "
----------------
"It is most notable how the POV messageboard has been marginalized by the POV television programme in the latest series and over the years it's been evident how the board has been manipulated by the programme too."
------------------
"Firstly rewrite the house rules, or at least follow the rules that are there. I sometimes think the users stick to them more than the BBC does."
------------------
"I can give you many examples too of posts and threads written by decent members of the board, staying within the house rules who find their post hidden, the thread closed and then they are put into pre-moderation. Any subsequent request for information for the treatment by the BBC is dealt similarly. They get no feedback from the BBC via email either when they seek reasons for such action - my opinion is that the BBC don't have an answer to give."
-----------------------
"It would also be considerate if a thread is to be closed for someone to say why a thread has been closed, it would therefore negate the need to start another thread requesting a reason"
-----------------------
"It's a shame that there has been a large exodus of people who have either been pushed or have walked away from the boards due to punitive, inconsistent moderation. I've made the point before, if the people on the board are cynical of the BBC it's because they have had dealings with the BBC who have created the cynicism in the first place."
--------------------------
"Blogs are not for everyone, I don't particularly want to read other peoples' diaries.Boards usually create communities"
--------------------------
"You could make it clearer too exactly what the BBC's role on each board is going to be, as a watcher for information, a participant, or a "couldn't care less about it" but needs a referee. "
---------------------
A lot to digest there Nick, and they are only the tip of the ice-berg.
So, what was the outcome of YOUR decision making after FIVE months. THREE boards closed, and a host who has hardly been on the boards, and according to her doesn't work for Points of View Programme - the very programme YOU said we were being aligned to.
As to poor input from BBC staff, then THAT is up to BBC to resolve. WE have told YOU what we want. YOU have disregarded EVERYTHING we asked for (apart from better hosting which was actually quite an incidental request - MODERATION was the bugbear). YOU did CLOSE three perfectly viable boards, and NOW you tell us BBC staff WON'T go on to the message boards. I just do not believe the ARROGANCE. As I said before they should just get their butts over to the message boards, and do the job they are paid to do - interact with the general public (the non-blogging variety)
Complain about this comment
Having re-read some of the posters' comments, it makes it look as if you are not sure what the difference between Hosting and Moderation is. YOU certainly did NOT embrace the role of Host when you were on the boards. BUT perhaps that is because you were uncertain of what that consisted of.
A good Host is great for a board, BUT, poor Moderation is an absolute killer.
I asked you several times about the "private" company, which BBC outsources it's moderation to, and you never once responded to that question, and YET, the POOR QUALITY of the job done by the moderators was probably the second point raised by Message boarders (after a plea for a Search Facility). Did you ever even contemplate speaking to that "private" firm about the quality of their work?
Complain about this comment
In two sentences (it has been said before): I want a professional design board that works properly with ALL the features of PHP etc. and I don't care about intervention from moderators, hosts or techies - they make negligible difference to me. Meaningful contributions from the BBC won't happen - not with the systemic attitude problem the BBC has.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid you are contradicting yourself niclara:
"Nowhere has ANY message boarder (in all the thousands of comments) said that BBC staff should ONLY post on the Message boards..."
Actually you yourself have said this many times. Indeed you say it here:
"As I said before they should just get their butts over to the message boards, and do the job they are paid to do..."
Your tone throughout this is "BBC people MUST do what I want them to do". You're not going to get very far by trying to force BBC people to go to places they don't want to go.
I'd also contest your assertion that the most important conversation about the BBC happens on the POV boards and so BBC people must go there in preference to anywhere else. In fact there are conversations all over the Internet on blogs and boards about the BBC. Some of them on BBC Online, some of them elsewhere. The place for people to go is where the best and most productive conversations are, and whereever they feel most comfortable.
With DOGs for example the best place for the Danielle to talk about them may be the blog. And people from all over the Internet who care about DOGs don't seem to have any difficulty finding it, including people from the POV boards. It's a lot more productive and better value for money for her to post in one place rather then going to lots of different places and saying the same thing over and over again. (As I've had to do throughout this conversation)
"the plebs are gagged..."
You seem to speaking without any gagging here - on a blog. Indeed for someone who has consistently said how much they dislike blogs you seem to be enjoying this one.
You make lots of points above some of which we are going to sort (i.e. search) but let me take one.
Off topic threads.
Off topic threads disrupt the boards and make it harder for people who want to ask legitimate, relevant questions. It also costs time (and therefore money) to remove them. The POV boards are not a general chat area for people to talk about anything they like which is not related to the BBC. Why should the licence fee be spent on providing people with a space to chat if the chat isn't about the BBC and there lots of other places on the Internet to chat?
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble: "...I don't care about intervention from moderators, hosts or techies - they make negligible difference to me. Meaningful contributions from the BBC won't happen"
I repeat: why should the licence fee be spent on providing people with a space to chat if the chat isn't about the BBC and there lots of other places on the Internet to chat?
Complain about this comment
?? Nick... where did I say it wouldn't be about the BBC? Have you taken in any of the comments we bothered to outline for you? This is about the POV and Radio message boards.... they are the purest of message boards aligned to the BBC's core product -they are popular for that reason. They, above all, should be protected and encouraged. All the other non-BBC fluff that is not unique such as Blast, Parenting, weather, RnB x 2, HipHop x2, FutureMedia self indulgent Blogs and trend following twitter feeds are where the cuts should be made first.
How many times do we have to tell you? I thought this would be second nature to someone with experience.
Complain about this comment
Niclara... give up. Imagine a huge citadel.... we are in the moat, and high above you, on top of the tall castle wall is smaller thermalite brick wall - you are talking to that.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble - the Radio board was not popular nor was it "aligned to the BBC's core product". It was poorly hosted. Without meaningful interaction from people from BBC Radio it's hard to justify keeping it open.
Complain about this comment
Nick why were you chosen to sort the boards out when it is obvious from reading your posts you dislike messagebords surely your judgment must have been clouded by this fact
Who initially tasked you to sort out the boards?
Complain about this comment
Nick... future media's policies and excuses are laughably inconsistent.
The TV board has your fabled "alignment" and is still no different to the Radio board.
The Radio board was about Radio.. not about RnB, or teaching teenagers how to use a camcorder, or talking about the weather, or guiding parents - all totally unconnected with the BBC's two products.
The Radio board was popular, absolutely and comparatively. (we don't believe any ambiguous statements that you give to counter what we saw)
If it was unhosted, then the solution was to host it....
none of your "popular" online channels have BBC interaction -you are kidding yourself if a post every 2 months is interaction.
all of the criticisms of the Radio board could be more appropriately aimed at your "unpopular" and unaligned blogs.
Complain about this comment
At 9:01pm on 23 Apr 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
With DOGs for example the best place for the Danielle to talk about them may be the blog...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Except Danielle also does not appear to like it when people talk about what she does not 'feel comfortable' talking about, since she wrote at 11:13 UK time, on Tuesday, 7 April 2009:
"I know that for some who read this programmes are a second order issue, compared to the DOG and our broadcast bitrate."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/hd_update_the_arrival_of_the_h.html
Good grief! The Head of BBC High Definition, BBC Vision berating viewers who have taken the time to contribute to a blog about the BBCs flagship High Definition television channel.
This senior manager attempts to belittle contributors because they want to raise the subject of bitrates in reference to High Definition broadcasts, and object to Digitally Originated Graphics (DOGs) being placed over the High Definition picture.
I mention this here, only because Danielle has been mentioned more than once and by this blogs author.
For the record, I welcome Danielle's efforts in reducing the intrusion of DOGs on the HD channel, (it has added to my enjoyment of the content), but was rather taken aback by her comments above.
john
Complain about this comment
Nick said...
""Nowhere has ANY message boarder (in all the thousands of comments) said that BBC staff should ONLY post on the Message boards..."
Actually you yourself have said this many times. Indeed you say it here:
"As I said before they should just get their butts over to the message boards, and do the job they are paid to do..."
Nick, I may be Scottish, BUT, I WAS taught English (in fact got a Higher in it).
My comment which you quote...
-------------------
"Actually you yourself have said this many times. Indeed you say it here:
"As I said before they should just get their butts over to the message boards, and do the job they are paid to do..."
------------------
Where have I EVER said that BBC staff should ONLY post to the message boards? Link please! I HAVE said, that BBC staff hang out on THEIR blogs, and that they should ALSO get their butts over to the message boards and speak to posters there. You have a terrible habit of mis-reading/misconstruing/misunderstanding/mistaking what people say. Not just me, but anyone whose question or point of view you do not wish to address. You fudge comments in the hope that you will put vocal posters off. Sorry but I am not going to oblige you. You have made mistakes with the "improvements" to the message boards, won't admit you have and attempt to cover your poor communication skills with feigning ignorance of what posters are asking. I shall just carry on asking, UNTIL YOU do understand.
-------------------
Nick said....
"Your tone throughout this is "BBC people MUST do what I want them to do". You're not going to get very far by trying to force BBC people to go to places they don't want to go."
--------------------------
Why not? You FORCED US over to your blogs. Can you tell me what the difference is between BBC people and general public people. And it's NOT just what I want BBC people to do. It is what message boarders have been asking for for years, so hundreds, nay thousands of people have been asking BBC people to interact with them on the Message boards.
-------------------------
"I'd also contest your assertion that the most important conversation about the BBC happens on the POV boards and so BBC people must go there in preference to anywhere else."
------------------------
Actually, what I DID say was that the Message boards are where user generated comments are. Where the general public air questions/queries which THEY would like answered, rather than blogs, where BBC staff set the agenda and decide what will be discussed. Simply put - Message Boards - Posters ask questions/start threads. Blogs- BBC staff decide what they will discuss. Maybe it's just me, but I think if the general public are asking questions and BBC answer them, then THAT can be seen as full open dialogue, rather than BBC led/controlled question and answer sessions on blogs.
---------------------
Nick said...
"Some of them on BBC Online, some of them elsewhere."
--------------------
I am well aware that there are MANY places online where posters discuss BBC, (even places you don't know about), but, I must admit that I find it a sad day when a member of BBC staff is encouraging people to talk about BBC with/on external sites, rather than becoming involved in dialogue themselves with THEIR viewers/listeners. (Note to self: Remember to go into dry cleaner to discuss/debate quality of sewing on my Zandra Rhodes outfit).
As to Danielle ONLY discussing DOGs on her blogs, I'll leave THAT well-trod discussion to the readers of these blogs to decide if THEY think, BBC are too concerned about the sensibilities of their staff, over their remit to engage in dialogue "in many areas" of bbc.co.uk
--------------
Nick said....
"You seem to speaking without any gagging here - on a blog. Indeed for someone who has consistently said how much they dislike blogs you seem to be enjoying this one."
----------------
You MAY say that Nick, but more than a couple of my (factual and civil) comments didn't even get onto the board. Regardless, Free speech is in place in UK, and I am entitled to utilise it without rebuke.
-------------------
Nick said.....
"Indeed for someone who has consistently said how much they dislike blogs you seem to be enjoying this one."
--------------------
Again with the twisting of the fact Nick, tut tut. I have NEVER said that I dislike blogs. I HAVE said that I use blogs EVERY day (for my work), and that there are MANY good blogs out there. I HAVE also said that far too many BBC Blogs are of dire quality and structure. I have on more than one occasion tried to give you some constructive help about BBC blogs (you did ask at one time), and suggested above in THIS blog (and in previous ones) that you should have a look at Matt Cutts' Blog to see one which is visually more appealing and user friendly (which may encourage SOME people to blog, who don't like BBC blogs) - (Message 61 above)
ALL THE COMMENTS LISTED ABOVE FROM POSTERS, and YOU pick "off" topic. BUT, let us address THAT too.
---------------
Nick said.....
"Off topic threads disrupt the boards and make it harder for people who want to ask legitimate, relevant questions. It also costs time (and therefore money) to remove them. "
--------------
AND YET, when you were told that by closing the Radio Board you had left Message Boarders with nowhere to post on certain Radio Stations or queries, YOU posted links to OTHER message boards OUTWITH YOUR area. YOU were told by posters, that if they posted to the boards YOU had provided links to, that THEIR postings would be "off" topic. AND YET, when repeatedly asked where they could post, you continued to send them to boards where they would be posting OFF topic comments. YOU were responsible for encouraging "off" topic posting - albeit in an area hosted by someone other than yourself.
And, knowing you so well, I shall get in before you. I am well aware that YOU gave us links to umpteen blogs, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. EVEN when told message boarders did not WANT to blog. It is one thing to say that BBC has provided blogs to discuss radio, but, you seem to fail to grasp that BBC's blogging and message boarding communities virtually live in total isolation from each other (some cross-overs, but not a common occurance). You don't seem to have converted many bloggers to message boarding, and I am certain that YOU won't convert many message boarders to blogging. A softer approach would have served you better. But you were/and still are INSISTANT that EVERYONE who comes to BBC MUST blog. I have not however, seen anything like as much effort on your part to encourage bloggers over to the message boards.
Complain about this comment
Prof said...
"Nick why were you chosen to sort the boards out when it is obvious from reading your posts you dislike messagebords surely your judgment must have been clouded by this fact"
-------------
From the very beginning of this exercise Nick said he was a blogger (he didn't try to hide his preference). It became even more obvious when he made no attempt to learn how to quote, so that posters knew WHO he was speaking to (talk about confusing). And was highlighted by his inability to answer a question, simply posting a link to one of his blogs and leaving the questioner to re-read the blog and try to work out what part was the relevant bit. I am sorry but I found that the height of bad manners. I would NEVER, in real life, expect anyone to treat people with that complete disregard for basic courtesy. NOT all blogging is THIS bad. SOME blogs are very democratically and pleasantly run, with people "working together" to get the best result from the original author's blog. If this is BBC blogging you can keep it. At least there is some form of etiquette on the message boards. If Nick had been an ordinary poster on the Message boards (as opposed to the man "in charge") he would have been reported for WUMing, and consequently (due to the huge number of complaints regarding just posting links to blogs) he would absolutely have been moderated. It is the fact that Nick came onto the Message boards, and just rode roughshod over ANY semblance of "dialogue"/"interaction", whilst using his position of power to avoid the repercussions for such offensive behaviour on the message boards.
Complain about this comment
Nick said.."Officer Dibble - the Radio board was not popular"
------------------
You have misused the word "popular".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular
You can't tell how much people liked or appreciated a board. What you mean is "not as many people visited it", or not well populated, not that it was not liked. It may have had a smaller following, but, they may have loved that board more than visitors to a more regularly visited board like their board.
--------------
"nor was it aligned to the BBC's "core" product."
-----------------
So, BBC did NOT begin with RADIO and Television. THESE are BBC's core product(S). In the rush to embrace new technology you are attempting to re-write history. RADIO was the original CORE PRODUCT.
----------------
"It was poorly hosted."
----------------
THAT is a disgraceful admission for a BBC member of staff to make and try to utilise as an argument for closure. Just who was responsible for Hosting? It most certainly was not within the remit of the posters to employ a Host.
------------------
And the final and most shameful comment (which you keep making)
"Without meaningful interaction from people from BBC Radio it's hard to justify keeping it open."
-----------------
So if BBC staff suddenly decided not to film Dr Who, you would cancel it? Or, if BBC staff suddenly decided that they were "not comfortable" travelling from London to Shetland to cover stories from there, you would just not cover the story? Or if BBC staff decided they didn't want to interact with you at your meetings, you would simply say, "oh that's ok guys, we'll just not bother with the meeting" NO, they'd be told in no uncertain terms they are employed by BBC and that they have to go wherever they are told, and film whatever they are told to film, and interact with BBC Editors, whether they "feel comfortable" about it, or not. But then we are JUST the general public.
Complain about this comment
So let's start again. There are some things we can agree on:
1. BBC people should be accountable to licence fee payers.
2. There can be many different places online where they can talk to licence fee payers including blogs and message boards.
3. BBC people should not be forced to talk to licence fee payers in places where they are not comfortable.
But Officer Dibble's comment above shows the problem. He doesn't care, and doesn't have to care about the hosting and moderation of the POV boards. Until recently I did have to care. So unlike him I can't say "it doesn't matter" because:
1. All BBC boards and blogs have to be hosted.
2. All BBC boards and blogs have to be moderated.
3. Boards and blogs which are not hosted well and have no meaningful BBC interaction have a tendency to turn into poor quality, low traffic areas which don't benefit the people who use them or the BBC.
It's not a sensible use of a host who works for BBC TV's time to host a radio board. The boards were disconnected from the BBC radio networks and BBC people. Therefore, regrettably, the board was closed.
And incidentally I have been to the occasional BBC meeting which had to be cancelled for lack of interest :~)
Complain about this comment
Nick, Once again you twist people's words.... I have been on these boards 4 years longer than you. I care passionately about Television and Radio. I care passionately about the avoidable decline of the BBC. I don't care about moderation (it has no bearing on anything the users need) -I don't care about the host because they make no impact on the board or the quality of content- they are purely for the administration, and to tick the box marked "interaction".
Item 3 in your list is bunkum... no comparative evidence - you are just grasping at straws
Once again you are fooling yourself if you think someone like the new POV host will make any difference in the accountability, or offer an insight that is useful to the audience.
I am here because I care. You are here because you are paid to -that is most evident to all of us. So please spare us the caring stuff. It wont wash with any of us.
Complain about this comment
"Once again you are fooling yourself if you think someone like the new POV host will make any difference in the accountability, or offer an insight that is useful to the audience."
I would give the new host the benefit of the doubt and see what happens rather than rushing to judgement too quickly.
Complain about this comment
OK Nick let's start again.
Nick said...
"There are some things we can agree on:"
----------------
Let's hold off on that statement UNTIL we agree on the things you THINK we agree on (see following comments)
----------------
Nick said....
"1. BBC people should be accountable to licence fee payers." - AGREED
------------
"2. There can be many different places online where they can talk to licence fee payers including blogs and message boards."
AGREED
---------------
"3. BBC people should not be forced to talk to licence fee payers in places where they are not comfortable."
NOT (Repeat NOT) AGREED.
THIS is the crux of the problem. YOU seem to think that BBC employees can PICK and CHOOSE where they will talk to licence fee payers, and what format THAT "dialogue" will take. WE are saying that WE are licence fee payers too, and every bit as entitled to "dialogue" with BBC staff, as THOSE licence payers who CHOOSE to favour blogging. As I have repeated QUOTED from the BBC Trust Report and Graf Report - they BOTH say that BBC MUST enter into MORE ACCOUNTABILITY in MORE AREAS of BBC. As I say, if I phone I will receive a reply, if I email I will receive a reply, if I blog, my comment will at least be read, if I write a letter I will receive a reply, BUT IF I CHOOSE TO COMMENT ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS, I WON'T RECEIVE ANY INPUT FROM BBC STAFF, for the simple reason that the BBC staff don't like to go into THAT area of BBC. THAT should never be the choice of the provider of services. THEY should treat all customers EQUALLY in the eye of the general public. YOU are holding BBC up to ridicule by consistently holding to the line, that BBC EMPLOYEES sensibilities are MORE important than FEEDBACK/OPEN DIALOGUE with the general public.
Of course YOU will continue with THIS attitude, but, you do BBC NO favours by posting THOSE opinions on blogs and message boards, for the simple reason that they are there, can be read, digested, cojutated on, and then held up to disbelief that the BBC hold themselves above ACCOUNTABILITY to ALL their customers.
-------------
Nick said...
"1. All BBC boards and blogs have to be hosted."
I THINK I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THIS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT BBC HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THE POSITION OF ACCOUNTABILITY (there's that word again) FOR COMMENTS POSTED ON THEIR BOARDS (be they blogs or message boards) AND THEY MUST COVER THEIR BACKS FOR LEGAL REASONS
-------------
"2. All BBC boards and blogs have to be moderated."
AGREED,(if it is in BBC's Charter) BUT MAY I ASK A SIDE-QUESTION. How many moderators are moderating a message board at any one time?
-------------
"3. Boards and blogs which are not hosted well and have no meaningful BBC interaction have a tendency to turn into poor quality, low traffic areas which don't benefit the people who use them or the BBC"
ALMOST AGREED. As BBC are responsible for the quality of hosting, it is up to BBC to make sure that there is adequate and good hosting. We don't employ the Hosts. On the point of "no meaningful BBC interaction" that comes back to BBC employees going into the areas where the general public and SEEKING OUT interaction. WE have made the step of coming onto BBC message boards, it is up to BBC to make the step of visiting the message boards to talk to people who are THERE. As to "poor quality", that is subjective. The Online, Radio and Digital boards perhaps had lower than Television board visitors, BUT the "QUALITY" of the postings was in the opinion of most posters higher, so "poor quality" was NOT the reason for closing THOSE boards. "Low traffic" is another area which is not simply Black or white. BBC will maintain "low traffic" boards, for the simple reason that there are communities (disabled, ethnic, religious etc) who may not use them often, but it is deemed essential that THOSE boards are maintained. Radio/Digital and Online were easy targets for you. They did not receive HUGE numbers and were NOT deemed essential by YOU. Others may disagree with your paths to decision-making.
Your comment "low traffic areas which don't benefit the people who use them or the BBC" is actually NOT factually true. Perhaps BBC staff did NOT help posters to THOSE boards, but the community of other posters, often had answers for questions/queries posed, so therefore, they DID benefit the "people who use them" irrespective of BBC's input.
-------------
Nick said...
"It's not a sensible use of a host who works for BBC TV's time to host a radio board"
-----------
BUT NICK it was YOU who decided to align the boards with a frivolous 14minute seasonal programme which is daily derided on the very board which carries it's name. WE were not asked if we would have preferred a "General Television and Radio Area" set of boards. Although you said to me that it was NOT about cost-cutting, (when I asked), YOU appear to have aligned the boards with POV programme in order to have THEIR staff connected to the boards (at least you said this). However, Sarah, the new host, has said that she IS NOT employed by Points of View programme, so we are no more closely aligned to the programme than we were before. All that has happened is that by SAYING - "I have aligned the boards to POV programme" you THEN could use the argument that Radio is not covered by a 14 minute seasonal sitcom. It's what is known as sleight of hand.
----------------------
Nick said....
"And incidentally I have been to the occasional BBC meeting which had to be cancelled for lack of interest :~)"
AND NICLARAMARTIN SAID..........and why am I NOT surprised. (doh smiley)(yawn smiley)
Complain about this comment
129. At 2:23pm on 24 Apr 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
"Once again you are fooling yourself if you think someone like the new POV host will make any difference in the accountability, or offer an insight that is useful to the audience."
I would give the new host the benefit of the doubt and see what happens rather than rushing to judgement too quickly.
------------
Nick - you are sidestepping the question, again.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"...if I blog, my comment will at least be read... BUT IF I CHOOSE TO COMMENT ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS, I WON'T RECEIVE ANY INPUT FROM BBC STAFF"
How do you know your comments on message boards are not read by BBC staff?
"WE were not asked if we would have preferred a "General Television and Radio Area" set of boards"
That suggestion did come up in comments on one of my blog posts and I looked into it. The problem again was "who would host such a board?". There's was much more enthusiasm from the POV TV programme team and BBC TV for the idea of bringing the boards closer to the programme so that was the option we went for.
Complain about this comment
so choice was not who was best, but more who didn't step backwards when asking for volunteers.
Yep, aim high.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble, concerning your PS comment #132, which I note has been perceived to have broken the house rules:
- comments to the new blog system cannot as yet handle the blockquote function;
- links can be seen more easily if one puts them in bold;
- the current blog user profile system has some programming faults and is not yet linked into the DNA system, nor is that DNA system yet programmed to show updating of blog entries in the way the DNA system shows updating of messageboard entries
- there is currently no visible linkage between the blog user profile to the DNA user profile(s)
- the ability to show special characters is as yet limited
These issues are being explored, but far from resolved, in a separate blog.
Russ
Complain about this comment
Thank-you Russ, A complete answer.
What a pity Nick spends more time looking to reject perceived off topic posts than just simply giving posters a direct answer.
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote..
"...if I blog, my comment will at least be read... BUT IF I CHOOSE TO COMMENT ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS, I WON'T RECEIVE ANY INPUT FROM BBC STAFF"
How do you know your comments on message boards are not read by BBC staff?"
-------------------
Oh stop it now, Nick, my stitches can't take much more of this humour. Honestly, re-read THAT statement and tell me that the first thing that pops into your head is NOT....... a platoon of BBC staff with tin helmets in place, asbestos gloves, goggles, bullet-proof vests and riot shields, as they sit egging each other to be the first ....."to open" a comment and READ it. Phew that was a close one. It DIDN'T blow up in their face. Second "volunteer" step forward...."Come on now sonny, it's not THAT scary. It gets better after the first time you HAVE to READ one". "Step up to the plate guys, and get READING those comments". "Phewwwwww, well done guys, I think we got away without any flak". "NEXT time, we MAY make you ANSWER one of the comments, but don't worry, we'll train you thoroughly, have a support worker sitting next to you at ALL times, and give you the red button to press "moderated" if THEY ask anything dangerous, like, "What time do these boards close". "Oh and we make sure you have full insurance cover." (doh smiley)
-----------------------
As I say Nick, your a real Hoot.
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote...
""WE were not asked if we would have preferred a "General Television and Radio Area" set of boards"
That suggestion did come up in comments on one of my blog posts and I looked into it. The problem again was "who would host such a board?". There's was much more enthusiasm from the POV TV programme team and BBC TV for the idea of bringing the boards closer to the programme so that was the option we went for.
-----------------------
Hahahahahahahaha - oh you ARE having a laugh now, Nick. "more enthusiasm" hahahahahah. (Image of POV team being last to step back when Nick asks for Volunteers)(doh)
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble
Sorry for the copy-cat image. I was reading and replying to Nick BEFORE I read the other comments. Great minds ...... though. (thumbs up smiley)
Complain about this comment
Spot on Officer Dibble, thank you Russ for the clear and concise advice.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I note that when you enter the BBC Message Board Menu - Emblazoned (larger than most of the links to the BBC Message Boards, is a link to BBC Internet Blogs.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/
So, you are happy to link to your blogs FROM our Message Boards (including making the link very large), and YET, on these blogs, there is no link to Points of View Message Boards (or many of the other boards - just your CHOSEN safe areas).
Quite sad really, that this determination to force blogs on anyone who enters any part of BBC, is done at the same time as you have to use a SatNav to find the Message boards.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I found THIS article VERY interesting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7428104.stm
The important section is the SECOND question, and the answer from Dame Patricia Hodgson, who led the Trust review of bbc.co.uk is
--------------------
"It became clear during the review that the public have a growing expectation of open dialogue with the BBC and the Have Your Say board is one of the ways in which audiences can express their views to the BBC and a wider audience.BBC management have been exploring increased opportunities for interaction through the message boards, blogs, and conversations like this one. The Trust will continue to monitor management's progress in this area, because we believe it will become increasingly important."
-----------------------------
and especially the bit which says....
---------------------
"BBC management have been exploring increased opportunities for interaction through the message boards........." (note plural message boardS)
--------------------
and THIS comment.....
--------------------
"The Trust will continue to monitor management's progress in this area, because we believe it will become increasingly important"
---------------------
So Nick's contention that BBC staff are "uncomfortable" about coming onto the message boards, and that THEY shouldn't be forced to go to areas they do not feel comfortable, appears to run COUNTER to what the BBC Trust are espousing - THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE INTERACTION WITH BBC STAFF ON MESSAGEBOARDS.
Complain about this comment
Nick
The following comments also seem to be at odds with YOUR decision making.
-----------
"I'm sorry you don't enjoy the views that some other users post on the Have Your Say pages."
--------------
and
------------
"But it is undoubtedly true that a lot of people appreciate them."
------------
The SAME could be said of the Radio Board which you have CHOSEN to close, although it was obviously much APPRECIATED by the posters. At least Dame Patricia understands that not everyone can like the SAME THINGS, but understands that you don't close something JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
Complain about this comment
I didn't close the boards because I didn't like them.
They were closed because they were poorly hosted, poor quality and low traffic.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You made it clear that you do not like message boarding. You never learned ANY of the functions, for a start. And, I won't even go down the road of message board etiquette.
Nick re-read the article with Dame Patricia. She is at lengths in the second answer to address the fact that the person who asked the question did not like, and could see no use for the Have Your Say message board. Dame Patricia said that although not everyone could see the allure of certain boards, OTHERS DID.
You keep saying they were poorly hosted - as I say, what were WE supposed to do about that. YOU identified a problem which you perceived, so instead of "improving" the hosting, you use THAT as one of the reasons to close a board. I find THAT quite astonishing that someone would admit that something OUTWITH the control of posters was used as a reason to deny them the use of a board. It was YOUR job to "improve" the hosting - NOT ours. You also keep saying they were "poor quality". In YOUR eyes perhaps, but, as Dame Patricia also said, some boards appeal is not seen by some, but appreciated by others. By the way, on the point of "poor quality" I have to say that YOUR "open" blogs are the WORST blogs I have read in a very long time - they are a complete mish-mash of posters talking over each other, in an attempt to have THEIR question answered. Also the response rate, (on a Question and Answer forum) from BBC staff is quite low. I have in the past said that YOU are by no means the worst blogger in BBC, BUT, THOSE blogs are a total fiasco. YOU could have utilised the Online and Digital Message boards so much better (for the purpose you are using the "open" blogs), if you had given ANY thought to "improving" them. All you had to do, was link to the Digital and Online Message Boards from here, and the bloggers (who obviously have quite detailed and technical questions) could have been directed to boards (if you had managed to organise some of the BBC staff to respond over there). Once there, all the bloggers had to do, was open a thread with THEIR question. It would be seen IMMEDIATELY by BBC staff, and a small group of like minded bloggers/posters could have "met-up" on THAT thread and discussed/answered each others questions, WITH INPUT from a member of BBC staff. If there was a "search facility" on the Message boards, you would also have avoided Multiple threads on the same subject.
THAT would have been a win-win situation. The bloggers would have been linked to Message boards (which were ALWAYS meant for more technical questions anyway), they AND Message boarders could have had interaction with like-minded people AND BBC staff. As a result the "traffic" which you are so concerned about, would have risen, and justified the boards.
As I say, with the Digital switchover, you may wish you hadn't been quite so hasty closing the Digital message board, when there is sure to be a surge of people wanting questions/queries answered, and they CAN'T find where to discuss THOSE issues.
I'll re-post Dame Patricia's interview in later postings to highlight it to those posters who may come late to the discussion and miss it's first outing.
Complain about this comment
I certainly don't think the Radio board was poor quality or low traffic.
In fact it was extremely popular, hence the disbelief in you closing it down.
I daresay the other two boards ran into your analysis but not the Radio board.
Complain about this comment
Leonard
I agree about the Radio Board, BUT, Digital and Online were two REALLY useful boards for people who had technical issues. They could simply go on the board, whether it was Digital issues or Online for other techie queries, and ASK the question THEY wanted an answer to. Invariably another poster could answer. There was a wee community of folk (some of whom REALLY seemed red hot on technical matters), helping each other out (with occasional input from the hosts). There were not HUGE numbers of people, BUT, the queries were genuine - sometime very technical - and the genuine gratitude for the answers given by OTHER posters was tangible. Nick's "open" blog is NOT working. Everyone talking over each other, and very few getting satisfactory answers. IF Nick had simply accepted that the Online and Digital boards, WERE the place where the general public (both bloggers and message board posters) could go for easy access to already existing threads (or ones started by themselves) where they could have THEIR queries answered, he could simply have linked bloggers over to THOSE boards. I am not saying that bloggers would have liked the other message boards, but those TWO boards were ideal for questions and answers of a technical nature. Of course they are now deleted, so bloggers can't even have a wee look now to see IF they would have been a better place to discuss technical issues THEY wanted answered, rather than contributing to blogs where the topic was pre-chosen.
Complain about this comment
Yes I agree the other boards were extremely useful for gaining information about technical issues and were easy to access.Now the general public have precisely nothing unless someome is prepared to wade through some monotonous array of endless blogs.
Well done Nick and Future Media........another triumph for the BBC I don't think.
Complain about this comment
Leonard
I think Nick had a remit to CLOSE some of the message boards........and RESULT.
The problem was, that we have all said, Nick had NO background in message boarding, didn't bother to embrace ANY of the functions on message boards, learn the etiquette, or ......just jump in and join us. He sat on the fence, LOOKING IN, and thinking, "so this is what the ordinary people think is dialogue". What he missed was that THERE WERE boards where technical people (and non-techie folk) could go to ask techie questions (Digital and Online), and that the Radio and Television boards were for people to discuss programmes/content/editorial values of programmes they had heard and seen.
I know lots of bloggers, and Nick is NOT unusual in not being able to understand the allure of messageboards. THOSE bloggers tend to be VERY earnest people with a narrow field of tolerance for non-techie/non-geeky/non-earnest posters. On the other hand I know lots of bloggers who are wonderfully articulate in BOTH spheres. They grasp the fact that on ONE board/blog it may be serious and in-depth discussions held there, whilst some blogs and message boards are for light-relief.
I understand that on BBC blogs/message boards Nick had his WORK hat on, but, other BBC employees have been able to talk to us in a more friendly manner, even though they, too are working for BBC.
Nick, you perceive us as non-articulate, fluffy, annoying people who just won't go away. And we perceive you as someone who missed out on the opportunity to make a lot of very grateful "friends" if you HAD delivered "Improvements".
And, I'm sorry, but I can't get the image of some little "silver-surfer" sitting with her wee dog, unable to access the BBC message boards which she used to frequent, and which may have been her ONLY contact with others.
Complain about this comment
Good points Niclara,
Certainly the online board was "managed" by the posters, as you say. Most questions were satisfactorily answered by other contributors. The hosts were incidental and rarely added any insight that wasn't already available from existing posters - just as Sarah is just as enthusiastic but no more informed than us on POV.
Nick's Online blog is a complete mess, no-one in charge nor informative, and the only answers I have got is from another poster. So much for "well hosted" and engaged with BBC people.
Thinking about the things I have learned on the Radio, Online and POV forums over the last 4 years - all of it has been from other posters - NOT the BBC staff. Nick seems not to have understood anything from his cursory foray into the forums and blogs.
As an aside, Blog hosts need to have something to say that is informative to the potential audience. They also have a responsibility to respond to replies in a complete and timely way. Nick does not meet either of those criteria, in which case the blog has no purpose, other than to frustrate.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble
Spot on. I've been cojutating, and was beginning to convince myself that Nick was JUST THE ONE TOLD TO CLOSE THE BOARDS, but, he is obsessed with following some "in-house" policy, which we are not party to. That is, "sideline message boards, and PUSH blogs". Now, I was prepared to think that Nick genuinely believed that was actually for the benefit of the general public (we don't). However, his "open" blogs are a complete disaster (and were always DOOOOOOMED to be so). The set-up "Everyone just leave your question or comment and someone MAY spot it and answer it, by the way I'll ONLY pop in occasionally and ANSWER questions. Otherwise just "chat amongst yourselves" could NEVER work. EVERYONE is talking over each other, and questions are lost in the list. AND, what is ironic is that Nick NOW has a messageboard thread on his BLOG. The "open" blogs are simply posters talking to each other, and responding, and NO-ONE getting a feeling that THEIR question is being ANSWERED.
As I posted, Nick had a WONDERFUL model for QUESTIONs and ANSWERs. Unfortunately for Nick it was over on the Message boards. So, rather than GIVE the general public a model which served THEM, by highlighting the Digital and Online boards to bloggers, he CLOSED those boards, and started .............goodness only knows what he thought.....might work as an "Open" Question and Answer forum on a blog.
Questions and Answers blogs work IF the topic is focussed on a small area. "Open" will never work, and I think EVEN NICK may have to admit the "Open" blogs are never going to work in a satisfactory manner.
Complain about this comment
Nick
THIS ONE IS FOR YOU.
As Faye pointed out on the "other" blog, YOU have developed a bad habit of starting blogs with comments such as "so niclaramartin got annoyed" or "officer dibble may not agree with me.." etc. I'm afraid that you are abusing your position as a BBC blog author. What is acceptable in a BBC Editor, responding PERSONALLY to a comment written in the Press or on someone else's blog, by PERSONALISING the next blog they write, is NOT ACCEPTABLE, when you (Nick) write a blog PERSONALISING "COMMENTS" (note I say comments, not blog), made by the GENERAL PUBLIC.
I don't know about Officer Dibble or any other poster whose name has appeared in your blogs, but I don't have a Right to equal reply on my own blog. YOU have taken comments made by posters in previous blogs and edited them, so that the meaning is not what was intended (the football or rugby blog is a prime example, where you made out I was saying bloggers are soft and message boarders are rough - what you missed out and what qualified my statement, was when I said that message boarders were a community who would help each other out IF any skirmishes developed). (Interesting to see that although OTHER links still work in THAT blog, the links to MY comments, which you quoted from, IN AN EDITED FORMAT, don't work any longer). Selective deletion of linkage. mmmmmmmmmmmm
YOU are in a position, as a BBC blog author, NOT to be seen as Goliath hiding behind the safety of BBC, using your position to take a playground attitude of "niclara/officer dibble/nippie/faye/.....may not agree with me" (but I'm writing THIS blog, and I'll settle scores HERE).
As I say, if you have a problem with something Jemima Kiss may write, you CAN personalise YOUR blog, because she has equal prominance in responding in HER blog. What is NOT acceptable is to name posters (the general public) without THEM having EQUAL prominance in RESPONDING. THAT is SEEN as ABUSE of POWER.
A simple "a poster disagrees with me..." or "a poster said....", but naming posters in a BBC blog is a "no-no".
Complain about this comment
Sounds like a bit of naming and shaming to me.
Very poor blog etiquette.
Complain about this comment
Personally speaking, my posts are on record and I don't mind being quoted by the host. What I DO object to is my converse opinion being dismissed by the host with "I disagree" - especially when the overwhelming evidence to any reasonable person, and the majority of blog respondents, is in support of my general observation... the Open Blog is not a success.
Nick won't respond... he'll merely say "I think they are a success", without qualification.
You can't argue with that.
Complain about this comment
The problem is that THESE are not little back-water blogs. They sail under the name BBC. And, Nick, as an Editor, is very astute at settling scores by making snide comments such as "so niclaramartin got annoyed" or "officer dibble may not agree with me, but...", or in the case of the "rugby or football analogy" skewing my comment, by NOT quoting the part which qualified the statement - (the community support aspect). In other words, HE is able to take a "comment" on a blog, and select the PART of the quote HE thinks make his argument stand up. And, the reason that HE does that, is, to be honest, ABUSE of POWER. HE works for BBC. HIS blogs are read by a huge audience. HE feels entitled to quote/misquote without reproach - WE can only respond IN THE BODY OF THE BLOG, which would be lost in the other postings. It's a bit like a large circulation Newspaper writing an article, in which they misquote, or settle scores with a member of the public, AND then are made to write a retraction. It will be on page 24, in a tiny little item. So, for Nick to say that Officer Dibble could write his OWN blog, questioning Nick's behaviour, is, naive beyond belief.
It should ALSO be noted, that, Nick quoted PART of my comments, and slanted them for HIS purpose, AND then although, ALL the other links on HIS blog, took you to the comments he was quoting from, the links to MY comments go to.....ERROR. So, it is one thing to say, I stand by my comments, or, they are there to be read, it is another if they are misquoted, AND THEN, the links taking people to read the FULL comment are removed.
Complain about this comment
I also have to say, the blog which I was MOST uncomfortable with, was the one where Nick took MY questions and answered them ALL - whilst NOT answering ANY other poster's questions. It may appear to some that it was a complimentary blog, but to be perfectly honest, I just found that too creepy for words. A BBC employee writing a blog TO ME.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/01/points_of_view_message_board_4.html
As I say, too creepy for words.
Complain about this comment
I am a messageboarder on BBC (whilst being a blogger elsewhere). I LIKE the COMMUNITY aspect of message boarding, and that everyone's posting is equal. MY opinion is NO MORE important than the next poster's comment, and I would have been DELIGHTED if Nick had answered my questions IN THE BODY OF THE COMMENTS SECTION, along with other posters' comments. Other posters were complaining constantly that Nick would NOT answer ANY of their questions, and, then, HE GOES AND WRITES A BLOG, answering ALL MY questions (some of which were nowhere near as IMPORTANT or WORTHY of answering, than some of the really good questions others were asking).
When I am at a meeting, I answer EVERY question I am asked. I DO NOT fix on ONE person and answer THEIR questions, whilst ignoring EVERYONE else.
Just a very strange, strange experience seeing a blog written by a BBC employee (using my name in the title even), and then written favouring ALL of my questions.
Complain about this comment
Nick HAS to make the "open" blog work. He's closed down the other place where the general public can ask technical questions. He WON'T want to admit the blog style is a complete fiasco and does not serve the public well. He will fiddle and twiddle with it over and over and over and over and over, until he thinks he can get away with it.
It was in HIS hands to deliver THE perfect Technical Question and Answer forum. BUT, due to his prejudice against message boards (and perhaps a hidden agenda forced on him by High Heidjins), he has missed THAT opportunity, and CLOSED the VERY model, which could really have IMPRESSED his bosses, as well as the general public. It was a WIN/WIN situation for Nick, and a WIN/WIN situation for the general public.
IF he had bothered to actually link bloggers with technical questions OVER to the technical message boards, he would have INCREASED traffic (one of HIS reasons for closure). A wee bit more input from BBC staff (although the Digital and Online boards were effectively poster driven providing answers), would have completed the "improved" posting experience for bloggers as well as message boarders, who simply wanted answers to their technical questions.
Complain about this comment
In the blog which I linked to above, Nick wrote ......
"I actually agree with you Niclaramartin when you said the bbc.co.uk board is effectively "moribund".
----------------------
That was actually WRONGLY attributed to me (I even asked Nick to link to WHERE I said it, and I'm still waiting.....)
But, hey why let that get in the way of writing WHAT he WANTED in HIS blog.
Complain about this comment
It appears that Officer Dibble does not object to this and since "Officer Dibble" is probably not his real name I can't see that any great harm is done.
I will continue to quote people (and name them) - I try to link to their comment so people can see what they said in context.
On message boards not everyone is equal. The host has the power to close and move threads threads and otherwise manage the community. Just as I do on the blog.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You really have NO concept of the difference between writing a blog using personalised comments from ANOTHER blog/blogger, and using "COMMENTS" from THE BODY of a blog. As I say, Jemima and you can shoot it out on YOUR blogs (EQUALLY), BUT, a POSTER to a blog, does NOT have THAT clout (and access to EQUAL redress) - (if as in at least MY case, you have misquoted me, or attributed a quote to me, which I did NOT make). It is YOUR ability to MISQUOTE or MIS-ATTRIBUTE in the body of YOUR blog (using the name of the poster) which is the problem. The blog, once written, (with errors) is there for all to read, and, the misquoted poster can ONLY address THOSE errors in the "comments" section, whereas the BLOG has PROMINENCE. THAT is not starting from a level playing ground. I stand by my comments, BUT, you say.....
----------------
"I try to link to their comment so people can see what they said in context."
--------------
Yet, STRANGELY, the links to MY comments, which YOU misquoted, are NOT working. See what I mean. You are not even playing fair. Misquote/ edit a comment to make it look different from the intended meaning, AND THEN, remove the link, so that NOBODY reading IS ABLE to see the ORIGINAL comment in it's RIGHT CONTEXT.
I KNOW you will CONTINUE to do as YOU like, because, we have had enough dealings with you to know that you do things YOUR way, regardless.
------------------
Nick wrote...
"and since "Officer Dibble" is probably not his real name I can't see that any great harm is done"
--------------------
And THAT in a nutshell is WHAT YOU DON'T get about message boarding. WE build up relationships on the message boards. People get to know what a poster's beliefs are. OK outside of the message board community, it matters NOT A JOT if you say, "niclaramartin says...". BUT, WHEN you say "niclarmartin says....", and it is NOT what I said, or believe, YOU THEN change the perception of OTHER message boarders, to the person they believed I was. I THINK I know a lot of message boarders quite well, BUT, I would be totally thrown if I saw a comment attributed to them, which I can't consolidate with how I had always perceived them.
Nick wrote
"On message boards not everyone is equal. The host has the power to close and move threads threads and otherwise manage the community. Just as I do on the blog."
----------------------
As it has been VERY UNUSUAL for a host to become INVOLVED in a discussion with us on the messageboards AND THEN close/move threads, WE have NOT experienced the POWER/CONTROL which you exhibit on YOUR blogs. In 99% of threads to POV message boards, GENERALLY it is a member of the public who STARTS a thread on message boards, AND NOT the Host. In those 99% of threads, the ORIGINAL poster on a message board DOES NOT have ANY CONTROL of the thread, the way YOU/BLOG author ALWAYS retains CONTROL. A blog BELONGS ultimately to the author, whilst a thread on a message board BELONGS to the COMMUNITY.
I'll put it THIS way, so that YOU understand. If YOU came onto a message board, WHERE you WERE NOT the host, and entered into dialogue with the community, YOU would NOT be able to close/move a thread. Although YOU are a BBC employee, if YOU are NOT the HOST of a board, you ARE EQUAL to ALL the other posters.
You just don't get that, do you. NOT having CONTROL, and LIKING it that way. Sad......
And what is sadder, is, that you will carry on your merry way, believing that YOU are right, and ALL the message boarders are wrong.
Even when I say, that THAT blog you wrote COMPLETELY using MY questions, was EXTREMELY CREEPY. To pick ONE poster out of ALL the posters, and then write a COMPLETE blog responding to THEM, is weird beyond belief. I've NEVER come across it in ALL the other blogs I have been on, and some of them are quite "intimate feeling" because of the small number of bloggers.
Complain about this comment
Can you post a link to where you say the links aren't working and I'll try and fix them.
Complain about this comment
TOO LATE NICK
The discussion has moved on, and the general public have been unable TO DATE to read MY COMMENTS. They are hardly going to go BACK now, and read, what MY FULL COMMENTS WERE......
But IF it makes YOU feel better, TO GO BACK SO LATE ON, AND REPLACE THE LINKS THEY ARE.........
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/points_of_view_message_board_3.html
First paragraph link to MY comment NOT WORKING
Sixth paragraph link to MY comment NOT WORKING
Eleventh paragraph link to MY comment NOT WORKING
Twelth paragraph link to comments regarding MY comment NOT WORKING
EVERY other link, bar one, works. It appears that links to MY comments seem to be statistically MORE UNLIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE. hmmmmmmmmmm
Strangely, EVERY link on the following blog works (the link to MY comment on THIS blog, IS the SUBJECT of the entire blog, so it would seem strange for it to disappear, and hey, surprise THAT ONE is there).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/01/points_of_view_message_board_4.html
HOWEVER, you DO attribute the following comment to me, which I am certain I did not make. I have asked you on more than one occasion to provide the link to THE FOLLOWING COMMENT, but you HAVE NOT done so.
"I actually agree with you Niclaramartin when you said the bbc.co.uk board is effectively "moribund".
Complain about this comment
You are right that some of these links are not working. I will look into it.
Complain about this comment
As I say, Nick, THAT kind of proves MY point - that blogs are skewed totally in the favour of the blog author. YOU, as the BBC blog author, misrepresented some of MY comments, REMOVED the links to the FULL comment, and THEN you tell US that there is nothing wrong with using posters' names in YOUR blogs. It's hardly a level playing field is it, when YOU write a FULL BLOG, with MISTAKES, WITHOUT links to the ACTUAL comment, and WE get to correct you in the "Comments" section. (duh)
Whilst we are at it..... The comment you attributed to me "I actually agree with you Niclaramartin when you said the bbc.co.uk board is effectively "moribund",
is NOT mine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/points_of_view_message_board_2.html
What I ACTUALLY said was...
"I've frequented the bbc.co.uk/BBC/radio boards but the more technical boards are not really of interest, BUT, would be for those of that mind. "
Now, I don't see the word "moribund" there (it's not a word I felt I would use), and in fact by attributing THAT quote to me, you have CHANGED totally what I said, which was that I (PERSONALLY) did not use bbc.co.uk/BBC/radio boards often, BUT, that they would be of interest to those who were of that mind.
Complain about this comment
no.160. At 10:27am on 27 Apr 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
It appears that Officer Dibble does not object to this and since "Officer Dibble" is probably not his real name I can't see that any great harm is done."
Yes you are right that is not my real name...it is a second nom-da-plume because I was outed by a BBC employee on the POV TV Programme. Nick you are happy to re-state I am OK with it, but didn't bother address my real objection in the same sentence that you said the Open Blog was a success without any qualification. That makes me look contrary rather than rational. The reality is that your statement was baseless.
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote..
"You are right that some of these links are not working"
--------------
And in case the point is lost........THEY were ALL links to MY comments, and THEY were EVERY link to MY comments. As I say, just MY comments which were unreadable, due to "broken link".
Which confirms what I have been saying - that the blog author has COMPLETE CONTROL over the contents of THEIR blog, and what they WILL, or WILL NOT allow to be read, and HOW they EDIT THOSE comments.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Could you please provide me with the Name, Title and address of whom I would write to, if I had a complaint about a Senior member of staff?
Not an email address, and NOT the "Call-centre" mailshot complaints system too many of us are used to.
I think there are a few of us, who have been looking for THAT person's name.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to the BBC's Complaints website.
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote..
"Here's a link to the BBC's Complaints website."
------------------------
ALL TOGETHER NOW - (doh)
------------------------
And AFTER niclaramartin wrote....
"and NOT the "Call-centre" mailshot complaints system too many of us are used to."
and
"Could you please provide me with the Name, Title and address of whom I would write to, if I had a complaint about a Senior member of staff?"
-------------------------
Complain about this comment
Those kind of complaints have to go through the Complaints system and the first step is to go to the site I linked to.
Complain about this comment
perhaps the BBC Trust is the better avenue to explore:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/bbc_trust_members/index.html
Complain about this comment
See my comment 171.
Complain about this comment
Wow. What a lot of irritable people!
I only got here because I'm trying to find a board that just talks about radio. No particular channel, no particular programme, just radio.
I guess there isn't one...
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid you are out of luck.
No such Radio board now exists after Nick hastily closed it down without anything to replace it and where licence payers and the general public could post comments on 5live
Strange really that an organisation as vast as the BBC doesn't wish people to comment on the dire state of 5live.
Complain about this comment
Btw it's a complete waste of time complaining to the BBC via the link Nick has provided.
All you get back is some condescending reply saying that your complaint has been logged and next to nothing gets addressed.
At least I suppose the best the BBC can do is to actually acknowledge that you have bothered to complain in the first place but if you get anywhere with it would be an absolute miracle.
Any news on the Feedback board anyone or the popular Radio board making a comeback ?
No thought not.....
Complain about this comment
The point which Nick and the BBC are NOT getting, is that if I am on here arguing the toss with him, it is because, like MOST others who are continuing to post, we desperately want BBC to return to QUALITY programming. All that this little "exercise" has shown is that Nick and the BBC, have lost track of what older or more discerning people want.
We WANT intelligent, stimulating, enjoyable, thought-provoking programmes on both Television and Radio. We WANT to be able to post intelligent, stimulating, enjoyable, thought-provoking postings on MESSAGE BOARDS, BUT, BBC in THEIR wisdom, have decided to "dumb down" and embrace all that is young, cutting-edge and fast-paced. You can't watch a programme without overloud music, wobbly camerawork, zooming in and out, drum rolls on news so that you can't hear what is being said, Squeezing of Credits at the end of programmes, Voiceovers, DOGs, IPPs and any other myriad of distracting gizmos, because SOMEONE has decided that people can't plan their viewing/need led by the nose/and have to have their senses over-stimulated/assailed at all times.
And the sad thing is that I am exactly the sort of person BBC should be cultivating. I USED to sit down at 6 o'clock, watch BBC news and not switch over. Now the quality of the television programmes are so DIRE that I think the ONLY programme I am looking to watch is Ashes to Ashes, and I'm watching THAT on iPlayer, because I am recording programmes from other channels. The effort BBC is putting in to trying to capture the young (and future) audience, is out of proportion to it's success. The point which BBC decision makers are missing is that young people are OUT LIVING LIFE. They are NOT the ones who sit in the house, watching television. They don't need to listen to radio, they have OTHER ways to hear/see the music they like. BBC are afraid that if they don't catch them young then the future of BBC is doomed. They NEED viewers in the future, so they MUST cultivate viewing to attract young people to STAY with them. It won't happen for the simple reason that BBC don't have to work for their money, and so they have become complacent. They don't produce as much good drama/comedy/documentary programmes as they used to. And while THEY are struggling to get their heads around how to attract youngsters, there are other channels out there, which ARE attracting the shrinking YOUNG viewers market. SO, alienate your older, and previously loyal viewers/listeners/message boarders, and, then .....struggle to attract young viewers/listeners/bloggers.
And the same can be said for the Message Boards. NOT everyone WANTS to embrace BBC's latest technology. For many, there is comfort in posting within a community they feel comfortable with. Many of us see blogging as an individualistic/solitary/egotistical experience compared with the message board community spirit.
As an aside, WE are NOT the only ones who feel that BBC viewing schedules don't offer much in the way of worthwhile viewing.
http://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw/status/1498760566
And so speaks an "older" person.;)
Complain about this comment
173. At 1:41pm on 28 Apr 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
See my comment 171.
No Nick.
Don't you see that no-one on here as confidence in the complaints process?
Here's an example. I, and number of colleagues, used the complaints channel to comment on the use of poor camerawork in a number of episodes of a Factual BBC programme. It was not a subjective thing, it was clear breach of BBCs own technical standards. I did not get a satisfactory reply. However the most worrying thing was that when I asked for information as to how many other similar complaints there had been, no-one at the BBC was able to tell me. As far as the summaries and categories were concerned, the BBC had not had any complaints about camerawork. Indeed when I spoke to the series editor of the programme he assured me there had not been any complaints - and certainly had not been informed, nor seen mine, nor my colleagues.
So the complaints channel does not satisfy complainants, it does not inform Producers or Directors, and the results are not available for scrutiny, no matter how hard you search. That sounds like a failure in my book.
So Nick, please don't blindly push us where we don't wish to go.
Complain about this comment
NiclaraMartin and Officer Dibble - I'm afraid you are both off topic for this thread, which is not about dumbing down or the complaints process.
Complain about this comment
excuse me?
Niclaramartin asked a question of you (which you didn't answer) about who is the senior staff member to complain to about issues on the message boards- that is on topic. YOU raised the issue of complaints channel - and we are telling you why that is an unsatisfactory reply from you.
Complain about this comment
Nick YOU have posted a link to how to proceed with a complaint and now you say it is off topic......?
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to understand why you bothered flagging it up ? You must know that no one at the BBC takes a blind bit of notice anyway.
Complain about this comment
Officer Dibble thank you for the link to the BBC Trust. I've been doing a wee bit of ferreting about, and my thinking is that, Dame Patricia, as the person commenting in the press, would be the person to approach, regarding a complaint of BBC's (and their staff's) behaviour regarding message boards. SHE is the person who made THOSE comments about BBC - "BBC management have been exploring increased opportunities for interaction through the message boards....".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7428104.stm
She is NOT even talking about "improved" - she is talking about INCREASED. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE have discovered that "increased opportunities for interaction" means "CLOSED" to BBC. If SHE is going to go public with ONE line and BBC staff are going to take another, I think personalising the complaint by drawing HER OWN comments into it, would have more force.
Some other posters, on BBC Message boards and elsewhere (and readers of this "exercise" are talking newspapers).
And, Nick, we are still "on" topic, because we are talking about the future of OUR message boards.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, forgot to post the second part of Dame Patricia's comment.....
After she said....
"BBC management have been exploring increased opportunities for interaction through the message boards.."
-------------------------
She THEN said....
-------------------------
"The Trust will continue to monitor management's progress in this area, because we believe it will become increasingly important"
Complain about this comment
Re Leonard-Zelig's enquiry in #176, Feedback as a programme is an occasional one, like Points of View. It concerns itself primarily with Radio 4 programmes. The Radio 4 website page for the programme points to 'The Choice is Yours' messageboard as a link, but users of that board will know that the choice is often not ours, and host Anna exerts control over what threads survive and what threads do not survive. She will not for example countenance threads on non-Radio 4 subjects, and she displays an individualistic approach to what she consider ontopic or offtopic in the area of news and current affairs.
The Feedback programme publishes brief snippets of Listener Feedback on its webpage. I am not aware that Feedback as a programme makes any reference to the Choice is Yours messageboard content. I am not objecting to this lack of linkage btw, and I feel one of the big problems with the POV board(s) is that it is linked to the seasonal short programme called Points of View. Both Feedback and Points of View are in essence entertainment programmes, and are thus not entirely suitable to discussing aspects of the BBC that might warrant a deeper or more structured exchange.
Notwithstanding the dictation of subject matter on the various strands of Radio 4's growing blog, the existence of the blog does provide something of a safety-valve for general Radio 4 issues.
There are, as I detect it, residual niggles in respect of POV. One concerns the lack of a general radio communication forum. (Can I now use 'forum' instead of 'messageboard' or 'blog'? - is this the right lingo?) In terms of pressure points, I detect this concern focusses on two areas: Radio 2, and 5Live. BBC feedback mechanisms for the radio channels are vertical, and I think we have to live with this pragmatic reflection of BBC structure. That's not to say I don't think you lot have a genuine point, it's just that I cannot guess here as to any projected Radio 2 and 5Live forum mechanisms. This argument is internal to the BBC at the moment, and it isn't about to hint at any answers as yet.
It is not possible to tell whether the BBC feels positive or distinctly uncomfortable about the aspects of Seetha Kumar's new mission relating to online literacy or the driving of interest onto its content. It is possible that new fora may be inaugurated, albeit only for its mass-interest programme areas, as was the case with Strictly. It is possible that the BBC will increasingly focus on non-BBC content, viz its ramping up of feed functionalities on the BBC Magazine. For other more general or esoteric areas of BBC content, the present outlook is bleak, and much will depend on BBC Online's currently cavalier attitude toward the provisions of its service requirements as dictated by the BBC Trust, and of course the as-yet unanswered questions concerning the deployment of the increase of BBC Online's budget. My tentative thoughts at the moment, in anticipation of the longer blog Nick envisages in response to POV6, not that I'm holding my breath for such a response, are that the BBC needs to cut 'the POV channels' away from the strings of the programme called Points of View, and that the BBC needs a radically new vision concerning its communication fora for the TV channels, which are after all its core product platforms. This I feel must be on the agenda for Seetha Kumar's new mission.
Russ
Complain about this comment
Thanks Russ.
I'm sure I read somewhere from Nick, after a suggestion from a poster, about a Feedback board where people could comment on 5live was being given some thought at the BBC.Unfortunately Nick has not comeback with any answer on this.
What a poor state of affairs that the licence payer has absolutely no outlet to voice their opinions on 5live.Many of us have tried by leaving comments on Victoria Derbyshires blog but she has more than on one occasion become extremely shirty and resentful and has actually retaliated in a most unprofessional way.
Complain about this comment
Russ
Once again thank you for a superbly articulate, informative and balanced comment. I read your postings, and sit nodding my head (even when I am reading something that ORIGINALLY I may have held a different opinion about). Your style of writing and linking is genuinely engaging. I personally WANT to read what you have to say, even, if, at parts I am not agreeing 100% with you. (You have managed to change my strength of feeling about some things, and made me look at others from a more informed position)
I think MOST of us, really WANTED balanced dialogue of the style you are showing, and if Nick had adopted your method of commenting and giving information, then a lot of the problems he has incurred could have been avoided. We can't all agree all of the time, but, a reasoned argument showing the thought process, sometimes can give the reader real pause for thought.
Russ, I don't know if you are employed in ANY sphere of communication, but, if not, YOU SHOULD BE.
Complain about this comment
Will you be having another blog on the recent changes announced by Sarah to the now BBC Television board Nick?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574?thread=6534745&skip=0&show=20
I do like your quote from this blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/happy_birthday_h2g2.html
"One thing I do know is that h2g2 people really value - indeed, love - their community and its spirit."
There is a community on the POV pages - which it's users valued too, I guess one community is more equal than others.
Complain about this comment
Reynolds you are a joke
Complain about this comment
I wasn't planning to write another post on this subject. But we'll see what happens.
Complain about this comment
Posting radio comments on the POV Green room thread ?
Is this the best of what the BBC brains can come up with ?
A completely and utterly useless suggestion !!
Give us back our Radio board !
Complain about this comment
Have you not heard the expression about washing your dirty linen in public? Or the one that goes, "If you like what we do, tell your friends; if you don't like what we do, tell us."
By all means direct us to other web sites where we can carp about the BBC to somebody who can't do anything to improve it but I'm surprised you don't want us to tell you what we think so you can improve.
Are you really not getting that your fans on the POV Board are seething?
Complain about this comment
I understand that some people on the POV boards are unhappy about the changes. I would ask them to have some patience as the changes happen.
Complain about this comment
"I understand that some people on the POV boards are unhappy about the changes".
Some people Nick, SOME? Well that's an understatement if ever I've heard one!
From the multiple threads started by Sarah on The BBC board http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574?thread=6534745&skip=0&show=20
and the BBC Television board
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6534739&skip=0&show=20
out of 400+ comments so far, only one poster is sort of agreeing with what's been done, albeit in a Wind Up Merchanty type of way. The result of which is that this person has had a number of "off-topic" posts temporarily hidden and referred to the Host for a decision on whether they broke the house rules or not.
Complain about this comment
How will having patience help with anything?
Complain about this comment
Angel, Nick thinks we'll all get bored waiting for him to do something, and that we'll stop complaining go away , but we won't !
Complain about this comment
First Nick i would like to apologize to you for calling you a coward i admit i went a tad ott but you do have a "unique talent" of winding hundreds of people up with your rather diplomatic and evasive posts which leads me on to this
"I understand that some people on the POV boards are unhappy about the changes. I would ask them to have some patience as the changes happen"
Talk about hidden meanings are we supposed to read between the lines here?
Are you REALLY saying if we be patient all the issues raised by us will be resolved so for example we will get the radio board back?
Complain about this comment
Or it ould be a case of have some patience, see what happens and you may actually like it, Prof.
Complain about this comment
From Nick's post
"Regarding the technical improvements to the boards (as mentioned by Tom), we are still going to do these, but they are taking longer than I thought they would."
Well as long as it does not result in them being the same as the new iPlayer one we shall be ok. It is a real clunker in terms of the mechanics of it working.
If that is the beta test, then it is not very good in several areas, as I and others have posted over there several times, whilst waiting for it to be fixed.
I have to also say you do seem to have annoyed a lot of people on the boards Nick.
I believe all the BBC message boards need reworking tbh and have got very set in their ways. Don't think this was the way to go though.There seems no reasoned approach to it unless you just wanted to get rid of posters.
I believe a completely new formatted setup should have been introduced, covering all the BBC boards, clearly defining the different areas and their roles within the organisation. It should integrate the old with the new not alienate it.
The cobbled together mess that you have shoehorned into the POV board and "The Green Room" does not to me show clear direction or planning.
Would you care to comment on any other impending changes, for example to the food boards, given the new aligning of the POV board with the actual TV programme, which one are they going to be synchronised with? Are you going to insist all the recipes and ideas discussed come from only the BBC programmes?
Regards
Egg
Complain about this comment
I don't know if this link has already been posted, but for you bloggers here is the "unhappiness" Nick is referring too.
This is not the whole picture, just the culmination of six months of frustrating "communication" on the POV boards.
This thread was started yesterday by our Host, approximately two or three weeks after three of the five POV boards were deleted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6534739
Complain about this comment
I think making the Television Messageboard only to be discussing BBC programme is short sighted; and to say that we can only use the 'Green Room' thread to discuss other shows is ridiculous in the extreme.
The 'Green Room' thread was meant for discussions about everything NOT linked to the tv; those regular users of this thread are NOT going to be happy having it highjacked by those of us who wish to still continue discussing 'LOST', 'Primeval' and the myriad of other shows from other channels that we like.
Nor will it ensure that people no longer UNfavourably compare BBC shows like the truly dire 'Robin Hood' and 'My Family', and even the awful 'Reggie Perrin' with other channels shows.
I think trying to do away with the generalised television messageboard will not help win people over to the BBC's way of thinking. Indeed I think that, when the Charter next comes up for review, the Corporation may well find the ANTI licence tax supporters growing in number the more we feel we are merely cash cows for the BBC and nothing else.
I think the use of the messageboards need to be rethought and left as they are - you've disposed of many; if you feel you must junk more of them, then losing a few of the SEVEN currently being kept 'live' for the Archers would no doubt keep you and your paymasters happy.
Complain about this comment
Ye gods - what a lack of organisation this is. No threading totally disjointed. Welcome to the world or how useless a blog is for this - debate.
Phazer - There is no reason for the BBC to have any message boards at all. The feedback from them is statistically unreliable and worse than useless - it would be incredibly dangerous for it to be listened to. Only statistically viable sampled studies are useful."
Well Phazer you could not be more wrong if you tried, And the fact Nick agrees with you just shows why he's in the wrong job. To explain....
To know and understand the success or failure of a product or a service feedback is required. POV is a source of that feedback to the BBC and being public anyone with a computer and internet access may contribute or read that feedback. Without feedback you cannot identify strengths and weaknesses you cannot make a better service. You trundle on with a mediocre service instead. POV supplied a single point of entry for TV, Radio, TV Services and so forth. Now, it may be argued that it is statistically meaningless because it has captured a very very small part of the population - which is true. Never the less I put it to you how many people have computers and internet access v's services such as BARB? Well BARB select 5,100 homes and determine the viewing statistics of 25 million based on that - which is actually rather pathetic - statistically speaking of course. Not that you (Phazer) were touting the services of BARB to be fair. But the BBC do.
I dont know how many people contribute to POV. I suspect probably less than the 5,100 BARB claim to tap into. But the potential for POV is sooooo much bigger. Particularly in the right hands and when done the right way. I do agree currently not reacting to what is said on the POV board is quite correct as the number of contributors is simply not statistically meaningful. But to dismiss POV altogether when it has the potential and needs nurturing and not dismantling is - well just wrong. If the BBC wish to capture a wider audience they also need to learn and listen to what the viewers think of other TV programmes not just BBC ones. They did that and captured Heros for example from the Sci-FI channel. Sky did that and captured Lost from CH4.
So what should be done? Build on POV and attempt to gain a wider audience and statistically useful? Or effectively shut it down and ignore the contributors because they do not know what they want? And instead rely on BARB and the odd e-mail or letter to POV?
Lets face it I cant see the BBC taking notice of other boards such as Points Aspew. The BBC has its own portal it is in place (POV), it needs wider recognition, the fact that CH4 or whoever has shut down their boards has zero relevance the board needs to be in the hands of someone who wishes to address Broadcasting services and make Broadcasting services better. It needs someone with drive and ambition, someone with a vision.
Nick? Is that you?
Complain about this comment
Firstly I don't agree with the Phaser's views on message boards. I think they have their place in what the BBC does with social media. But if they are to be useful they need to be focused, on topic, efficient and well hosted. The changes to the POV boards are designed to make them more focused and better hosted.
I agree that the BBC should listen to a wide an audience as possible. But this does not have be done on only on BBC Online and sometimes it can be done better elsewhere. There are now lots of places on the internet to discuss Television and to discuss the BBC. We should be looking out for and participating in the most useful conversations whereever they are, and there are plenty of good tools now (e.g. search, feeds, aggregation) to do this.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Phazer was statistically incorrect. He does make good comments generally. But in this case it was in error.
I am pleased to read that you do wish to improve BBC services by listening to a wider audience. But you are going to narrow that audience down in POV which means you must be listening/reading elsewhere.
As you say there are plenty of places to discuss TV and the BBC. But they are ALL over the internet. To monitor it, collect it, and make sense out of it is a huge huge task. Does it not make more sense to collect it at one point? That people come to the BBC to make their points of view - rather than have to search the WWW? Your task is already huge enough.
I don't see how these changes are making the situation better. At the moment it looks more along the lines that the BBC started a sibling (POV MB) and do not like how it has grown and are now about to perform some rather harsh surgery when none is required.
As POD (snog, marry, avoid) would say - "I'm for natural beauty"
Complain about this comment
Franky_Herbert - I actually don't think it is a huge task. Feeds and other tools have made it a lot easier. Look for example at the Internet blog's pageflakes page.
I'm afraid I get more out of using this page in a week than I did in hosting the old Online board on POV in six months.
Aggregating the conversation together is a good idea. But I don't think a message board is necessarily a good aggregator.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I can understand and do fully agree that the signal to noise ratio in the POV MB is very VERY poor. There is simply no debating the fact. I have been complaining myself about its structure it simply is a nightmare to get through at times.
And if you truly get more from this one page in a week then any message board I think the response to this blog indicates quite strongly peoples feeling to the MB's and you wouldn't be taking the action you are about to do.
But how are Blogs going to improve the situation (and isn't Page flakes just a Blog Index - at least that's how it looks to me).
I presume you have considered improving message boards such that they are:
- Threaded - improve conversations for the users.
- Poll - either admin or user generated polls.
- Advertised - to gain a wider audience.
Contributing on programmers web sites such as DEVX thread message boards are just sooo much better.
Blogs are online journals - message boards are for discussion.
Complain about this comment
I agree with you Frank that we need to improve the technical underpinnings of BBC boards and look and things like "threaded" conversations. As I've explained elsewhere this is work in progress and when we make some progress you can be assured I'll be telling you about it.
Pageflakes isn't just a blog index - it aggregates message boards and news stories as well.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
thanks for your response. I look forward to improved MB's in the future.
Can you please educate me. Yuu say Page Flakes "Aggregates" message boards. I fell I should understand that but fail to see how it can do that. Is there an example you could point me to. How does it aggregate and what is it aggregating exactly.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
Look at the box at the top called BBC On Forums. This is a feed that Dave has set up of mentions of the BBC on various message boards. It's not perfect but it does give a flavour.
All the boxes on pageflakes are feeds of different things.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I tried BBC On Forum as you suggested. But I'm still bemused by what you mean on "aggregating". BBC On Forum simply links to other forums - nothing more nothing less. Its merely an indexing service.
How do you pull content to determine perception of the viewing audience or is that not part of it? Future media requires to know direction what audiences like dislike, how to cater for the different tastes and so forth - or not?
The BBC POV message board in its current guise does this in a rather bad way. It could be vastly improved. The current proposals seem though to restrict the field of view and make even more work for you if you need to pull content and sort out the good from the bad.
A well structured message board hosted by BBC is whats required. I cant see how you can get anything meaningful from anywhere else.
I guess I'm still missing something here.
The charter calls for "Building Public Value in the Future" it includes "A renewed BBC, placing the public interest before all else, will counterbalance that market-driven drift towards programme-making as a commodity. Only a secure and adequately funded BBC can ensure that broadcasting retains its cultural (in the broadest sense) aspiration."
To do that one would think the message board system would aid the BBC in knowing what is public interest. The actions being proposed on the message board appears to be opposing this - at least to me on first glance. Removing/restricting the message board sends the message "we know whats best for you" and does seem somewhat dictatorial.
I'll have to sleep on it. But I feel rather strongly that its all going the wrong way at the moment and the BBC are letting down the TV and Radio audience.
Complain about this comment
Franky_Herbert wrote:
"A well structured message board hosted by BBC is whats required".
------------------------------------------------------------------
We, the folk over on the BBC Messageboards, have been telling Nick that for months.
"I cant see how you can get anything meaningful from anywhere else".
------------------------------------------------------------------
I do like Nicks Pageflake and can see it would have some use in garnering expressed opinion from across the Internet.
However, when you place the Pageflake and Nicks comments above, into the context of the debate which has been taking place over the past six months, you start to get the feeling the BBC would really rather have all the comments dispersed and diluted rather than focused, as they are when placed together on the BBCs own site.
This is particularly the case when you read Jem Stones comment where he pointed-out "you could leave feedback on your own blog", and went on to list some other places including Digital Spy, the Mail On Sunday, News of the World and The Guardian, as well as mentioning "blogs, fan sites, politics forums and even sites like Twitter".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F2131439?thread=6260095&skip=100&show=20#p74906078
http://twitter.com/JemStone
The thing is many 'ordinary' 'non-geek' viewers and listeners, wanting to comment on an aspect of the BBCs output, will often turn, in the first instance to the BBC website.
"I feel rather strongly that its all going the wrong way at the moment and the BBC are letting down the TV and Radio audience".
------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to agree, although there is some hope on the horizon as the Beeb are apparently looking at some form of 'Radio' forum; as Jem says: "My job is to work out how the rest of the Radio message boards (where the hosting is not as frequent as we would like) fits."
BBC News, Twitter and suits is an interesting read, particularly the comments from 'ordinary people'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/03/bbc_news_twitter_and_suits.html
Complain about this comment
Morning Nick,
OK I've slept on it, gone back and scanned more messages that I've missed but that doesn't mean I have the full picture yet. Far from it.
I have to say I don't think my opinion has changed much that the MB System needs revamping not removing. It needs improvements to get a meaningful analysis out of it and not a forum where people can spout what ever they want. I read Lee's message and fully understood where he came from and I can imagine other hosts being upset when they receive foul personal abuse are accused of loads of things when of course they never do it because they know it means their jobs. It really is a thankless job and requires someone who can really separate the job from their personal lives.
I would like you to consider along with threaded messages and polling at least one other option on the revamped MB system and that is the "ignore poster" option where all posts by the same user may simply be removed from "your" view on the boards. I know the hosts cant do that. But for us users it allows us to not see these private little wars that take place. I know its a bit of a cowards approach.
Like anything one would assume that the real motive behind changes are budget constraints. But with that how to improve the service and maximize your return on that investment. Everyone today is having to save costs left right and center and I fully understand that. We users of the boards have no idea of the costs involved or the budget you have and the fact that you are doing the job in the most efficient way you can. We do not have the full picture and even if you tried to explain it it probably still wouldn't sink in to the vast majority so why bother?
Yet the BBC has started these boards and they have been in place for about 5 years it has grown in the number of contributors (unfortunately it gained a few bad apples on the way) houses over 60,000 threads or probably about 5,000,000 messages at a conservative estimate. Its a home for what it Say's - points of view.
You have witnessed the uproar the future changes has caused to the users, to just a very small part of the viewing public, to a very very few license payers. I understand we get no direct say in the ins and outs of the BBC but POV is the one place we can talk and gives us the illusion that the BBC is listening. Removing that I feel is a grave mistake. Why?
The days have changed, from the sole provider of broadcasting services last century the BBC has so many borders to defend its a very competitive market out there in media. As an employee that's not a bad thing as an employer it is as the market share falls. The market share has reduced vastly since those days of a captive audience and its getting hard for the BBC to justify the license fee. It should be perhaps a fee for tapping into broadcasting services of which only a part goes to the BBC and the rest is shared between other broadcast suppliers or a monitoring agency to ensure standards are met.
This is turning into a rant into the license fee and that's not its intent. Times are changing and the situation and circumstances must change with those times. I just feel that reports such as [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]generated for the BBC by MORI using a population of 1051 spread over the UK is woefully inadequate. The BBC have at their fingertips a far far better way of reaching a larger significant portion of the population then polls like this ever have.
I just feel the BBC are cutting back in the wrong department and prefer to use professional services when they have a better solution at their fingertips. If the BBC are really cutting costs then I hope they have started in the first places by not using 3rd party services such as MORI.
The message boards are the place. They really are. We the viewing public are being tapped into there - not via some third party who reach their own conclusions. On the message board you get it unfiltered, raw data, raw feedback.
It needs to grow - not to shrink. It needs to be made more useful - not necessarily to us the contributors - but to us the viewing/listening public.
Complain about this comment
Nick said - ...we need to improve the technical underpinnings of BBC boards and look and things like "threaded" conversations. As I've explained elsewhere this is work in progress .."
The BBC MB design had threaded mode 5 years ago... how come it takes you 5 years to decide that it needs improvement? we were telling you this in 2005 (see the first MB posts). If this piecemeal approach to BBC online communication is your idea of solutions then Future Media is ill equipped to deliver a proper Online presence for the BBC. The last 5 months has demonstrated what an amateur bunch are in control.
Other organisations can manage it, why not the former premier broadcaster in the World?
Complain about this comment
Hmm, some one took offense to my message (211).
I wonder what I said to upset them so?
Complain about this comment
Don't know Franky, but it's back. :)
Complain about this comment
How can they remove the link to a MORI report GENERATED for the BBC can be removed from #211.
Unsuitable link. did I make a mistake? What did I post?
Jeez
Complain about this comment
Nick, in case you are reading your blog and not the message board threads, here's the questions from over there....
Quick round-up of questions so far FOR NICK (Part ONE) - More to come, Nick.
1. Jem delegated the "improving POV Boards" exercise to you, BUT was Jem the HIGHEST up the chain to think the boards NEEDED "improving" or was it Seetha or higher still?
2. Why were these "discussions" held hidden away on a "low traffic" board which is now DEFUNCT because of low use?
3. Why do you insist on answering a question with a link to your blogs, instead of answering a question and referring future similar questions to "message X"? You say, "some of these blog posts are quite long, and would be hard to read if I cut and pasted them". I'm glad you admit that they are quite long, so you understand that they are loooooong to read, AND try to work out WHICH PART is the RELEVANT part. Surely, if you were showing ANY RESPECT for people who pose questions you would NOT ask them to re-read your blogs over and over, so that THEY try to work out YOUR meaning. As I say, you would NOT tell a colleague at a meeting to look through File 42 for the answer to THEIR question. Show us the same courtesy.
4. Why can't BBC understand that we DON'T want THESE changes?
5. Now that the job is done, does YOUR dept just wash their hands of us, and go back to their blogs?
6. If so, WHY was YOUR dept chosen to "improve" the POV message boards?
7. If your DEPT was deemed the appropriate one for "improving" message boards, why are they NOT responsible for ALL message board "improvements"?
8. Has TOTAL control for these boards moved to the POV programme? If so, we haven't seen much "closer alignment" up to now. Having a posting read out on THAT programme is NOT the aim of MOST posters to THESE boards. The POV team HAVE NOT appeared often on THESE boards since the "improvements", so YOU have failed to deliver THAT aspect of your "Improvements".
9. Is there any chance BBC may reverse some of these decisions, especially given the fact that POV team don't appear to be "playing ball"?
10. Why are low traffic boards elsewhere still operating, whilst ours have been culled/restricted? The argument of closing SOME "low traffic" boards within BBC, BUT NOT across BBC seems strange. But then some of those "low traffic" boards are in the hallowed grounds of "The Archers".
Part 2 to follow.
niclara
Complain about this comment
Part 2 Nick
1. When asked BEFORE why some boards with "low traffic" were still open whilst ours were closed, you asked what evidence we had. I said we could count and posted a link to a board within "the Archers" set-up with break-down of figures of postings over a set period of time. You NEVER got back to answer the question, WHY OUR BOARDS closed, and others remain OPEN (given the proof you asked for).
Message 29...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6539320&skip=20&show=20
2. You keep saying "The Archers" is a well-hosted board. Do YOU think the previous hosts to THESE boards have been failing, in THAT case?
3. You may say that you are NOT responsible for other boards, but WHY were you responsible for THESE boards ONLY?
4. Have you done ANY work (in the background) about IMPROVEMENTS to the MODERATION of these boards? It has been inconsistent in the past and THAT is the area WE felt needed improving, not the hosting.
5. Do we still have the SAME private company MODERATING these boards as before you took over?
6. Do/did you have any input/say about how many moderators were over-seeing these boards, or is that a decision soley for the private firm which does the MODERATING for BBC? You said you would get back about whether there were MORE moderators now, but never did.
7. Did you feel that the MODERATION on these boards needed to be addressed?
8. cricket put a lot of links to support the argument that a lot of other boards have low traffic, but are still operating, as a result of THEIR programme paying out of their budget, who was paying for THESE boards, UNTIL you roped Points of View programme in?
"Q2. Is it true that the programmes allocate part of their budgets to their own dedicated boards on an ad hoc basis?"
You replied....
"I don't know. Will find out on Tuesday"
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO what was the answer?
9. I shall REPEAT the above. UNTIL you took over the "improvements" to these boards, and aligned us closer to POV programme, WHOSE budget paid for THESE boards?
10.Do YOU think it is fair that boards elsewhere have not been culled whilst ours have?
11.
The recent 'decision', if one can glorify the event with that term, to bury Radio Feedback amongst the twaddle the Green Room on the TV POV board seems absolutely crazy by any standards.
Q4a. Did you take part in that decision making process?
You answered...
"I was told about it. But it wasn't my decision"
So, whose decision was it?
12.
"Q4b. Do you agree with it?"
You replied....
"Absolutely yes. Once of the biggest problems of these boards is the amount of off topic threads. This is one solution to cutting them back."
Now that you have read HOW we see this failing YOUR criteria of improving "off" topic, do you STILL think this idea will work? We are not stupid people and have used these boards for years. WE instinctively know that THIS idea is doomed to failure. YOU are a blogger with NO experience in the field of message boarding, but feel expert enough to support this idea.
13. You said....
"One of the biggest problems of these boards is the amount of off topic threads. This is one solution to cutting them back."
Could you please provide examples of problematic off topic threads? What are the other solutions?
You answered....
"Where do I start?!
When I hosted the Online board someone started a thread about the price of bird seed. Nothing to do with the BBC or what the BBC does online. There was another on the Radio board about Planet Rock, which is not a BBC radio station and has its own website.
Another solution would be to ban all off topic threads."
AND, you worked that out from those few oft repeated threads, and your vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast knowledge of message boarding. Given the HUGE number of threads we create, the number which are actually "off" topic is very small. You know as well as I do that bloggers can also be prone to going "off" topic, but they seem to get a lot more leeway than boarders. YOU definitely appear to approve of banning ALL "off" topic threads. So, the "Welcome to the boards Rowan", "Goodbye and thanks Rowan", "Welcome to the boards Sarah" threads SHOULD NEVER have existed. It is niceties like that which make message boarding a much more pleasant experience than blogging. But, I realise you will not accept or appreciate THAT aspect of message boarding.
14.
HOW does restricting conversation improve Hosting?
15.
When will the contract between BBC and the "private" company used for moderating come up for renewal?
16.
Would BBC be able to walk away from the contract which is in place, if it is proven that the QUALITY of moderation has been below acceptable standards?
17. You said that you spent half your time whilst hosting moving threads to the correct boards. Do you understand that people who are NEW to these boards would not know WHERE the CORRECT place was to post? It is hardly the Crime of the Century, is it - to be in the WRONG place? IF people were genuinely posting in the WRONG place ON PURPOSE, THEN I could understand your annoyance at the time spent moving threads, but, as most, if not all, seem to be genuine mistakes, surely that is just one aspect of the job of hosting. Obviously ONE which YOU object to, but, it goes with the job.
Part 3 to follow.
niclara
Complain about this comment
I'm sure the answers are due any moment, there's a few unanswered on the POV board too.
Complain about this comment
The closure of the 6Music Feedback Board is further evidence of the systematic genocide of BBCs Message Boards by senior staff the conspiracy is unrelenting
Complain about this comment
I am working on the answers to comment 217 but am waiting for part three.
Professor Techno - please do not use words like "genocide" to describe a board closing. It is a wild exaggeration and may offend.
Complain about this comment
All fluff and nonsense!
Nick, you and your team must wear blinkers because you're totally obsessed with Points Of View. That's the only reason why the three non-television boards were deleted. No thought for the users. No thought of moving them temporarily to another part of the BBC website. "No one would host them", you keep on saying. There are no contingency plans in the BBC, I take it?
The radio saga will go on and on. The reasons given disrespect the views of the people who use the boards. MY main gripe is the censorship imposed following that unacceptable act of culling.
I've asked several times for comment on the fact that the BBC is NOT a broadcaster like any of the others. Sarah paid lip service to it but offered no constructive comment.
The BBC is the sole beneficiary of the licence fee. A fee that we must pay to watch ANY television. If we object to paying that fee then we forfeit the right to watch any television.
As the BBC is in such a privileged position then it has an obligation to field comments or complaints on television in general. It would appear that executives within the BBC don't recognise this obligation. The BBC is a public service and is answerable to us. It's perfectly clear that it not only wears blinkers but also has ear plugs permanently fitted into its ears.
None of the changes have been accepted by users of the boards. What will it take for you, or anyone else, to reverse these unpopular and unnecessary actions? A formal complaint issued via the formal complaints procedure? ANY adverse comment is a complaint. A responsible organisation will act on any disappointing feedback from customers.
The trouble is, the BBC doesn't view us as customers. We're the mugs who pay its way.
I've posted this on your blog because I will no longer use a board with a dictatorship in place.
Once more Why does the BBC NOT recognise its obligation to field comments on television in general?
(And please, no reply stating that this won't fit within the narrow remit of a certain 14 minute, seasonal, programme.)
If you, or anyone around you, can't/won't answer this please get someone who will.
Complain about this comment
Apologies Nick, I posted Part 3 on HERE at the same time as the others, but, it has disappeared into the ether. Been enjoying a wee break as my daughter is in Respite. Anyway, follow the link below to the Message boards, and Message 436. Hopefully, THIS won't disappear into the www ether.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6539320&skip=420&show=20
There are actually MORE questions, Nick, but as I'm having a break, and you've got quite a wee bit to absorb over those THREE lists of questions and points we have made, I'll leave you in peace - FOR A WEE WHILE.
I hope you WILL chew over the comments posters have made, and not just cast them aside as umimportant. We have used the message boards for years. We have seen decisions which have made the boards worse. We have seen decisions which have made the boards better. BUT, equally, we really could offer some good suggestions for improving areas where not only YOU, but which we have issues about. As I say, multiple threads ARE a problem, BUT, new posters are usually the main source of them - just look at Sunday after Points of View programme to see the glut of newbies starting new threads, and others posting to the wrong boards. It IS something which happens, BUT to be honest I don't see how you can stop new people to a new environment from making genuine MISTAKES.
Nick, could you also address the questions I asked the POV productions team, I asked, who would be checking the boards when POV programme is OFF air......
"Your host Sarah and the programme team who will review it when the programme returns"
I replied.....
"Sorry, am I getting this right? Sarah, herself has told us that she is NOT employed by Points of View programme. She is a BBC employee. So,Sarah will be our Host and will do...............the same job as Rowan and Peta and Doug and Lee.
So, NO DIFFERANCE at all there.
AND, the programme team will review the boards WHEN the programme is ON AIR. You said earlier in THIS post that that is what you have been doing anyway.
SO, NO DIFFERENCE at all there either.
Can you spell out for US, what this great "closer alignment with Points of View programme" is, in ACTUALITY?
That has cost us THREE boards, AND, the Draconian rules which are being enforced from today.
I'm not sure that I see ANY DIFFERENCE for us, in closer interaction with BBC employees.
Sarah said....
"I feed back comments on a daily basis to the production team, and i attend their meetings"
"And who are you feeding back to when the programme is OFF AIR and when, as POV team person said, "they are out of a job"?
And that would be...........MOST OF THE YEAR."
I also said...
"I CANNOT see how a 14 minute seasonal programme, CAN possibly afford to run these boards from their small budget. The show looks as if it is shot on the cheap (even getting viewers videos to pad out the time), Jeremy sitting/standing in front of a bank of tellies, and High Heidjins giving filmed responses. We're NOT talking COAST, or "The Blue Planet" here. It's a wee "filler", and somehow, it has to find monies to run these BBC boards. It just is NOT going to happen. "
Nick could you address all of these points, about closer alignment, because we are not seeing how this will work, throughout the full year.
thanks
niclara
Complain about this comment
"As the BBC is in such a privileged position then it has an obligation to field comments or complaints on television in general"
I'm afraid the BBC does not have any obligation to do this. It would be like asking the BBC to organise and run systems for dealing with people's complaints about ITV or Channel 4. The BBC can't be held responsible for the output of other broadcasters or forced to field comments about their output.
Complain about this comment
so will you answer the questions Nick?
Complain about this comment
Here are answers to the latest batch of questions in 217 and 217. Part three does not seem to have arrived.
Since I have already answered many of them many times and as these decisions have now been made I am not going to respond again to similar questions. Saying the same things again and again in very long comments is not a productive use of my time.
I will answer any new questions, comment if anyone says something inaccurate and challenge comments which are personal or insulting.
1. Jem delegated the "improving POV Boards" exercise to you, BUT was Jem the HIGHEST up the chain to think the boards NEEDED "improving" or was it Seetha or higher still?
I was asked to pursue this task by my new boss (Ian Hunter).
2. Why were these "discussions" held hidden away on a "low traffic" board which is now DEFUNCT because of low use?
Ive answered this one already. The subject was about bbc.co.uk not BBC television so that board was the best place for it. Since Ive now written 7 blog posts, started at least 7 threads on the POV boards, talked to the newspapers and responded with hundreds of comments in lots of different places Id hardly describe the discussions as hidden away.
3. Why do you insist on answering a question with a link to your blogs, instead of answering a question and referring future similar questions to "message X"? You say, "some of these blog posts are quite long, and would be hard to read if I cut and pasted them". I'm glad you admit that they are quite long, so you understand that they are loooooong to read, AND try to work out WHICH PART is the RELEVANT part. Surely, if you were showing ANY RESPECT for people who pose questions you would NOT ask them to re-read your blogs over and over, so that THEY try to work out YOUR meaning. As I say, you would NOT tell a colleague at a meeting to look through File 42 for the answer to THEIR question. Show us the same courtesy.
I post links to my blog posts because I dont want to say the same things over and over again, and on the blog posts Ive developed the argument in the most discursive and in-depth way.
4. Why can't BBC understand that we DON'T want THESE changes?
I do understand that some people who use the boards dont want these changes. However I would ask people to have some patience. I believe that the changes have already improved the boards.
5. Now that the job is done, does YOUR dept just wash their hands of us, and go back to their blogs?
Not quite sure what you mean. The POV boards are now the responsibility of BBC Television. But since I am writing answers to your questions, I dont think I have washed my hands.
6. If so, WHY was YOUR dept chosen to "improve" the POV message boards?
The POV boards were the responsibility of BBC Future Media & Technology which is where I work.
7. If your DEPT was deemed the appropriate one for "improving" message boards, why are they NOT responsible for ALL message board "improvements"?
Technical improvements are done centrally in consultation with the other relevant BBC departments. The moderation service is overseen centrally. But editorially each BBC department runs its own boards, so is responsible for hosting and indeed deciding whether to have a board at all.
8. Has TOTAL control for these boards moved to the POV programme? If so, we haven't seen much "closer alignment" up to now. Having a posting read out on THAT programme is NOT the aim of MOST posters to THESE boards. The POV team HAVE NOT appeared often on THESE boards since the "improvements", so YOU have failed to deliver THAT aspect of your "Improvements".
The boards are now the responsibility of BBC Television. I would again ask people to have patience. There has already been more activity on the boards stimulated by the programme. The PoV team have been on the boards this week and posted several messages. They read the boards every day and post where relevant.
9. Is there any chance BBC may reverse some of these decisions, especially given the fact that POV team don't appear to be "playing ball"?
Lets put it this way: if anyone in the BBC asked me whether any of these decisions should be reversed I would say no.
10. Why are low traffic boards elsewhere still operating, whilst ours have been culled/restricted? The argument of closing SOME "low traffic" boards within BBC, BUT NOT across BBC seems strange. But then some of those "low traffic" boards are in the hallowed grounds of "The Archers".
As Ive said before Im not responsible for the Archers board so dont take decisions about what happens there. As the host of some of the low traffic POV boards and the person responsible for the boards overall my judgement was that the hosting effort required to keep them open was not worth it.
Second set of questions:
1. When asked BEFORE why some boards with "low traffic" were still open whilst ours were closed, you asked what evidence we had. I said we could count and posted a link to a board within "the Archers" set-up with break-down of figures of postings over a set period of time. You NEVER got back to answer the question, WHY OUR BOARDS closed, and others remain OPEN (given the proof you asked for).
Message 29...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6539320&skip=20&show=20
See answer to previous question.
2. You keep saying "The Archers" is a well-hosted board. Do YOU think the previous hosts to THESE boards have been failing, in THAT case?
No. But we were in a situation as outlined in my very first blog post where when Lee stopped being a host there was a danger of their being no hosting for the POV boards.
3. You may say that you are NOT responsible for other boards, but WHY were you responsible for THESE boards ONLY?
Because the POV boards were the responsibility of BBC Future Media & Technology, the part of the BBC where I work. Other BBC divisions run their own boards e.g. Radio is responsible for the Radio boards.
4. Have you done ANY work (in the background) about IMPROVEMENTS to the MODERATION of these boards? It has been inconsistent in the past and THAT is the area WE felt needed improving, not the hosting.
We look at our moderation service every day to see how its performing. Moderation decisions often involve fine judgement calls which will not always please everyone. At present I think the moderation service is working well. But if you think the moderators have made a mistake and wish to appeal against a decision you can always use this feedback form.
5. Do we still have the SAME private company MODERATING these boards as before you took over?
Yes.
6. Do/did you have any input/say about how many moderators were over-seeing these boards, or is that a decision solely for the private firm which does the MODERATING for BBC? You said you would get back about whether there were MORE moderators now, but never did.
Yes we do have input. But the details are confidential.
7. Did you feel that the MODERATION on these boards needed to be addressed?
No. We have recently put the POV boards in reactive moderation which I think has improved the boards.
8. cricket put a lot of links to support the argument that a lot of other boards have low traffic, but are still operating, as a result of THEIR programme paying out of their budget, who was paying for THESE boards, UNTIL you roped Points of View programme in?
The boards were being paid for by BBC Future Media & Technology.
"Q2. Is it true that the programmes allocate part of their budgets to their own dedicated boards on an ad hoc basis?"
You replied....
"I don't know. Will find out on Tuesday"
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO what was the answer?
Sorry forgot about this one. This varies from programme to programme and from board to board. Usually message boards are paid for separately i.e. not part of the programme budget, but part of the same department.
9. I shall REPEAT the above. UNTIL you took over the "improvements" to these boards, and aligned us closer to POV programme, WHOSE budget paid for THESE boards?
See answer 7. It was paid for by BBC Future Media & Technology.
10.Do YOU think it is fair that boards elsewhere have not been culled whilst ours have?
I dont know what you mean by fair. Personally I think boards and blogs should not be kept open if they are poor quality, low traffic and not hosted adequately. But these are not my decisions to make on those blogs and boards I am not responsible for.
11.
The recent 'decision', if one can glorify the event with that term, to bury Radio Feedback amongst the twaddle the Green Room on the TV POV board seems absolutely crazy by any standards.
Q4a. Did you take part in that decision making process?
You answered...
"I was told about it. But it wasn't my decision"
So, whose decision was it?
It was the decision of the POV programme team and my colleagues in BBC Television.
12.
"Q4b. Do you agree with it?"
You replied....
"Absolutely yes. Once of the biggest problems of these boards is the amount of off topic threads. This is one solution to cutting them back."
Now that you have read HOW we see this failing YOUR criteria of improving "off" topic, do you STILL think this idea will work? We are not stupid people and have used these boards for years. WE instinctively know that THIS idea is doomed to failure. YOU are a blogger with NO experience in the field of message boarding, but feel expert enough to support this idea.
Yes I still think its a good idea.
13. You said....
"One of the biggest problems of these boards is the amount of off topic threads. This is one solution to cutting them back."
Could you please provide examples of problematic off topic threads? What are the other solutions?
You answered....
"Where do I start?!
When I hosted the Online board someone started a thread about the price of bird seed. Nothing to do with the BBC or what the BBC does online. There was another on the Radio board about Planet Rock, which is not a BBC radio station and has its own website.
Another solution would be to ban all off topic threads."
AND, you worked that out from those few oft repeated threads, and your vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast knowledge of message boarding. Given the HUGE number of threads we create, the number which are actually "off" topic is very small. You know as well as I do that bloggers can also be prone to going "off" topic, but they seem to get a lot more leeway than boarders. YOU definitely appear to approve of banning ALL "off" topic threads. So, the "Welcome to the boards Rowan", "Goodbye and thanks Rowan", "Welcome to the boards Sarah" threads SHOULD NEVER have existed. It is niceties like that which make message boarding a much more pleasant experience than blogging. But, I realise you will not accept or appreciate THAT aspect of message boarding.
This isnt really a question so I cant answer it.
14.
HOW does restricting conversation improve Hosting?
Ive already answered this. Restricting off topic threads means the host spends more time dealing with relevant conversations with the community and less time deleting and moving threads.
15.
When will the contract between BBC and the "private" company used for moderating come up for renewal?
Thats confidential Im afraid.
16.
Would BBC be able to walk away from the contract which is in place, if it is proven that the QUALITY of moderation has been below acceptable standards?
The details are confidential but obviously a contract like this one would have clauses in it around acceptable levels of service.
17. You said that you spent half your time whilst hosting moving threads to the correct boards. Do you understand that people who are NEW to these boards would not know WHERE the CORRECT place was to post? It is hardly the Crime of the Century, is it - to be in the WRONG place? IF people were genuinely posting in the WRONG place ON PURPOSE, THEN I could understand your annoyance at the time spent moving threads, but, as most, if not all, seem to be genuine mistakes, surely that is just one aspect of the job of hosting. Obviously ONE which YOU object to, but, it goes with the job.
Do I understand that people post off topic threads? Yes. When I closed off topic threads on the board I tried where possible to post a link to a relevant board.
Complain about this comment
Concerning your reply Nick
"As the BBC is in such a privileged position then it has an obligation to field comments or complaints on television in general"
I'm afraid the BBC does not have any obligation to do this. It would be like asking the BBC to organise and run systems for dealing with people's complaints about ITV or Channel 4. The BBC can't be held responsible for the output of other broadcasters or forced to field comments about their output.
the BBC might not be responsible for other broadcaster's output but it IS responsible for allowing licence fee payers to watch output from other broadcasters.
Why is comment on other broadcasters work therefore not acceptable in the POV boards?
As I said, if you can't answer this please get a response from a senior manager within the corporation. Your constant reply, of aligning comment to the POV programme, is not good enough. I'm tending to agree with those MB users who've called for the boards to be removed from under the POV banner.
You've stated that you still agree with the changes that have taken place and have asked for time to allow them to 'bed in'. The overwhelming rejection to those actions should tell you that you've failed to 'improve' the user experience.
Are you surprised by that overwhelming rejection? Have your managers noticed it? If they have, what has been their response?
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick
Part 3 originally disappeared into the ether, but I reposted the link to it in message 222 above. I decided to link to the message board, instead of writing to the blog, as the previous attempt did not appear. The link within message 222 works (I've just checked it).
There are questions which have arisen SINCE POV production team have taken over the running of the POV boards.
Thanks
niclara
Complain about this comment
"the BBC might not be responsible for other broadcaster's output but it IS responsible for allowing licence fee payers to watch output from other broadcasters."
The BBC is not "responsible" for allowing licence fee payers to watch output from other broadcasters. How the licence fee works and what it's for is set down in the BBC's Charter and Agreement which is agreed and set by Parliament and Government.
Complain about this comment
The fact remains, Nick, NOBODY can watch TV without paying the BBC licence fee. For me, it seems reasonable, therefore, for the BBC to allow licence payers to talk about non-BBC programmes on the TV Board.
Why the TV Board should be exempt from this is baffling anyway. There are other boards on the BBC that allow the discussion of non-BBC related stuff.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
After reading your replies to hilda's questions I would like to know exactly HOW you think your changes have improved the boards. Can I have examples, please - you can use links if you want ;-)
I would also like to ask you what OTHER options you considered before squishing our boards into the restricted confines of the Points of View programme remit?
I understand fully from your replies that your Future Media Department wanted nothing to do with the boards, and needed to fob them off to anyone ASAP. But were there any other contenders except for POV? Or did you just hand them over to the first department you could think of?
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Nick asks for patience... just how long are we to wait? and what are we waiting for?
PS. When you do provide evidence of the improvements... I think you'd better qualify your examples with links to users who have stated they have benefited from the improvements. So far, all I see is a huge increase in traffic - mainly dissent.
Complain about this comment
Some improvements:
1 Fewer off topic threads and more focused boards.
2.Better hosting from a someone who is engaging with the boards, providing useful links and trying to get answers to questions on the board e.g. here.
3. Reactive moderation making the conversation flow more easily.
Complain about this comment
How do you quote on this blog?
Nick,
1) There has been no noticeable increase or decrease in off-topic threads so far.
2) Sarah is actually on the boards less than Rowan was. She does provide useful links and does a very good job in answering our questions, going to other parts of the BBC when needed - but ALL of our Hosts have done this. That's what Hosts DO.
3) I have noticed NO change in moderation. In fact, it's more perplexing now than ever it was because now posts are removed without explanation and not merely Hidden awaiting decisions.
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote....
"providing useful links".....
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
If you click on THAT link it takes you to "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage".
And, that just about sums up what has happened throughout this whole exercise, Nick. YOU link us to "useful" links, which we find ANYTHING BUT useful, but, they fulfil YOUR need to link, so, you plough on manfully, posting more and more and more and more and more and more and more............links, which, to be perfectly honest, are as useful as the broken link above.
You came onto the bbc.co.uk board and ASKED us for suggestions for "improving" the POV boards. We gave you as much information as we could. Most of the time we were very civil, eloquent, articulate and intelligent in our postings, and yet, you have belittled us at every turn. You say, you were fed up removing "off" topic threads, or threads on the wrong boards - BIG DEAL. Newbies were the source of a lot of your pain, but, rather than accept that people, especially newcomers take a wee while to get used to posting on the boards - even you were a NEWBIE to the message boards, you seemed to pout and have a petted lip about people giving you more work. NEWSFLASH - that is the job of a HOST. You chose NOT to post there too often, but, sat "on high" and proclaim your opinions of our failure to act in an "adult" way. It is obvious to anyone who can string two words together that YOU wanted to improve HOSTING (you even said this). We said we did NOT have problems with the HOSTING of the boards. We DID have problems with the MODERATION. YOU chose to improve HOSTING and side-stepped the issue of MODERATION. THAT one aspect tells us a lot of what was happening behind the scenes. You have FAILED to deliver any of the issues we asked for. Have CLOSED three boards, done away with a BBC General RADIO board (doh), and "aligned" us MORE closely to a programme which is ridiculed and derided on a board carrying IT'S name over the door. I could go on, but, we have discussed this issue until it has become obvious that you will not "give" on ANYTHING we want. You have insulted our intelligence by writing about how wonderful h2g2 is, whilst treating us with barely hidden contempt. You have raved about The Archers Boards - have you actually read a lot of what is passing for "intellectual" commenting there. BUT, it IS the Archers Boards. You have dipped your toes in the water of the message boards, but to be fair, it was like dipping your toe in a paddling pool rather than the sea.
I have been on these boards for years. I have enjoyed the company and stimulating discussions/debates I have had with some very intelligent and articulate people on the message boards. I have loved some of the real "characters" who have so much wit and humour, that can lift your spirits on a "down" day. I have grieved for some who have died (genuine emotion for cyber-friends, whom I have never met, but DID get to know). I have laughed and cried at postings I have read. I have been moved by the compassion posters have shown to other posters, and the hosts. I have been "tirped" by WUMs/Media Studies Students, too lazy to do their own homework/posters who have an "attitude" AND the moderation which can be so unpredictable.
Nick, you have RUINED the message boards I have enjoyed for years. I have been reading the threads/postings SINCE you "improved" the boards, and, I now find that I have NOTHING I can contribute. You have tied our hands so much that you have taken the joy out of posting to THOSE boards.
I shall be sorry to leave, and I shall miss the many posters and previous Hosts who contributed to a wonderful community on the boards.
The ONE person I shall NOT miss, Nick, is you. You are someone who enjoys a position of power over the general public. You do not listen. You asked for help (so that it "looked" as if you were involved in "open dialogue"), and THEN, totally ignored what we asked for. We genuinely wanted to help BBC to improve their boards........ I am not sure what YOU wanted, but, what I am certain of, is that you have FAILED to deliver "improvements" for the USERS of those boards.
I said almost from my first posting, way back at the end of November, that "improvements" is BBC code for CLOSURES. It became obvious very quickly that you were not listening. BUT, still we plugged on trying to make your failings so obvious that even you could not ignore them. BUT, it takes a certain kind of person who can take almost 100% negative feedback on their "improvements" and STILL believe that THEY are right. I determined in my own mind, that I would see this "exercise" all the way through to implimentation, and then see if I was wrong.
And, you know what, nick, I WAS RIGHT, and you were WRONG, and having seen what you have done to the boards, with NO flexibility to your thought process, I want nothing more to do with YOUR version of "improved"/closer aligned/honed down/"Green Roomed" boards.
You have driven many good posters off the boards, and I won't be the last to decide that BBC is no longer a welcome place for message boarders. I'm afraid that from being an avid BBC viewer/message boarder, I have NOW reached the stage of complete disillusionment with BBC. BBC seem to be on a quest to alienate as many people in as many areas of BBC as it possibly can, and it won't take too many more years before it's totally arrogant/yoof oriented/dumbed-down/IPPed/DOGed/Voiced-over/news-bonged/politically correct/credit squeezed attitude, will MAKE the general public decide that it no longer wants to finance such an institution. Especially when the BBC tries to gag those people who try to feedback on what they perceive as poor quality programmes or poor judgement by BBC employees. You don't even appear to want to have positive feedback. Nick, just pull up the drawbridge and entice people over to the fantasy world of "blogland" where you and your fellow BBC mates can tell us how wonderful BBC REALLY REALLY IS.
GOOD JOB nick!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bye everyone - niclara
Complain about this comment
So sorry to hear you have been driven off the boards, niclara. :-(
But after months of "dialogue" with Nick I can see why you have finally succumbed. He will not acknowledge any insult he has directed our way, yet brings up every offensive remark directed at him over the months as though to demonstrate how ill-mannered all messageboarders are. He is firmly convinced he was in the right, despite the majority of posters either leaving the boards and/or expressing their dismay and confusion at these new restrictions. He has ignored every suggestion we have put to him. And he's still cherry-picking questions put to him to answer.
And now he's not even answering his own blog.
Niclara, you will be missed.
Complain about this comment
Having been an active poster on the Television Message Board for a while now (and occasionally on the old Radio Board) this is only the first time I have come on to the blog pages to see exactly how they "feel".
My immediate impression is that it is hardly used. Compared with many of the threads on the Message Board that have many hundreds of posts each day, in the last three days only 5, 2 and 1 messages have been left respectively on here. If anything seems to unused and, probably not value for money, it's the Blog - not the Message Board.
Also the format of the Blog is far from user-friendly. No quote facility, no ability to flip around a thread except by scrolling down via thousands of posts dating back ages. Also the fact that the latest comments are at the bottom of the list is quite annoying.
I'm not quite sure where Nick Reynolds gets his priorities from but, if I were in his shoes, I would be looking to close this Blog down and concentrate on Message Boards for a far better medium for us, the licence fee payers, to enjoy one small aspect of the public service we pay for.
I'm off back to the Message Board.......it's much more fun than here.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you destroyed the messageboards and you didn't listen to what any of us had to say then and you didn't bother to answer any questions, so you just flounced off here. So don't pretend to care now. You're just forcing everyone over to Digital Spy instead.
Stick your blogs in the bog. You are even more pointless than a politician.
Discuss. If you want. I won't care. You'll only be talking to yourself. Still, at least you'll get all the answers you require(!)
Complain about this comment
@225
"4. Have you done ANY work (in the background) about IMPROVEMENTS to the MODERATION of these boards? It has been inconsistent in the past and THAT is the area WE felt needed improving, not the hosting.
We look at our moderation service every day to see how its performing. Moderation decisions often involve fine judgement calls which will not always please everyone. At present I think the moderation service is working well."
It appears that issues about Moderation even affects those over on The Archers messageboards
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/F2693942?thread=6576592
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/F2693942?thread=6563947
Complain about this comment
Apologies for the broken link in my last comment. Here's another example of useful linking by Sarah..
Complain about this comment
In reply to Message 234 Take Two.
How do you quote on this blog?
Nick,
1) There has been no noticeable increase or decrease in off-topic threads so far.
2) Sarah is actually on the boards less than Rowan was. She does provide useful links and does a very good job in answering our questions, going to other parts of the BBC when needed - but ALL of our Hosts have done this. That's what Hosts DO.
3) I have noticed NO change in moderation. In fact, it's more perplexing now than ever it was because now posts are removed without explanation and not merely Hidden awaiting decisions.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, my above message is a reply to message 232.
This woulkd be easier to see if there was a quote facility on here.
Complain about this comment
I tell you another thing I've noticed since the POV Boards were (ahem)aligned more closely to the POV programme - for some reason there seems to be more threads started about television on The BBC board than there was before the improvements. Now this I could understand when there were 5 boards to choose from, but not now!
Complain about this comment
Why is the Radio 4 blog you suggest a better place to discuss other BBC Radio Stations?
Radio 1 doesn't have a place, and neither does Radio Scotland.
One place should be available to discuss ALL radio stations. You don't have separate BBC television channel boards/blogs, so why should radio be any different?
You sir, are talking cobblers.
Complain about this comment
Bye Niclaamartin,
I agree with everything you wrote.
Nick has ruined the boards, misled us, and damaged trust in the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Are we supposed to have a full-time Host?
Cos we don't seem to.
And could you please answer my responses above.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
This closing down of message boards to give us designer type blogs has to be one of the most shambolic exercises in the history of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Can I ask what the point of a blog is if the blogger doesn't respond to queries? Isn't the point of a blog to talk to the instigating blogger?
Complain about this comment
No, the point of a blog is to talk.
Dialogue is optional and only rarely forthcoming.
Complain about this comment
That explains ALOT, Seurat!! :-D
Complain about this comment
Nick is currently away... did anyone notice the difference?
Complain about this comment
Here's hoping he checks his blogs when he gets back.
Complain about this comment
Isn't it great to see interaction between BBC staff and the public on blogs, not here of course but occasionally elsewhere - and certainly not on the poor relation: the messageboard. Where's a tumbleweed smiley when you need it?
Complain about this comment
Lol :-D
Complain about this comment
Hmm
another abandoned blog
Blogs lost in space.
WOnder if it would ever make a movie?
Complain about this comment
This is the big difference between boards and blogs, if a blog is abandoned (as this one has been), then it peters off. On a messageboard a thread can be taken up and continued by anyone.
On another related matter, anyone noticed the considerable amount of newbies on POV? Luckily I'm not a cynical person, otherwise I'd think it was the BBC attempting to say that the new system has attracted more new users. It's also obvious to any long term user that traffic has slowed down akin to the Blackwall Tunnel at 8.40am on a Monday morning speed.
If they are genuine new members, great - can't wait for their second posts, whenever that event takes place.
Complain about this comment
"With hindsight if I'd known it was all going to take this long I might have started this conversation a bit later, rather than way back in November of last year." LOL
Complain about this comment
With hindsight I'm sure a lot of contributors to the debate beginning in November on the future of the POV board wouldn't have bothered - all decisions were made before the so called 'consultation' started. A total waste of time, is this it, is this the great improvement?
Complain about this comment
http://twitter.com/nickreynoldsatw/statuses/2128948689
"blogging makes me happy"
Except this blog obviously.
Complain about this comment
232. At 9:34pm on 14 May 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
Some improvements:
1 Fewer off topic threads and more focused boards.
2.Better hosting from a someone who is engaging with the boards, providing useful links and trying to get answers to questions on the board e.g. here.
3. Reactive moderation making the conversation flow more easily.
____________________________
1. No - not really. Case in point BNP on Question Time - that goes off topic from about Message 2 for some strange reasons. There have been at least 3 threads on it now. So no.
More focussed board. Yes I'd have to agree. Come on over and see who is the focus of the board.
2. Beter hosting - no. Sarah is tied up shutting down threads and not just the non BBC one either. She does attempt to make some contribution - but to date it is rather minimal at best. - So thats strike two.
3. Hasnt it always been reactive?
Complain about this comment
Not one user has ANYTHING good to say about this.
I'd love to know har far the head is buried in the sand.
Complain about this comment
Another abandoned blog.
...sigh
Complain about this comment
Hi all - Some of you may be interested in this comment from Tom which he posted on the Points of View board a couple of days ago, and the subsequent discussion.
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to see the board traffic figures since the new rules were brought into force. How about it Nick?
Complain about this comment
20+ comments since your previous comments - addmittidly not all require a respose.
But some do and you still ignore them.
You could at least answer Cricket's queiores instead of posting a link to a message about something else all together.
But I do look forward to some of the changes
Complain about this comment
Blanche Hunt's Grimace (aka Nippie Sweetie) wrote:
"It would be interesting to see the board traffic figures since the new rules were brought into force. How about it Nick?"
___________________________________________________________
I'd be interested in seeing the figures too Nick.
Complain about this comment
I'll also point out that the hosting doesn't seem to be up to much - Sarh is missing quite a few new threads that are deemed off-topic under the new rules. Is this because she is still part-time or is she now full-time? Or is it to do with the new reactive moderation rules?
Complain about this comment
I have come across the POV board a time or two. Hoping Sarah carries on well over there. I have seen quite a few articles about the BBC at my [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]article directory. All good, of course!
Complain about this comment
Nice to know at least that someone from the BBC is monitoring this blog, looking at the moderation of message 267.
If only there was more interaction, funny how the more the BBC eulogise about various means of communication the less they communicate.
Complain about this comment
Ever feel like you're talking to thin air?
Even when we come over to their medium they STILL ignore us!
Are you planning on answering any of the above questions, Nick?
Complain about this comment
Any update on the traffic figures since the 'improvements"?
Complain about this comment
I am planning on answering them. But I'm waiting for some clarification of certain points, so you'll have to be a little more patient.
Complain about this comment
Nick is not the Editor of the Internet Blog anymore,me thinks he has been promoted and he thinks this messageboard issue is beneath him
Complain about this comment
Professor Techno - it's not "beneath me". But as I explain above the decisions have now been made and as I've left (possibly) hundreds of comments and posts explaining them it doesn't appear as though there is much that I can add. I would just be repeating myself.
But when I've got something new and specific to say I will do so.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Some of us are still unclear as to the answers you have given.
For example, you stated that you thought some improvements to the POV boards as a result of your actions were:
"1. Fewer off topic threads and more focused boards.
2.Better hosting from a someone who is engaging with the boards, providing useful links and trying to get answers to questions on the board e.g. here.
3. Reactive moderation making the conversation flow more easily."
I responded with:
"1) There has been no noticeable increase or decrease in off-topic threads so far.
2) Sarah is actually on the boards less than Rowan was. She does provide useful links and does a very good job in answering our questions, going to other parts of the BBC when needed - but ALL of our Hosts have done this. That's what Hosts DO.
3) I have noticed NO change in moderation. In fact, it's more perplexing now than ever it was because now posts are removed without explanation and not merely Hidden awaiting decisions."
You have not yet responded. Are you going to?
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Nick, look forward to the figures when they arrive.
We understand we need to be more patient on blogs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/by_way_of_an_introduction_open.html#P81892827
Complain about this comment
Why DO we need to be more patient on blogs? I thought this was the BBC employee's perferred online domain (excepting Twitter, of course)? Nick implied BBC employees were SCARED of msesageboards - particularly the POV ones. Are they scared of their own blogs too?
Complain about this comment
"blogging makes me happy"
Complain about this comment
Looking forward to the release of the traffic figures, I don't know what's obtainable or not but it would be interesting to know the number of new members and the percentage of them who have posted more than once or have posted more than five times.
Complain about this comment
Hi everybody and apologies for my absence.
To answer one of the points above as you are probably aware Sarah is continuing to host the board now the TV series has finished and will do so in future.
Regarding traffic figures I don't have the kind of detail that Faye is interested in, but I can tell you in terms of broad numbers of page impressions that the boards have hardly been effected by the changes. There was a slight drop between March and April (when the three boards were closed) and another slight one from April - May. But the boards are still getting a healthy more than 1 million PIs per month.
I also think the boards have been very much improved by Sarah's excellent hosting. They are much more focused, on topic and lively.
I don't think there's much more to say about this subject, so I am going to close this thread for further comments at 5 p.m. today.
Complain about this comment
What are PIs?
"I also think the boards have been very much improved by Sarah's excellent hosting. They are much more focused, on topic and lively."
Have you BEEN there????? It's full of WUMs, bigots and inane drivel!! Threads are not contributed to for AGES, unless they are about homophobia or Wimbledon! The overall contributions have declined dramatically since The Purge.
"I don't think there's much more to say about this subject, so I am going to close this thread for further comments at 5 p.m. today."
Where do we go to get responses to our queries in future, please?
Complain about this comment
Bye then Nick. Thanks for all your hard work with the POV messageboards.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I have to agree with cricket and Nippie (she was being ironic - just in case you missed THAT). Have you actually looked at those boards? I've not visited often, BUT..............it is a shadow of it's former self (before your "improvements"). As cricket says it is full of WUMs, and the same repetitive threads (with the loss of the ability to talk about non-BBC programmes, what you have actually done is highlight how FEW GOOD programmes there are on BBC any more). I don't think that was your objective, but that IS the end result. I've seen the sort of consultation process you took us through, and we said at the beginning that this would be the end of the messageboards, and they are now taking bets on how much longer they can hobble along as they are. You OBVIOUSLY never read the vibrant postings of a couple of years ago BEFORE the "improvements" then, but, what we long-time posters can see VERY CLEARLY is just what a mess THOSE boards are now.
I'm not blaming YOU necessarily Nick. I think it is simply BBC policy to sideline the messageboards and impliment more controllable (some would say censored,) blogs etc. It IS a poor judgement, because it is there to be seen by all, and BBC are shown in a poor light, moving from having a phenominal open-dialogue forum on a great set of boards, to a pair of boards where the objective was to have better hosting and closer aligned to Points of View programme (at least that was the cover-story). What has ACTUALLY happened is, Sarah is NO BETTER a host than Peta, Doug, Martin, Lee or Rowan, there is very little extra input from the production team from the fifteen minute seasonal programme which is off air more than it is on, and the past week or two has seen the invasion of WUMs and boredom. So, unfortunately Nick, YOU are tarred with having destroyed the BBC POV messageboards, and having done so by trying to defend the actions with indefensible comments like "Radio is not covered by POV programme so MUST close", "Non-BBC programmes are not covered by POV Programme so MUST stop", "The Archers Boards are well-hosted - so popular a comment with former hosts of POV I bet" etc. What these comments have done is make long-time posters despair. The hosting was perfectly good - the MODERATION was the problem. The 15 minute seasonal programme ALL BBC's Television comments are aligned to is ridiculed mercilously on the very board which bears it's name, and the most ridiculous of all, posters are being sent to a RADIO board (the Archers) to talk about non BBC TELEVISION programmes. It is the incongruity of being able to discuss Television programmes on a RADIO board whilst NOT being allowed to discuss THOSE same programmes on the TELEVISION board which holds these "improvements" up for the ridicule they deserve.
Nick, as I say, I don't blame you entirely for this fiasco (whoever thought a blogger should make decisions about messageboards has a great sense of humour), BUT, please stop trying to defend the indefensible, put your hands up, and be honest about WHY these changes were made, because one thing it is not - is IMPROVING the quality of the postings, making it more focussed or making it a pleasurable experience.
BBC and yourself had the opportunity to listen to the comments posted by posters, AND impliment THOSE improvements. All these months later I see NOT ONE of those suggestions on the boards - hahaha SEARCH facility.
Be a man, and admit that the whole consultation was a fiasco. You implimented what the BBC wanted implimented and have simply alienated a huge number of posters with the whole process.
As to figures, I don't believe that you CAN'T find those figures. You SEE NO NEED to publish them. And, not for one minute will you convince long-time posters that there has NOT been a drop in posters/postings, or that the quality is SUFFERING. But, carry on your merry way Nick. Job done, and only a set of decimated boards in your wake.
Complain about this comment
The boards have not been "decimated". As I pointed out above the level of traffic is still high.
The search facility is something which I wish we had implemented sooner -but it is still a priority and we are still working on it.
Complain about this comment
"The boards have not been "decimated". "
YOU will never convince any of the long-time posters to the Points of View messageboards that YOUR improvements have been anything BUT improvements. WE have been posting on them for years, and we know what works and what doesn't work. YOU made it clear from the off where your loyalties lay, preferring blogging. You made little or no effort to even bother to find out how the functions of the messageboards worked, so how could you possibly know whether messageboarding was a nice experience. I can say that after your improvements posting to BBC Points of View Message boards (TWO) is no longer a pleasant experience.
You obviously have NEVER read any of the threads AFTER the points of view programme is aired or you would see how much it is ridiculed and deemed a complete waste of time. If you had read even one of those threads you would NEVER have aligned the BBC Television board to THAT programme. Whatever the ins and outs you have changed the boards FOR THE WORSE. You keep telling yourself that you have improved them, BUT, you will never convince the posters of that, which is why you are ending any further communication with people who are VERY unhappy with your input to their message boarding experience.
YOU asked US for our input, and then ignored EVERYTHING we asked for - a Search facility (good God how long does it take to do this - and Tom did nothing to help YOUR cause), better MODERATION (NOT hosting, which I actually think is no better at all), keeping WUMs off the boards, changing the name FROM Points of View, doing away with the three minute rule, returning the Quote function, more smileys etc etc etc
"As I pointed out above the level of traffic is still high. "
Well as you won't provide figures it is going to be hard to convince us that the traffic has "improved" in line with YOUR "improvements" to the boards.
So, Nick, one final question, has the level of traffic IMPROVED SINCE YOUR IMPROVEMENTS, or as, we think, have YOUR IMPROVEMENTS actually contributed to a drop in traffic?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I thought the whole point of blogs was that shlubs like us could talk to BBC employees? How can we do that when you refuse to answer our questions.
Can you PLEASE answer the questions I have put to you at least four times on this very blog!
In case you missed the previous times:
Some of us are still unclear as to the answers you have given.
For example, you stated that you thought some improvements to the POV boards as a result of your actions were:
"1. Fewer off topic threads and more focused boards.
2.Better hosting from a someone who is engaging with the boards, providing useful links and trying to get answers to questions on the board e.g. here.
3. Reactive moderation making the conversation flow more easily."
I responded with:
"1) There has been no noticeable increase or decrease in off-topic threads so far.
2) Sarah is actually on the boards less than Rowan was. She does provide useful links and does a very good job in answering our questions, going to other parts of the BBC when needed - but ALL of our Hosts have done this. That's what Hosts DO.
3) I have noticed NO change in moderation. In fact, it's more perplexing now than ever it was because now posts are removed without explanation and not merely Hidden awaiting decisions."
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Based on your previous statements we don't trust you. Just publish the broad figures that you base your opinions on...then we can judge.
Complain about this comment
So this blog is the only channel to talk to instigators of the changes (even though Nick is an infrequent visitor to his own blog) - and now he closes it. What is the purpose of closing it? To stiffle us?
Complain about this comment
Nick is going to close this Blog, because he knows that he his "project" has failed and the Messageboard is actually worse than it has ever been before.
He wants to wash his hands of it and let someone else clear up his mess
Complain about this comment
I do find it interesting that a self-confessed blogger thinks the messageboards are better thanks to the changes, yet we who have used the boards for years think they have got worse.
Nick, HOW have they got better?
Complain about this comment
cricket-Angel Albert. I've explained above how I think they have got better. And I can't really answer your "questions" because they aren't questions, they are statements. Statements which I disagree with i.e.
1. There has been fewer off topic threads.
2. Sarah you say is a good host, which is good.
3. You may not have noticed any change, but I can assure you that the boards have gone to reactive moderation.
I'll have another go at closing this post now. Hopefully this time comments won't disappear.
Complain about this comment
No, Nick, there have not been fewer off-topic threads.
Sarah is a good Host, but she seems to be part time. And she is certainly no better than our previous Hosts.
And I know we have gone to reactive moderation, but I really am struggling to see how this has improved anything.
Where can we continue to talk about these issues, please?
Complain about this comment
You can I assume talk about them on the boards.
But this conversation is closing down as there is no more to say from my end.
Complain about this comment
Classic.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS