Blogs and boards: getting the balance right
Post categories: blogs, messageboards
| 18:44 UK time, Friday, 31 July 2009
Last week I gave a presentation to a BBC meeting about the moderation budget.
This is the money that we spend every year on moderating the BBC's social media services: message boards, blogs and communities.
Just in case you need a reminder, this is what moderation is (and it's important, always to distinguish it from hosting).
The details of the presentation are confidential. The independent company who do moderation for the BBC wouldn't thank me if I gave you financial data which might prevent them running a successful business.
But there is one slide from the power point which I thought I could share safely.
As you can see from the pie chart above the vast majority of the money we spent on moderation last year was spent on message boards and other communities with a very small slice spent on blogs.
Now blogs sometimes attract a lower rate of commenting (and therefore moderation spend) than a board would. Most of our blogs are reactively moderated. This can be less expensive - as long as the community behaves itself and as a result the numbers of comments alerted is low. Some topics are more likely to be premoderated because they are controversial. If we had a blog about religion as we do a set of message boards, then that blog might turn out to be an expensive proposition.
And moderation is only one part of the picture. Blogs and boards need to be hosted which also costs money.
But even with all those caveats, the pie chart gave me pause for thought.
Blogs last year (April 08 - 09) were getting around 20% of the traffic every month of the total traffic (page impressions) to the BBC's social media services (communities, blogs, message boards). In other words in terms of traffic to moderation spend blogs are out performing boards.
I've said before that in my opinion BBC blogs present a nice combination of editorial and conversation. And to be clear, I'm not saying that all boards should be closed and be replaced by blogs (and it's not in my power to do that anyway). I'm simply thinking aloud about what the right balance could be.
So what do you think should be the balance between blogs, boards and communities?
.
How valuable to you are the different things they do?
Is the BBC missing a trick anywhere? Are there forms of social media we should be doing as well as - or even instead of - the current stuff?
Nick Reynolds is editor, Social Media, Central Editorial Team, BBC Online
Thanks to Brett for the pie chart and his help in preparing the presentatiion
N.B. Comments about the changes to the Points of View message boards will be deemed off topic for this post and removed.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC proposition around commenting is too confusing. I'd like a more joined-up experience across the entire range of offerings.
In terms of what you should be doing, I think one should be able to comment on every news article posted. Not just "Have Your Say" (eugh) but right at the bottom of every article published. And the same capability on every iPlayer programme. Then all of this should be accessible from a central point, by category, date, theme, whatever.
I really love how http://www.metafilter.com/ works. You could learn a lot from it.
Complain about this comment
I don't see why blogs and message boards need to be compared in this way. Its like comparing tv and radio. Both offer something completely different and have different purposes. Also, using traffic as a comparison leaves aside the fact that not everyone visting a blog reads the comments; some people just read the main post (which isn't moderated in the same way).
I disagree with lleyam on having more commenting on news articles. I'd like it if comments were moved to a different page to article itself, or atleast hidden with javascript until the reader clicks a button.
Complain about this comment
I don't think any more message boards should be closed down Nick.
Blogs and boards serve completely different functions , posters have had this conversation with you ad nauseum on the POV BBC board !
The person running the blog has much more control over matters , and it's very difficult to get a conversation going between posters or create a sense of community.
Just because blogs are cheaper to run, doesn't mean you should close down message boards.
Complain about this comment
I think there are too many blogs and not enough Boards
If you ask the License Fee payers what they prefer i would guess its message boards
If you ask the BBC what they prefer i would guess its blogs
BTW Nick when are you going to publish the blog about the following queston " Are the BBC in any shape or form trying to gradually get rid of boards in favour of blogs where they have more control?" you said you would in your last post
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Blogging makes me happy. And it's cheaper too.
Complain about this comment
Blogs last year (April 08 - 09) were getting around 20% of the traffic every month of the total traffic (page impressions) to the BBC's social media services (communities, blogs, message boards). In other words in terms of traffic to moderation spend blogs are out performing boards.
How about comparing it with something that's actually meaningful Nicky?
What you have compared it with is in no way comparable.
People may have viewed the blog, but have they commented on it?
Give us the stats for total blog posts, and total message board posts for the same year, and you might just then have an even comparison.
I've said before that in my opinion BBC blogs present a nice combination of editorial and conversation.
Conversation is a two way process. In the world of BBC Blogs, there are some that the original blogger has never returned to and commented on. Chick Young's football blog (he thinks he's writing an article, and not a blog entry), and Maggie Sheils are two from the top of my head.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
lleyam wrote:
The BBC proposition around commenting is too confusing. I'd like a more joined-up experience across the entire range of offerings.
Why the BBC can't organise a coherent system is baffling, here's what Paul from CCT said:
Things at the BBC have sometimes been a bit piecemeal due to different departments having different software, policies, platforms and ideas. It's a big organisation and it's hard to avoid that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574?thread=6633727&skip=0&show=20#p80884593
If it's a big organisation being organised should be easier not "a bit piecemeal", what are all these people in middle management for if they can't manage, it seems from the above comment they are more interested in managing their own fiefdoms - which seems at odds to a corporation providing a public service.
Complain about this comment
You'd probably save a lot of moderation costs if you didn't keep posting about message boards on these blogs.
I used a lot of message boards around the internet, but not the BBC ones. I've always found the way the BBC ones are run odd - they have opening times and heavy moderation.
It's odd though that it keeps coming back to this - blogs and message boards are not the same thing. On a blog, only you - the BBC employee - can start a discussion. On message boards, anyone can. That's clearly a big difference and I'm not sure why it is not really mentioned in this endless series of posts...
If I want to discuss, say, the recent iPhone SMS exploit, in a world without message boards, I have to wait till someone posts it on the dotlife blog. If they don't post it, I can't discuss it. That seems to me a pretty good reason not to assume blogs and message boards are the same.
Blogs are essentially broadcast out there, comments are kind of optional extras tacked on the bottom. Message boards are all about the comments, and no single user is more important than any other. Don't get me started on Have Your Say...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can I just clarify, is this what we're actually being asked to comment about here
"So what do you think should be the balance between blogs, boards and communities?
How valuable to you are the different things they do?
Is the BBC missing a trick anywhere? Are there forms of social media we should be doing as well as - or even instead of - the current stuff?"
and not Moderation, despite it taking up the majority of the blog?
Complain about this comment
Nippie Sweetie - just to clarify what you being asked to comment on.
This thread is not about how the current moderation system works, the current house rules, or an opportunity to debate or complain about individual moderation decisions. There are other blog posts about that.
Nor is it another opportunity to throw more (metaphorical) rotten tomatoes in my direction.
I am indeed interested in you what you think of the BBC's current social media stuff and in particular new ideas. What do you think for example of the idea of having comments on news articles?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Faye - I've moderated out post 21 and post 24. They are both off topic. This post is not about "where's the best places to discuss message boards" - it's about the questions in post 23.
I'm afraid I have to host this discussion quite hard to keep it on topic.
Complain about this comment
Professor Techno - post 6 - I've already answered your question in a previous comment and this post is the post I was intending to write in answer to it.
"Control" doesn't really have anything to do with it. The BBC has just as much "control" over BBC blogs as it does BBC message boards. The real questions are:
1. How much effort is being put into different things?
2. Is that effort worth it?
3. How do you measure that?
4. Are there more efficient or better ways of doing things?
I think if you asked all licence fee payers which they preferred you might get a different answer to that question. I can understand why some of the licence fee payers who user them would prefer boards (and some would prefer blogs) but that doesn't mean either of them is the best way of doing things for all licence fee payers.
For example would it be better if you could comment on all News articles, as Illeum suggests in comment 3.
Should the BBC have something like Second Life? Some kind of virtual game?
What kinds of social media would attract different kinds of people to BBC Online? People who have never visited before...
Complain about this comment
I kind of question the value of commenting on news - what is the point? I can see here, there's some value - you've asked for our opinion, but on a news article, what does it matter what people think about the government giving money to graduates to have gap years, for example?
People who comment are people with a strong opinion and/or too much time, so I don't think 'being representative' is a good argument. Look at Have Your Say for example, it does what it says on the tin - gives people a say, but it doesn't represent the collective view of 'The People'.
I waste time commenting on news articles from time to time, and it's generally just a way to get something off your chest, not an actual conversation or discussion (as message boards are). I rarely go back to see what other people think of my views, unless I was intentionally playing devil's advocate or something.
On message boards, threads can exist for months or even years and still be active. On news articles, a 'thread' might be active for only a few hours, or perhaps a couple of days.
So, basically, I wouldn't waste time adding comments to news - it only wastes everyone else's time who compulsively feels they need to give their opinion!
I wonder if anyone has looked at the psychology of commenting on the internet...
Complain about this comment
Ed - what if the comment on the news story added a new fact to a story or a new angle on it? Would it be valuable then?
Complain about this comment
Any chance of producing the average moderation cost per post in the categories that you have used then?
It doesn't have to be the exact financial cost, a percentage of the budget would be acceptable too.
I mean, if there are more posts in the message boards compared with all the blogs, it's bound to cost more to moderate it. Page Impressions don't come in to it, as there is no cost of moderating viewing a web page only, is there?
Complain about this comment
Nick, sure it would, but it'd get buried under the huge number of essentially meaningless comments. Look at Have Your Say for example, today's topic on the gap-years-for-graduates has almost 300 comments, the vast majority are reactive 'lazy kids/waste of money/better things to spend it on' comments, complaining about the idea (as of course, they have a right to do). Do you really think that the BBC site is the best place for people to complain about the general state of the world?
If news pages had comments sections at the bottom (as The Guardian does on some articles), you'd get even more comments, many times as many as a linked HyS and have an even harder time finding truly interesting comments.
If you see comments as a form of Citizen Journalism, I'd say it would be much more valuable if the BBC made it easier to send corrections and additions to existing articles. I've done this a few times but the method is obscure and feels a bit like sending a message into a black-hole. If each article had a form at the bottom (not the rather banal 'are you affected by this issue' form) that let people submit new information it would be better. Provide some feedback when they do that, even if it's automated, provide a way of tracking your feedback online so you can see that it's actually valuable. It should be about people engaging with The BBC, not people engaging with The BBC Website.
I would avoid thinking that sticking comments on news articles is a good thing as it will get your readership more 'engaged', and that the only downside is the moderation costs. I would look at why comments are necessary and try to innovate to solve those problems. Doing so might create something really original.
Complain about this comment
"Blogs last year (April 08 - 09) were getting around 20% of the traffic every month of the total traffic (page impressions) to the BBC's social media services (communities, blogs, message boards). In other words in terms of traffic to moderation spend blogs are out performing boards."
Surely comparing the number of page impressions of blogs are messageboards is pretty irrelevent. The news and sports pages contain links to the blog pages of many of the BBC's most talented journalists and reporters. Your page impressions include all the people who just read the interesting articles that highly paid BBC employees have typed- page impressions don't tell you whether a blog reader read the comments left by other people, or indeed contributed themselves.
The messageboards must cost more to moderate because they handle more comments. Why else would they cost more? If this blog got as many comments as something like the POV messageboards, then surely it would cost the same amount to moderate?
Maybe a more useful statistic would be to give the cost of moderation per posts/comments left?
Personally I find that the blogs are there for reading, and maybe commenting if I want to ask the person writing the article (like here). Messageboards are for conversing with other users of BBC services, and sharing opinions about output. This can't be done on blogs as the nature of the article dictates the comments which can be left.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, why is it that I can leave a comment at 10:30 on a Saturday night, which is published online straight away, while all the messageboards on this site are closed? Just curious
Complain about this comment
Tengsted - the cost of moderating a comment doesn't change according to the model used. But if a board or blog is reactively moderated fewer comments may be referred to the moderators, which may be cheaper.
Dr Bean - I think page impressions do matter, because they are a way of seeing how valuable people who read but don't comment find the content. And if a blog is kicked off by a high quality post, comments can then add value because they're connected up to some strong content.
And if the blog contains open posts as this blog sometimes does, then people can talk about anything they like (within reason) there and share their opinions about the BBC's output.
Ed Lyons - interesting thoughts, particularly why are comments necessary. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Nick, but you're confusing two separate things, the cost of moderation, and page impressions/traffic per model.
You may be getting the 20% of the traffic to blogs, but if the blogs are only receiving 5% of posts then your claim In other words in terms of traffic to moderation spend blogs are out performing boards. is meaningless.
For ease of comparison, what is the Blog post to Message Board post ratio?
Complain about this comment
Tengsted - don't know but I might try and find out.
Complain about this comment
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
First I don't think it actually lies within the BBC's remit to run 'forums' which is the 'term of art' for message boards where topic are started by contributors. Of course other people can run them about BBC related topics and can even be encouraged to run them (and moderate them) I can find nothing in the BBC's constitution that requires them to do this. Let them Tweet say I. And the BBC running them actually is anti competitive since it tends to prevent other people from doing this and making money. (from ads).
There is on the BBC Radio 3 "Platform" Message Board a thread that has 4230 contributions! There is another on the Performance board which is summed up but the following contribution:
"I think this thread has run it course, productively. It's the same entrenched views and values being endlessly reconfigured to no practical purpose or resolution, not even a synthesis. Argumentative head-butting, and little else.
Time for the antagonists to go their separate ways, and just enjoy what they enjoy, and leave the other/s alone to do likewise."
It's not quite as bad as this suggests but there is a strong preference in the thread for the polemical and the put down ... a dialogue of the deaf in other words, among a few self repeating contributors. It being R3, perhaps then could find a good champagne bar in which to hold their rant.
This is common on message boards.
On the other hand nobody wants to contribute (well a couple of brave souls) to commenting on the newly minted R3 Blogs.
It is true that bloggers rarely engage with their commenters(sic) (except on the internet blog) though they do read them. Last week Stephanie Flanders wrote a blog based on a rather naive treatment of a statistic and commenters (sic)offered cogent criticism. She returned a couple of days later with a much more nuanced treatment of the same subject. Perhaps commenters (sic) ought to be allowed to grade blogs like HYS readers can
I agree with 30# on HYS. One doesn't know of course how many HYS comments are "inspired", (though comments on the political blogs are often obviously so). However maybe a reading list should be provided (the topic was students) and HYS writers be required to show knowledge of the topic in hand.:-) HYS should also be privatised and linked with the other links outs on the relevant news page.
Finally Nick, I am sure you know when the BBC refers to 'License Payers' it does not mean Licence Payers, but ANYONE IN THE UK who uses or might use BBC services. People who don't use broadcast TV services may still HTS. (The BBC Trust told me this) Whether the BBC should provide a service to American or Chinese commenters (sic) on the relevant blogs in the light of this seems doubtful unless the World Service funds pay for it.
Complain about this comment
Well, Mr Reynolds, you seem to be set on limiting the discussion to one within very narrow parameters.
"Blogs last year (April 08 - 09) were getting around 20% of the traffic every month of the total traffic (page impressions) to the BBC's social media services (communities, blogs, message boards). In other words in terms of traffic to moderation spend blogs are out performing boards."
But if the moderation process allows (as it often does) many contributors to repeat effectively the same post dozens of times, then of course traffic will be higher than on a message board where perhaps the posting may be more strictly controlled: 'preemptive' rather than ' post facto' as it were.
If it's only numbers of contributions that matter, with no attention to be paid to the quality of the discussion. then why bother with moderation at all; save that budget and pay for the libel and defamation actiosn resulting out of it instead. Or, give up both blogs and message boards altogether (why are there so many for The Archers?) and just have a general free-for-all daily "Tell the BBC What You Think' message board? that would be the cheapest option. People could discuss what they liked, and the moderation costs could surely be cut through concentrating on one daily board.
I rather support the implication of Tengsted's post here. Surely the answer to his/her question is one that someone should already know? It's the kind of pertinent question I've known having to be answered in publishers' editorial meetings. And, if they are markedly different, should not someone be asking why that might be so?
But that is my last observation on this subject. I am sorry, but I'm not altogether convinced that this is a wholly genuine exercise in seeking BBC online users' views.
Complain about this comment
squirrelist - I suspect a general free-for-all daily "Tell the BBC What You Think' message board might be impossible to manage and host and rather expensive. And how could it be linked to, or made relevant to, the BBC programmes?
As for libel/defamation, that doesn't even bear thinking about - quite apart from the fact that the BBC shouldn't be a place where people can defame people without thought for the consequences.
Good thoughts, though.
Complain about this comment
#27. At 8:40pm on 01 Aug 2009, Ed Lyons wrote:
"I kind of question the value of commenting on news - what is the point? I can see here, there's some value - you've asked for our opinion, but on a news article, what does it matter what people think about the government giving money to graduates to have gap years, for example?"
Very good points, in fact your comment made me completely change my opinion, you're right - there is little or no point and I suspect that any such comments would quickly become yet another HYS style 'rantothon' (and thus take up even more moderation time and budget)...
#28. At 8:42pm on 01 Aug 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
"Ed - what if the comment on the news story added a new fact to a story or a new angle on it? Would it be valuable then?"
You mean do the BBCs work for them? :~) Seriously, if someone really does have new facts (rather than just some opinion or hear-say) would it not be better if they could contact the BBC news desk - does this come within the scope of the 'accuracy' feed-back form anyway? Make it to easy and you invite every 'crack-pot' opinion or conspiracy theorist...
Complain about this comment
"Dr Bean - I think page impressions do matter, because they are a way of seeing how valuable people who read but don't comment find the content. And if a blog is kicked off by a high quality post, comments can then add value because they're connected up to some strong content."
I'm sure page impressions do matter, but they are not the most important thing when you are trying to determine whether messageboarding or blogging provides the best way to encourage user interaction. If the vast majority of people visiting blogs only read the article and don't bother reading comments then why not just publish the blog articles as comment pieces on the website (i.e. not in blogs) and avoid any moderation costs.
Surely the costs of moderation are proportional to the number of posts made! If just as much feedback was provided by the public to blogs as to the messageboards, then they would cost just as much to moderate surely?
Open blogs are not an alternative to messageboards, at least not the one I've seen on here. As soon as a new article is posted the open post gets lost and will not attract active users.
Complain about this comment
There's a lot of issues I can see regarding commenting on the BBC, so I'll try and get through most of them as briefly as possible before going on about my main bugbear.
Firstly, Commenting on News articles.
I think, despite the reservations above, this has merit. HYS is a nihgtmare, both in terms of layout and content, so the argument "it'll encourage drivvel" does make sense but then its already there filling page after page of HYS.
However I think having it against articles rather than topics would be useful as it would both dilute the nonsense but also encourage better articles. Ask me to comment on "2009 technology convention" and I'd probably not, ask me to comment on an article about the new version of firefox and I likely would.
As for other commenty areas, I feel a redesign of many of the message board skins would help. I find that the iPlayer messageboard is far better laid out than the POV one and is easy to read as a consequence. Tidying all the blogs into this new template helped make it seem more coherant and I think the same would occur if you tidied messagebaords.
Complain about this comment
Right now for my "big issue". I feel that good user profiles would be a great help to moderation.
Say for example, that Boilerplated, who posts in numerous places and is mostly sensible, developed a strange habbit of spamming the strictly board.
Now what happens then? Does he get banned? Does he get a warning? If he gets a warning are we, down on the internet blog, aware of it?
If there was the ability to warn users who were persistently badly behaved and it showed on their public profile (which also showed ALL comments sorted by individual blog / messageboards) I think it would also let us get a better overview of what a user is like.
Also another question, why can we not make use of long term members as moderation on boards? Even if its just perhaps the ability to make iffy comments vanish right away. I remember reading something about having staff CRB chcked but if they have no ability o see emails and there's no PM system on the BBC why is this required? It seems rather excessive.
Failing that, would trusted members not be useful on places like the iPlayer messageboard? As Chris Cornwall has pointed out before I feel all questions on that should be answered, even if its just a link to the relevent FAQ. How exactly would me having a badge signifying "this user may not be staff, but he's also not an idiot and can help you with your problem" be an issue?
Oh and while you're at it, can we have a little option that makes this posting box larger? The Mail have it on their site and it would make long posts far easier to check over :)
Complain about this comment
The abundance of "This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules." should be a giveaway.
Compare your practices with that of others. How does it differ from The Guardian, for example?
When it comes to justifying the budget, how many Christmas lunches would it buy for 'Botney' et al?
Complain about this comment
I love that a blog on moderation has so many moderated posts! Lol!!
Also love Nick's POV NB up top ;-)
I agree with whoever said compare blog posts with messageboard posts -much more relevant comparisons than hits.
Also, not all messageboards are moderated the same way - as Nick acknowledged - so it would be useful to see which boards cost the most moderating wise.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#42. At 2:47pm on 02 Aug 2009, Hymagumba wrote:
"Firstly, Commenting on News articles.
I think, despite the reservations above, this has merit. HYS is a nihgtmare, both in terms of layout and content, so the argument "it'll encourage drivvel" does make sense but then its already there filling page after page of HYS."
But do we really want to 'export' the drivel so prevalent on the HYS boards to actual news articles, I would hope not!
Talking of the HYS boards, I would actually like to go further, in my opinion the HYS boards should probably be closed - it's one thing for the BBC to encourage debate, in fact it's very Reithian in concept, but another to offer some place for people just to have a rant - but then keeping them open probably stops much of the drivel transferring to the other message boards and these blogs...
Complain about this comment
Can I echo the question posted above and ask Nick why the comparison between blogs and messageboards? They do very different things, and I think the BBC should offer both to its users. Surely it's not an either/or situation?
Complain about this comment
Quite agree with you cricket -Angel .
Complain about this comment
So basically what you're poiting out is MBs are a waste of money.
I agree. Scrap 'em.
Complain about this comment
To try and move this on a bit.
Are there any different kinds of social media that you think the BBC should be doing?
We've talked a lot about blogs and boards but what about communities (e.g. h2g2)?
Who does it better than the BBC and why?
I'm looking for new ideas. If you started with a blank sheet of paper what would you do?
Complain about this comment
I'd never heard of h2g2 before, so I've just been over there to have a look. To me, it seems the biggest waste of licence fee payers money I've ever come across!
Can anyone explain the logic behind it, the appeal of it, and, most importantly, why the BBC are spending money hosting and moderating it.
Messageboards provide communities, which evolve over time? When boards are closed, those communities are split up and scattered around the internet. A couple of boards that I can think off (which I'll not mention but people may be able to guess) have been closed in the last couple of years, and the unique community built-up has been decimated in one foul swoop.
Surely any interactive aspect of the BBC website (paid for by the licence payer) should be used to enhance programming, or somehow linked to the BBC's output? How does h2g2 do this?
Complain about this comment
H2G2 is described on Wikipedia as h2g2 is a UK-based collaborative online encyclopedia project
Is that not where the BBC is in competition with Wikipedia itself?
Wikipedia is a far more representative than a BBC hosted one would ever be.
You mentioned Second Life earlier. Does anyone still use that?
I don't think that the BBC should be entering that market, or producing similar.
Where the BBC should be concentrating its efforts is the core product - television, perhaps by expanding is the availability of back catalogue programmes through iPlayer, rather than opening up more Social Media.
If it must have a social aspect, how about a weekly poll/forum/something-or-other, (as long as it's not flipping Twitter), linked to the choice of what back cat programmes could be chosen for re-broadcast on the iPlayer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"How valuable to you are the different things they do? "
Not a clue, since I have no real idea to what extent the feedback and discussions on either medium are taken seriously and acted on by the BBC, or ignored. All I have are a few anecdotal comments from various people, and frankly that's not much to work with - especially when this particular 'conversation' starts off with pie charts breaking down budgetary allocations..... where's the pie chart for 'this is the value of what we got for our investment'?
I'm still far from clear what precisely the BBC are wanting to get out of the 'interaction' with their consumers. Surely this conversation is the wrong way round - the internal BBC question should be 'What exactly are we trying to get through the use of message boards and forums', and I can't recall seeing a useful answer to that. The current discussion which seems more about 'how do we fine tune the budget' rather than 'what are we trying to achieve and how can we best do it'.
Ask me again when there's a clear, measurable and straightforward objective there about what you want to achieve from the interaction with their audience. When I know what the genuine question is, I'll try answer sensibly, but if I have no idea what you are trying to do, asking me what method I prefer you to use to do it is hopeless......
Complain about this comment
You seem to be reluctant to give us the moderation costs of boards v blogs on a post for post basis. Without this, the blog above is just propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Tengsted wrote:
"H2G2 is described on Wikipedia as h2g2 is a UK-based collaborative online encyclopedia project
Is that not where the BBC is in competition with Wikipedia itself?"
Just to say that h2g2 predates Wikipedia by about two years. It was created by Douglas Adams as a community-driven reference proposition, and many of the ideas it developed - journals, forums, user-generated entries - have since become commonplace in the form of blogs, messageboards and wikis.
Complain about this comment
H2G2 may pre-date Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is far superior in terms of accessibility and user friendlimess.
If you started with a blank sheet of paper what would you do?
I would at the very least set up separate and dedicated General TV and Radio Messageboards, as these are the BBC core products. And I would encourage BBC programme makers to frequent these boards, start threads, promote the boards, and engage with users.
Complain about this comment
"I would at the very least set up separate and dedicated General TV and Radio Messageboards, as these are the BBC core products. And I would encourage BBC programme makers to frequent these boards, start threads, promote the boards, and engage with users.
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Complain about this comment
Message boards. forums etc. are one of the original internet (not web) apps. Long ago and even now News Groups still exist (also known as IRC)and most email clients provide access. BBC message Boards share most of their problems.
Nick asks for ideas.
IDEA 1) I say that "there is no 'public value' in offering facilties for message boards for "small communities" which could easily be offered by others elsewhere thus releasing funds to provide for "all UK residents" whom the BBC is supposed to serve.
IDEA 2) There is a case for contributions from service users illustrated by instant comment in Radio Vision on Radio One and (for something completely different) the messages SENT to In Our Time. These are of interest to the makers and users of those services. Developed they could be part of the product. There is also examples for development like Sports' 606
Programme makers etc should pay for these as part of the product and control them within the guidelines with NICK as overall police person.
IDEA 3) "Serious Blogs" are partly reporting (so they should go in the 'News') and OpEd which might be set up as an 'ideas and comment'group and invite contributions without any commitment but a presumption to publish (like the existing news stories "invite") but to close with a response from the writer. Writers who have time might be rewarded for contribution to the discussion.
IDEA 4) Creativity. The BBC sponsers much 'creativity' from Blue Peter to how to write a play for radio. Nick should devise a way of nudging these make use New Media and mercy killing (or seLling them off) for those that don't work after a time
IDEA 5)Information from communities and involvement and impact should be obtained both for staff and public by developing the aggregator applications further. Maybe BBC World Wide could buy Twitter. :-)
Moderation costs would be reduced under 1, paid for out of the right budget under 2 and lessened under 3 No 4 is a sensible response to H2G2. H2G2 of course could preserved as a memorial to what happens when you try to come to grips with "42"
The last 5 is just a way of bring the result of 1 together
QED we can have more POV and HYS but not on the Beeb but we can find it (under 3) if we need to. Reporting and OpEd can be more sensibly treated and could include outside contributors. Cost for moderation would fall and then on those products which needed it. And creativity could burst out all over.
I will send the account for consultancy forthwith.
Complain about this comment
Hi all,
Also, Jimster, long time no see! :)
I'm interested to see this topic being discussed - whether the BBC should be investing its time and our money in blogs, communities or both.
I wanted to add a bit of context to the discussion regarding communities like h2g2.
Firstly, to my mind, blogs and communities are two inter-related but different things.
Blogs, like this one, are structured on the basis of a post on a topic by the person (or people) responsible for the blog, followed sometimes by discussion. The discussion is subordinate to the original post, using the blog post as a starting point. The topics are centrally led. BBC blogs provide an insight into some of the thinking and working behind other things that the BBC is doing, from news to technology. This is valuable, but it is entirely different from an online community such as h2g2.
h2g2 has been useful to the BBC, for more than just the technology that the BBC acquired with the remains of TDV, h2g2's founding company. It was a site focused on user-generated content, way before such things were de rigeur. And as Jim Sangster pointed out above, h2g2 was everything from encyclopedia to discussion board to social network to blogging platform, before these things had become huge, and all rolled into one.
It doesn't surprise me that communities are more expensive to moderate than blogs. They are far more interactive, and interactive on a whole different level. Anyone can post on any topic on h2g2, for example, and a discussion may or may not spring up. It's a sprawling site with many backwaters. But there are things that help to alleviate this cost. The key lesson that the BBC eventually learned with h2g2 was that it could largely trust the community to flag up problems - the community fought long and hard for reactive moderation, as did the h2g2 staff of the time, and it works.
You may have noticed I have used the past tense with h2g2 a lot there. Something the BBC should also understand about communities is that moderation isn't anywhere near the most important thing to be spending money on. It's necessary, but the most important thing is the quality and quantity of staffing for the community, to give it a loose sense of direction and ensure that the most is made of content contributed. h2g2 has never in my opinion had an issue with quality of staff, but it's lost years of advancement to a lack of resources.
I absolutely disagree that h2g2 duplicates what's available elsewhere. The experience of being an h2g2 Researcher is entirely different to being a Wikipedian - there's an editorial structure, and the community as an entity is at least as important as its product.
I do think, however, that the BBC needs to decide properly whether communities are something they want to spend money on, and either do it properly or not do it. That's not to take anything away from what has been done. I think the BBC are in the process of deciding - and it looks promising, with a redesign for h2g2 finally on the way after too many years.
Complain about this comment
I do think, however, that the BBC needs to decide properly whether communities are something they want to spend money on, and either do it properly or not do it.
I agree.
I think the BBC also needs to understand the communities they are creating. Some communities are valued and treated with respect; others are blatantly not.
When messageboards and the likes of h2g2 are set up the BBC are encouraging ownership on the part of the users. If they don't want the users to feel that ownership then maybe they should not be providing these communities.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC also needs to understand the communities they are creating.
I'll second that. I think the relationship between moderators, hosts and the community differs in different parts of bbc.co.uk. And I think it should.
Complain about this comment
The relationship should differ according to the individual community, I agre, but each community should be equally valued by the BBC. This is very much not the case at the moment.
Complain about this comment
I should clarify - I wasn't suggesting anyone get preferential treatment. I'm not going to comment on whether or not I consider that to be the case at present - I honestly haven't given it much thought.
I do, however, think that the context of a user interaction makes a huge difference to how to treat it from an editorial perspective - a key difference between high-traffic blogs and high-interactivity communities is whether or not the user has an investment in a project on an ongoing basis, or is dropping in to say their bit before vanishing back off into the ether.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"How valuable to you are the different things they do? "
I think the boards are very valuable for allowing the viewers / listeners to voice their opinions and not be limited by blogs.
I have given limited responses to blogs as they only cover very limited areas and can ask questions that limit the range of responses recieved.
I am disgusted that you removed my comment at 46.
Complain about this comment
"Are there any different kinds of social media that you think the BBC should be doing? We've talked a lot about blogs and boards but what about communities (e.g. h2g2)?"
Why do I get the impression that you are always looking for some new medium rather than listening to what the people who use these systems say ?. Boards have been around for ages but no one at the BBC ever seems to interact on them or any actions taken on what the viewers / listeners say. Surely any means of interaction is to try and get feedback / ideas but whatever the medium is anyone listening ?
Complain about this comment
@57
Thanks Jim, for the Information, but as others have said, it may have been first, but is it any better, or what the BBC should be providing?
Personally, yes, I have no problems with it, however, if there are further cuts to be made - which to me seems to me what this pie chart is driving at - do we really need a BBC funded, not as inclusive, and not as good (IMHO) version of Wikipedia?
Complain about this comment
#70. At 10:53pm on 03 Aug 2009, Tengsted wrote:
"[..//..]do we really need a BBC funded, not as inclusive, and not as good (IMHO) version of Wikipedia?"
I suspect the running costs of h2g2 are very small beer compared to (for example) the message boards, as such I would have no problem if h2g2 survived whilst other social media got dropped - for one thing it could give an alternate cross-reference to Wikipedia, which is not always correct and is sometimes outright wrong (even the BBC has been caught out by the 'intelligent' Wikipedia troll...).
Complain about this comment
Isn't it time for some kind of peer moderation? Where users can flag messages as offensive if necessary - and other users can decide to look at previously flagged messages or not?
Would save a fortune.
And FFS sort out the boards so people can reply to messages so at least we can debate points eh?
Complain about this comment
My vote would be for fewer blogs and more message boards. Message boards foster the true spirit of a BBC community in a way that blogs never can, because in a blog the transaction is mainly between the blogger and those commenting, whereas the message board allows the BBCs fans to interact between themselves as well as dialoguing on the BBC and its aims, providing an enhanced experience.
I appreciate there is an issue of cost, but look at the broader picture of the relatively small cost of the whole online presence of the BBC compared to the massive sums that are spent on retaining the services of "celebrities" by the BBC to "entertain us".
Complain about this comment
From the piechart, can we assume that the 4% "other" covers "Communities" like h2g2, then? On that basis the answer is clear - promote h2g2 more and get people to voluntarily move over to using it, thus reducing the load on the messageboards.
Complain about this comment
Promotion is definitely an issue. It's difficult to find any boards, blogs let alone h2g2 on here!
Just out of interest, how many of us have gone to h2g2 and been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of stuff. It's far too unwieldy and weird for me!
Nick, can you provide us with numbers for the different levels of moderation, please, and what number of blogs/messageboards/other use which level of moderation. This would clarify the above pie-chart for me. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
I must be thick, i cannot find anything on HG2G, it seems to be empty
Complain about this comment
Nick, were there other people presenting too, people who prefer message boards to blogs? People who see the value in them? I imagine so, I hope so, otherwise it could have been a bit one-sided.
Frank(_N_Post)
Complain about this comment
Frank - the presentation wasn't about blogs v message boards.
It was about the moderation budget as a whole.
The 4% other is not h2g2 - communities like h2g2 were included under boards.
Complain about this comment
The 4% other is not h2g2 - communities like h2g2 were included under boards.
That's interesting. I assumed h2g2 was under other too!
So for that massive 90% to make sense we probably need it broken down into h2g2, reactively moderated boards, pre-moderated boards, and post-moderated boards.
What are classed as "other" in that pie chart, then?
Complain about this comment
There's a small number of sites we moderate which are not on BBC Online (e.g. the BBC's You Tube Channel).
Complain about this comment
Do you mean that the BBC moderate, or that the moderating company used by the BBC moderate?
Could we have that 90% broken down further please, Nick?
Complain about this comment
Sorry - another question!
Do the blog authors themselves moderate their blogs, or is this done by the same moderation company that oversees the messageboards?
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"communities like h2g2 were included under boards."
That all seems a bit arbitrary. How would the figures look if h2g2 and the other communities were filed under "Blogs"?
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
I see from figures posted on a message board by a host indicate that the entire BBC online portfolio (of which the MBs are only a part) costs the licence fee payer 2p per day - or one twentieth of the overall fee.
Can you put up a pie chart that indicates the overall BBC budget, with the overall costs of online within it, then with the proportion set aside for the MBs within that?
Blogs are entirely in the control of the originator. If you scale down or close the MBs will you allow viewers and listeners to generate blogs on the BBC?
John
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#87
"I see from figures posted on a message board by a host indicate that the entire BBC online portfolio (of which the MBs are only a part) costs the licence fee payer 2p per day - or one twentieth of the overall fee."
If that is correct than it's a disgusting amount of money, more reasons to close ALL the message boards! After all there is other social media available outside of the BBC if people want to have general discussions about BBC output (DigitalSpy springs to mind, as does Usenet), blogs are different as the the discussion follows on from content that is only available via the BBC website.
£700pa per licence fee payer is a lot of money to enable a (relatively) few people to 'chat' amongst themselves...
Complain about this comment
Nick asked for ideas I provided five.... all addressed to the issue of reducing moderation costs.(and letting them fall on the those who should be responsible.
Lots of responses to minutiae but none to fundamental proposals which address the issue raised.
I am sceptical if Mick is serious in wanting ideas.
Complain about this comment
From what you're saying above, blogs attract fewer comments than boards and fewer comments so equal less spend - and reactively moderated content is vastly cheaper than post or premoderated content.
From your pie chart and stats I can see that you've included all of children's and teens message boards within your calculations. The children's areas appear to be very busy premoderated boards, they must represent a very significant amount of the moderation spend? Perhaps even as high as 70-80% of message board costs? The kids areas are very busy.
"In other words in terms of traffic to moderation spend blogs are out performing boards. "
But would that still be the case if you excluded the very expensive premoderated children and teen message board areas? Sorry, you can tell I'm a statistician, pie charts are great on the eye, but they do need to contain all the relevant facts if they are to be analysed and conclusions to be taken from them.
What percentage of the pie chart & costs related to the cost of the moderation of children's and teens message boards?
Wouldn't it be a better comparison to remove the children's premoderated areas from the equation when comparing the statistics and cost of adult blogs vs message boards?
So, I guess the question is - can you tell us what percentage of the moderation spend above is down to child and teen areas please?
As it is, I don't think you're comparing like with like by including premoderated children's message boards within these calculations - when the blogs are all adult and the children's and teens areas are all premoderated message boards
Complain about this comment
?700pa per licence fee payer is a lot of money to enable a (relatively) few people to 'chat' amongst themselves...
If the boards were better promoted then there would be more users. If BBC employees - and programme-makers in particular - utilised this valued and popular resource it would provide them with a great area within which to discuss issues raised by BBC viewers.
Complain about this comment
If it is 5% of total licence fee spend on all BBC Online content, I think that's terrific value for money.
The amount that I personally get out of BBC News online, iPlayer, blogs, message boards, and the live feeds for football on BBC Radio Scotland is worth the licence alone.
YMMV.
Complain about this comment
#92
[ re moderation costs per user ]
"If the boards were better promoted then there would be more users.
Yes but then the moderation costs would increase too!...
Complain about this comment
But the increased moderation costs would be justified if more people used the service! :-D
Complain about this comment
""If the boards were better promoted then there would be more users.
Yes but then the moderation costs would increase too!..."
So that's why they try so hard to hide them, blogs can be even harder to find.
Complain about this comment
#95
"But the increased moderation costs would be justified if more people used the service! :-D
Not sure that follows, it depends if the moderation costs follow the same curve as the number of users on the graph or not, if there is a sweet point to be gained where one can have an increased user base but the same or lower 'cost per post' then you might also find that by decreasing the number of (active) users - in other words the number of message boards - one can reduce the 'cost per post' and thus the overall budget requirement! :-D
700 quid doesn't sound much on a per house-hold bases but multiplying that figure by the typical number of houses found on a large UK 1960s housing estate - for example - it doesn't sound such a small amount, we are starting to talk about serious radio programmes that could be made, once we start multiplying it by the number of houses within the average town we are into making television programmes and by the time we are talking about a BBC region we could be talking about the regional news budget...
Complain about this comment
cping500 - I thought you had some good thoughts in your previous comment.
John's Not A Number - comment 87 - a pie chart like that would simply have one tiny sliver which might be hard to read! Do you have a link for the comment you mention? Blogs can contain "open posts" where people can post on any subject they wish (the blog you are reading has them from time to time).
HelenDoughty - you make a good point. But it's difficult for me to share more information than I've already shared. I may write a follow up post. Reactive moderation is only cheaper if the people on the board or blog behave well and so not many comments are referred.
Let me ask another question: what's the value to all licence fee payers (not just those who comment) of having blogs and message boards?
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated, 2p a day is 73 quid, not 700 quid.
Complain about this comment
Actually (decimal point error, Maths is a mystery to me) it's 7.30.
730p.
A bargain.
Complain about this comment
£700pa per licence fee payer, what the h*ll did I put in that last coffee I made? It's just over £7pa per licence fee holder... Duh, now off to lie-down in a darkend room :-(
Scrub my posts 89 through 97!...
Complain about this comment
"Let me ask another question: what's the value to all licence fee payers (not just those who comment) of having blogs and message boards?"
Isn't that an impossible question to answer, how do we (us as users and you as the BBC) know what value someone who doesn't comment puts on these message-boards or blogs - heck we don't even know if they even know of their existence never mind if they read them!
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated - well we know blogs were getting roughly 20% of the traffic last year to all the BBC's social media sites.
Speculate a little. What could be the value to those who read but don't comment?
Complain about this comment
Speculate a little. What could be the value to those who read but don't comment?
A large number of blogs on the BBC are no more than the opinion piece articles akin to Newspapers. Especially ones where the original blogger never responds.
If it's further, or more in depth reporting, the proper place should be in the main News pages.
Perhaps it's the opinion or in-depth aspect that the non-posters are appreciating.
Or is it a simple case of "what's that thing on the main news article?" and clicking on the prominent link to the blog there.
How much traffic to the BBC Blogs is generated from links clicked in the articles, and how much from within the blog network?
Complain about this comment
Are you going to answer our questions, Nick?
Let me ask another question: what's the value to all licence fee payers (not just those who comment) of having blogs and message boards?
Both are valuable.
Aside from arguing with you here about messageboards, I sometimes frequent the cricket blogs to comment there cos the 606 boards are an absolute mess. Blogs are a good way for BBC employees to make announcements.
Messageboards are user-generated. They are place for the end-users of the BBC to start and contribute to conversations. This should be a invaluable resource for the BBC, as nobody from the organisation is prompting these comments - they are posted by people who care enough to do so.
I do think BBC employees - programme-makers in particular - could make more use of messageboards. They could post questions they have there. It seems messageboard threads get more posts than blogs anyway.
Licence payers who don't post hopefully benefit from the interaction between the BBC and the licence payers who do post.
Complain about this comment
The BBC shouldn't host any messageboards. They're more than adequately provided for on the wider internet. The BBC doesn't add anything. It doesn't gain anything (save for free tech support perhaps on the iPlayer board) - the feedback is statistically useless. It costs significant amounts of money that should be used on the BBC's core purpose - professionally produced media content.
The BBC simply can't do effective messageboards. You tie yourself in knots for impartiality that lunactics never see anyway. You present a massive legal target on your forehead and hence spend lots on moderation. Technically you've never been able to deliver a half decent message board platform in a decade, so we can guarantee that isn't going to get any better.
The BBC should certainly NEVER listen to message board (or blog) comments. They have no benefit - indeed, this message shouldn't be listened to either. But luckily the stats should be, and they back this up 100%.
(I'd scrap 5Live phone ins while you're at it).
Phazer
Complain about this comment
The BBC shouldn't host any messageboards. They're more than adequately provided for on the wider internet. The BBC doesn't add anything.
Having been on a few forums on the Internet I disagree here.
There is a quality about the BBC messageboards that does not seem to be provided elsewhere. Despite the archaic functionality and lack of smileys, the BBC boards are very easy to use, and the ones I use used to have a broad and vibrant user base up until a couple of months ago. There is no textspeak, the posters are diverse, passionate and articulate for the most part.
And I speak only of the few BBC boards I use. I imagine the children and teen boards are even more valued, because they provide a safe environment where many youngsters can chat online.
Complain about this comment
"what's the value to all licence fee payers (not just those who comment) of having blogs and message boards?"
That's a bit like saying "What's the value to the public in general (not just those who are ill) of having hospitals"...
If you're going to bundle Blogs and Message Boards together, then as a single entity one of their main values is as a point of contact with the BBC where other people can see what you say and what response you get, or even *if* you get a response, knowing that BBC staff *will* have read your comment/posting.
Sometimes a lack of response can say so much - see for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/F2693942?thread=6598302 on The Archers boards...
Or perhaps the BBC would rather the public didn't have a forum to ask "awkward" questions?
Complain about this comment
I knew someone would put it better than me.
Thanks, Peet!
Complain about this comment
#106. At 7:09pm on 04 Aug 2009, The_Phazer wrote:
"The BBC should certainly NEVER listen to message board (or blog) comments."
You won't mind if they ignore your comments then?! :~)
Complain about this comment
#108
"Or perhaps the BBC would rather the public didn't have a forum to ask "awkward" questions?"
The problem there is not the "awkward" questions but some poeple making a career out of asking "awkward" questions time and time again in the hope that eventually they will get what they consider the 'correct' answer - indeed the host of this blog has been suffering those sorts of questions of late, hence his footnote to this blog...
Complain about this comment
It's not a question of a getting a "correct" answer - just an answer.
But I think most of us now realise that's not going to happen.
Complain about this comment
I think we are drifting off topic. Let's try another question.
Have any of you looked at Shownar? See this blog post.
Complain about this comment
Yes, and I gave my opinion there a while ago.
I also haven't seen the need to visit Shownar after looking at it when it was announced then.
One of it's biggest problem is its exclusion of Message Boards/Forums.
Complain about this comment
REF the value to ALL licence payers
would be a lot higher if there weren't so many pedants on boards / blogs that suck up BBC staff time in having to "oblige" by responding to pathetic self-serving drivel
I just came here via a farcical MB full of vicious, tiny minded, self absorbed posters who clearly never tire of seeing their words of "wisdom" on the ether
keep up the good work NICK
Complain about this comment
I think we are drifting off topic. Let's try another question.
Maybe you could answer some of our questions, Nick?
What is the topic supposed to be on this blog?
Complain about this comment
Nick, can I make an observation about the up-date to the blogs software today, we don't need to be treated like stupid idiots, we do know what our own user-names are! Could the bods please roll-back the idiotic use of the word "You" to the full user name?...
Complain about this comment
Yes, I noticed the you. I do know my own username, thanks! ;-)
Complain about this comment
in the same spirit as Phazer
the BBC should certainly never RESPOND to message board (or blog) comments - as this may indeed be poor use of bbc staff and fees
any comments acted upon would be reflected in changed output and posters would just have to wait and see -
at a stroke this would eliminate so many pointless posts regarding semantics, justifications, counter deB8's, which is probably why there are so few posters sometimes with the self-serving virtual cliques that dominate , putting others off.
Complain about this comment
the BBC should certainly never RESPOND to message board (or blog) comments
What would be the purpose of the BBC using any social media then?
Don't the blog authors want people to respond? Isn't that why they wrote a blog as opposed to a web article anyway?
Complain about this comment
"You won't mind if they ignore your comments then?! :~)"
If you'd read my comment you'd have seen that I explicitly said that they should ignore it. But that following the stats should lead them to an indentical conclusion.
Phazer
Complain about this comment
@120
this is in ref to bbc responding - not non bbc folks
Complain about this comment
this is in ref to bbc responding - not non bbc folks
Sorry - I'm not trying to be thick, honest!
So you're saying it's OK for us to chat amongst ourselves, but BBC folk should not engage with the social media?
Complain about this comment
123
if it stops the nonsense that goes on then yes - the other option is to lengthy pre-mod the guilty vexants
Complain about this comment
That's interesting, white lady.
One of our longstanding gripes on the POV boards is that BBC staff do not interact enough with us. We would love for them to come over and start and join in discussions. So we are, in effect, talking amongst ourselves! Which is great fun, but the boards are not functioning to their full potential if BBC staff aren't posting on them.
Complain about this comment
well thats certainly one definition of functioning to full potential
if the end game is changing the outputs , hopefully in line with viewer/listener/browser/poster input, then how we get to that is the key, and that can include responding with action, not posts
sometimes posters sub-consciously and even overtly use blogs/MB's as an end in themselves (and beyond the on-topic level)
I would rather BBC staff spend their time for development actions than in justifying every dot on every i and every cross on every t which is what 6 vexants (who should be pre-modded) seem to think they are entitled to ask them so to do
Complain about this comment
sometimes posters sub-consciously and even overtly use blogs/MB's as an end in themselves (and beyond the on-topic level)
Yes, that certainly is an element. But I think that's a helpful and engaging part of messageboarding, as it encourages people to post in a friendly community. If it was all on topic it would be a bit stifling and there would be fewer contributors.
I would rather BBC staff spend their time for development actions than in justifying every dot on every i and every cross on every t which is what 6 vexants (who should be pre-modded) seem to think they are entitled to ask them so to do
I think the BBC should certainly be held accountable for what they do, and if that means posters on blogs and msesageboards querying decisions then I welcome that. Where it goes too far, or becomse excessive, is where the moderation process comes into play.
I think the positoves far out way the negatives in the BBC engaging with its online communities.
Complain about this comment
as long as the 6 vexants are kept strictly to heel (which they typically are not) I'm quite content with BBC engagement
its the 6 vexants that can drive people away from mb's in particular
Complain about this comment
Re: 113.
Nick, you've asked a question of readers of the BBC Internet Blog which most of the posts in this thread are answering in one way or another. Some answers are more constructive than others, some are about broad strokes and others about fine detail. This is normal. And yes, some people will inevitably come just to rant. This is normal.
The attitude you put across in your posts can sometimes seem quite hostile to your commenters. I'm sure you don't mean it to be - I'm not trying to imply that you hate anyone or anything. But seriously, I do think it is possible to overdo the ferocity with which you define 'on-topic'. I have generally (and I've dealt with some pretty hostile complainers in various circumstances) found that the best way to outmanoeuvre people who are pushing things in a bad direction is to focus feedback on positives from a dialogue. It would be good to know what you think about some of the constructive stuff that people have written on here, critical or supportive. There is a good deal of it!
Anyway, that said, I'd like to revisit a question that you most definitely did ask. You asked: "So what do you think should be the balance between blogs, boards and communities? ... How valuable to you are the different things they do?"
I don't see blogs vs communities as an either/or. I enjoy many of the BBC's blogs, from this one to Newsnight. Different people use their blogs in different ways - think PM vs Stephanomics, for example.
Communities, however, are at their best when they're more than a forum for debate. Programme feedback is, of course, something that the BBC should be engaging with in a number of ways, and I don't just mean complaints, but interactivity as an add-on to a programme.
I was an active user of h2g2 for many years, and may well be again. h2g2 is a community with a structure and a purpose, and its beauty lies in the fact that people can be productive or otherwise, work on the Edited Guide or any other form of writing, and get valuable support and feedback on their efforts. A productive community that also knows how to have fun. I've been variously involved in a number of formal volunteer groups (not for a while now, admittedly), and participated in discussions from the mundane to the hilarious, and from off-topic rambling to discussing and helping to reshape the way that House Style is explained to the uninitiated.
There have been in the past, and still are, a number of communities on the BBC website that serve a creative purpose. Some have fallen by the wayside for lack of funding or because of a change of strategy, and some remain.
Personally, I think that the BBC needs to focus its social media offering far more on empowering its users to create content in an environment that fosters precisely the kind of support that h2g2 is so good at. Young adult users, traditionally underserved by the BBC and often coming into a period in their lives where they are paying the licence fee for the first time, love to make things - to write, record, film, edit, collaborate. There is still scope in this arena to do lots of things that haven't already been done elsewhere, and that make use of the wealth of content, expertise and heritage of the BBC as a starting point.
My head is full of great ideas for this, but to go onto that kind of speculation here would genuinely be beyond topic.
Complain about this comment
"Don't the blog authors *want* people to respond?"
Of course they do. The more responses, the greater the "popularity" of the blog and thus the greater justification for their continued employment. It doesn't mean they have any interest in /reading/ the responses, though.
Complain about this comment
as long as the 6 vexants are kept strictly to heel (which they typically are not) I'm quite content with BBC engagement
I don't understand what you mean by the 6 vexants. Are these individual posters? Are they contributing to this blog?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
There's a conversation going on about Shownar here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6814619
Complain about this comment
131
they crawled out from under their stones on a POV thread in april/may/june
Complain about this comment
Well, that narrows it down then! LOL!
Complain about this comment
How do you deal with vexants that crawl out from under their stones in real life?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Funny U should mention YOU ( I see the names are now changed to You)
The changing of names to a u boat designation doesn't help follow a thread. add to that the problem that if a post goes over 500 a second page appears but if one commkents in that second page one is sent back to page 1. scroll down click on page two or next to get back to the place one could Presume that the poster left from.
. Never did the BBC fixes include a fix that allowed the poster to return to the page posted from.
on a three page post the 1 2 next buttons worked in just the same fashion. they did not work.
returned to page one . click on next .twice to get to three or click on two then next. . BUT no click to three again. (not that you would need to if the computer returned to the place where the posting was made .IE page 3.
Not that I would have noticed anything.
' bcause I'm thick and my tale is so full of fluff I can't be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Fluffytale!
But why are so many of Fluffy's posts languishing in moderation?
BBC Annual Accounts show the Budget Spend for 2009 for the online service to be :
Content - £112.2m
Distribution - £18.5m
Infrastructure and Support - £46.5m
So our friends in moderation must be taking a large slice of the £46.5m
Got a pie chart for that, Nick?
Total Online Spend for 2009 is budgetted at £177.2m (2008 - £182m)
Tell us the story,
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jackanory Lives - Some of fluffytail's comments are off topic and disruptive.
I'm afraid as I said in my blog post I can't reveal that kind of financial information.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"...the problem that if a post goes over 500 a second page appears but if one commkents in that second page one is sent back to page 1. scroll down click on page two or next to get back to the place one could Presume that the poster left from.
. Never did the BBC fixes include a fix that allowed the poster to return to the page posted from.
on a three page post the 1 2 next buttons worked in just the same fashion. they did not work.
returned to page one . click on next .twice to get to three or click on two then next. . BUT no click to three again. (not that you would need to if the computer returned to the place where the posting was made .IE page 3."
fluffytale, post a note about that problem over here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/Feedback
It's the "official" central point for bug reports, downtime info etc. (Despite the fact I haven't seen an "official" BBC posting there for a *long* time.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fluffytail - I'm afraid you are off topic. This thread is not about moderation decisions.
Complain about this comment
fair nuff then it is about blogs right should they be kept going. is it a waste of money/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well, this blog should certainly even out that pie-chart at the top! Moderation overload!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What happened to the previous pages? If I click "Back" or try to go from page 7 to page 6 I just get the blog post with no comments under it...?
Complain about this comment
Comment 162 - could you give me more detail of what the problem is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think it'd be good to sort blogs and boards into two categories: those in which BBC staff engage and take on board suggestions and those in which you can have your own say, but wont make the slightest difference. Perhaps there could be a symbol at the top of each indicating which category its in.
I agree with Hymagumba about letting long term members help with the moderation. Its a model which is used on most messageboards outside of the BBC and it seems to work well.
I don't really see how shownar is relevant (isn't it off-topic?). Its just an aggregator of existing comments, none of which comes from BBC websites or is moderated by the BBC.
As for new approaches that aren't blogs or boards, cping500 has the right idea: use IRC and buy twitter (I'd love to see a pie chart showing how much it'd cost to moderate twitter).
Complain about this comment
#166. At 4:37pm on 06 Aug 2009, lucas42 wrote:
"I agree with Hymagumba about letting long term members help with the moderation. Its a model which is used on most messageboards outside of the BBC and it seems to work well."
But there is already that facility, that is what the "Complain about this comment" link is all about, anyone can refer a comment for moderation! On the other hand, if you really do mean that non BBC staff (or their agents) could remove other peoples comments and messages, good grief, that is a whole shed full of legal 'limpet-mines' waiting to explode in the face of the BBC's Trust I suspect...
Further to Nick's, and others, mention of the "h2g2" site: I would like to see the BBC sites "h2g2" and "On this Day" rejuvenated, they both compliment each other and thus the OTD content could be incorporated into the h2g2 brand, new OTD content being largely user contributed [1] rather than written by the BBC (which is how OTD worked and why new content stopped being written) - whilst this revamped "h2g2" site would be similar to Wikipedia I believe that it could become an alternate online reference work and complimentary to Wikipedia in the same way as the various printed encyclopaedias are. It would also help to build a real "BBC online users" community that doesn't exist with either blogs or message-boards (how ever much many of the MB fans suggest there is).
[1] although there would need to be either BBC supplied, owned/licensed by, audio, video and still image content or access to Commons Creative licensed content.
Complain about this comment
I wonder what the point is of a blog or board where "you can have your own say, but wont make the slightest difference."
Complain about this comment
re Nick @ #168
What am I missing Nick, you comment makes no sense (to me at least), are you quoting from another comment, are you asking another question or throwing another cog into the proverbial works for us to think about?...
Complain about this comment
See comment 166: "I think it'd be good to sort blogs and boards into two categories: those in which BBC staff engage and take on board suggestions and those in which you can have your own say, but wont make the slightest difference."
Complain about this comment
168. At 8:29pm on 06 Aug 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
I wonder what the point is of a blog or board where "you can have your own say, but wont make the slightest difference."
To be honest, I'm not sure of the point of them either, but there seems to be a few of them around. For example, the Have your say boards seem to be just that, theres lots of people having their say, but there dosent seem to be any conversation, its just a stream of individual comments.
On the other hand you have blogs like this one where BBC people regularly respond to and engage with comments.
The problem seems to be the grey area in the middle, for example the PoV boards. When PoV people post over here, they seem to say that they want to be engaged with like the online blog, but are often left on their own, like HYS.
I think the best thing is to clearly define which blogs/boards the BBC is going to actively engage with. For example, the iPlayer message board has said that for techinical support etc you should go to their support pages and they've made it clear that they wont respond to every thread on the board. This sort of clarrification is good, as it means when I post to that board, I no longer expect any sort of official reply, just other users' comments and ideas.
Boilerplated, I'm not saying that the moderators should be replaced by long term members. But, surely posts that are clearly 100% spam could be delt with by members themselves, leaving moderators to deal with the more controversial stuff.
Complain about this comment
"posts that are clearly 100% spam"
Let's all agree what they are!
1) references to World War II.
2) references to the Middle East.
(if not a part of the blog post subject)
Unfortunately no one can agree on what the filters should be, strongly indicating users should be able to configure the filter themselves (based on words in content, user who posted etc.). The default should be set to a high filter. But I'm not sure this would counter libel, even if you had to cross lots of disclaiming barriers to read the libellous comment. It thinks it's still libel if the disclaimers say "the following might be offensive, not be true".
"letting long term members help with the moderation"
This could be abused if in the hands of extremists, or lobbyists.
End result. Discussion would simply move away from the subject and towards why so-and-so removed a post, and didn't remove another.
Complain about this comment
#171
"Boilerplated, I'm not saying that the moderators should be replaced by long term members. But, surely posts that are clearly 100% spam could be delt with by members themselves, leaving moderators to deal with the more controversial stuff."
But one persons 'clearly 100% spam'is another's clearly legitimate comment, had I the power to delete Spam I would have removed comments that the BBC's own mods would and in some cases have not removed... The same would also be true for off topic and abusive comments and I suspect that I'm not be alone.
Complain about this comment
re #168 and #170
Nick, I think that would be a very good internal exercise for the BBC to carry out with both the message-boards and blog network, if the BBC do not monitor the user comments (never mind replying, which I don't actually believe is always required, unlike some here) then is there really any point in the BBC running such blogs or message-boards - back to the old chestnut of should the BBC be using the TVL to allow people to either 'sound-off on one' or chat amongst themselves when there are other (both free and commercial) places on the net to do so...
Other than for moderation purposes how many of the HYS comments are actually monitored/read/used each day (or subject) on average, whilst it's nice to be seen to be allowing reply and free speech is it really such a good use of BBC resources if the comments are not being used by the wider BBC? From where I'm sitting I would say that, at least the UK version of, the HYS boards are prime candidates for being scrapped, as others have pointed out, most of the HYS comments are individual comments (often extremely incoherent at that) jumbled up into a general free for all with little or no structured debate - a general 'Rantothon' if you like. Even the "Recommended" option doesn't really tell others anything.
Either the HYS format or the software is not fit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
re: #163, there's not much more to explain. If I try to look at any page of comments other than the last one no comments appear on the page. If you click on any other page number the system serves up a page with the original blog posting but no comments showing below. It just goes straight from the bottom of your OP to "More from this blog..."
Complain about this comment
Can I see the corresponding pie chart of post traffic between the boards and blogs?... otherwise, your moderation cost Pie Chart is totally meaningless, and worse still, very deceptive if viewed in isolation.
Complain about this comment
We've asked for that a few times on this blog, Bill.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Yes Bill, that would indeed be very useful !
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
thank you it would be nice if you could leave the comments seeing as they are direct answers to questions raised by others. ( just happens to be ON Topic today.)
See there are some that work for the moderation company (why is that a secret?) that understand honesty.
but there are others.
Complain about this comment
168,
Irony deficiency alert!
Complain about this comment
Isn't Marcus Aurelius II one of the longest-term users of all? Maybe he should moderate.
Complain about this comment
fluffytale - I'm afraid you are off topic as this thread/post is not about individual moderation decisions
Complain about this comment
Apart from the comments system, what's the difference between the Have Your Say page and the Five Live messageboards. Both seem to discuss topical issues to me. Get rid of one or t'other and save money.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re comment @ #186
Off topic? I couldn't even work out what was being talked about never mind how on-topic it was!
Nick, is there any chance/news on client-(user)-side filtering, it would be nice to be able to filter by userid, hiding users who annoy whilst highlighting users who are - one might call - 'favourite' posters?
Complain about this comment
BP 189, Some say this already happens, but in reverse.
Complain about this comment
vulcanthebold @ #185, I hope you were being very ironic?...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, I myself can't get a balance between Blogs and Boards because the Boards don't have a button to allow me to reply, on my laptop at least.
I wanted to respond to bfg's message here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6824565 but there's absolutely no "reply to message" button anywhere on the screen.
Believe me I've looked long and hard. I'm logged in as me too. What is the problem, obviously other people must be able to find the button but it is so well hidden it's beaten me.
Complain about this comment
#199 Paul_Geaton
The reply button only shows when the board is open. For POV the opening
times are;
Mon-Sat: 0900-2200
Sun: 1000-2200
Complain about this comment
Frank, thanks - that explains all. Never thought of that.
Complain about this comment
You are very welcome Paul. I've had plenty of 'doh' moments myself, over the years.
:)
Complain about this comment
"Some topics are more likely to be premoderated because they are controversial. If we had a blog about religion as we do a set of message boards, then that blog might turn out to be an expensive proposition."
But we did once it was called 360...now you cant even read the old posts on it....I cant even read posts I made...Trouble is to many of those running these blogs...message boards ect, are not long out of university or have not researched the history of such and are easily swayed by current thinking and budgets and not looking at the bigger picture. like post 167 most long term users will often help with the moderation, but it wont work if those that do the moderating wont follow up or use common sense... I've had far to many posts removed and no satisfactory reply to emails sent asking what has offended or responses t6o rewrites of posts..then stumbling onto threads where every second post is moderated does not inspire new members to stay..
Complain about this comment
Moderation costs are roughly going to be proportional to the number of comments, so reflects the preferred method of entering comments.
Conceptually isn't it better to look at interaction as putting comments into a pot and what you're changing is the dashboard filter to view and enter comments:
Message board = raw data.
Blog = filtered by users called blogger, with only repliies shown.
BBC website = filtered mainly by users called BBC journalists (BBC News Website)
wikipedia = filtered by subject
Twitter = short messages only
This allows greater automated mobility of contributions.
There's no global standard content production system but Google Wave might become prominent and help here.
(although this might be too simplistic)
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, can I ask what the purpose of blogs is? Messageboards I understand - everyone interacting, commenting, answering each other's questions etc.
What is the point of this blog? We've asked you dozens of questions, and for a lot of clarification, but you have not responded. Is that blog etiquette? If you're going to start a debate and then not join in then what's the point? I just don't get it.
Complain about this comment
My apologies for this but a) I have not read all the posts and b) this may be about hosting not moderating.
However, as an avid listener to Radio 4 I sometimes wish to talk about an item on Radio 4 on the 'Choice is Yours' messageboars hosted by 'Anna'.
These days a lot of threads are about 'Anna' closing down relevant threads and asking people to post on a 'more relevant' board.
For me this is not hosting but moderating as it is stopping discussion on the boards.
I believe this may be a concerted effort to move people from the 'Choice Is Yours' messageboard as a prelude to closing it.
Whatever it is, it has worked as I will never use that board again as the sheer frustration of having my contributions stopped and locked off in highly relevant and well-thought out discussions is not worth the bother.
I'm going to stick to H2G2 where the moderation is on the whole excellent and threads are not arbitrialy closed down on the whim of the 'host'.
Complain about this comment
#209
"Nick, can I ask what the purpose of blogs is? Messageboards I understand - everyone interacting, commenting, answering each other's questions etc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog... :-)
Complain about this comment
From Boilerplated's link:
The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs.
Is interaction an important part of your blogs, Nick?
Complain about this comment
Of course interaction is important to a blog, but a blog is different from a message board. It's not always an instant conversation, and there's no obligation on the blog owner to respond to every comment.
Incidentally we're off topic and any more comments like this will be removed.
Complain about this comment
there's no obligation on the blog owner to respond to every comment.
Charming. So how do we get answers to our questions?
Blogs clearly aren't conversations; they're very restrictive and don't allow topics to grow and branch out. What is the topic of this blog again?
Complain about this comment
In reply to, and if I might be indulged:
#212. At 4:36pm on 11 Aug 2009, cricket-Angel Lightman:
"Is interaction an important part of your blogs, Nick?"
'An interactive format doesn't = question and answer, leaving a (reader) comment is being interactive.
213. At 4:58pm on 11 Aug 2009, NickReynolds:
"Incidentally we're off topic and any more comments like this will be removed."
Personally I think that you are spot on in having the off topic and disruptive posts removed, it's one thing to have thread drift but it's another to hijack a blog and try to (metaphorically) beat someone else up just because in the past one hasn't liked an editorial decision that has been made.
Nick, this blog now doesn't seem to be going anywhere it hasn't already, perhaps now is the time to close it?
214. At 5:43pm on 11 Aug 2009, cricket-Angel Lightman:
"Charming. So how do we get answers to our questions?"
Will if you don't like the 'answers' you are getting on the blogs or message-boards then you will either have to make a office complaint or make a FoIA request, one thing is sure, trying to beat people up all the time when ever they post a blog isn't going to get you or anyone very far - remember one thing, whilst we (the TVL payer) might fund the BBC doing so doesn't give us any editorial rights, never has done and I hope it never does!
Complain about this comment
I'm not beating anyone up, Boilerplated.
The questions I would like answered have been asked on this blog about the pie-chart Nick provided in his OP, not about any editorial decisions.
Complain about this comment
Some people in this thread have asked for more information. Some of that information may be confidential. I'm thinking about writing a follow up post but that won't happen for a couple of weeks at least, because I'm pretty busy.
Boilerplated - I'm always reluctant to close posts for comments and only do it as a last resort. But you are right that this one seems to have run out of steam.
Complain about this comment
You ask: "How valuable to you are the different things they do?"
MBs - at their best invaluable. It is the opportunity to question, to refine arguments, to offer or read counter-evidence which enables us to learn.
Blogs - wouldn't be bothered if I never read another one.
In the last couple of years I have seen three blogs which I vividly remember for their insight into [respectively] the recent US elections, the global financial crisis, patterns of women's employment. However they were presented as personal insights, not as openings for debate, and did not lead to illuminating discussion.
OTOH I see an engrossing conversation which deserves close reading and thought at least once a week on the MBs. Don't see the point of social networking sites - or rather, I don't have any use for them.
Complain about this comment
It's true; the BBC interpretation of "Blog" seems to be a "Vanity site" where a BBC employee can post their thoughts, then if someone responds in a way that is critical they just remove the posting or close the thread. It's all a bit "totalitarian".
That wasn't intended as a dig at you, Nick. It's just the perception on "this side of the glass", a perception that is created largely by the quirks of the "system". But as PJ says above, I wouldn't lose sleep if I never saw another "Blog" on the BBC, yet I would fight tooth and nail for the message boards and "communities".
Complain about this comment
Comments aren't removed because they are critical. They are removed because they break the house rules, which apply equally to blogs and boards.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comment #219. At 10:24pm
"[..//..] yet I would fight tooth and nail for the message boards and "communities"."
Well I would fight tooth and nail, and perhaps even ask my MP to 'ask questions in the house' should the BBC close the blogs, in fact the blogs are probably the only part of the BBC websites that have been improving over the last 6 months or so, far from dumbing down it seems to be, in the main, (and ignoring the relentless mentions of Twitter) they are the last bastions of half decent journalism and commentary on the BBC...
And as for "communities", the BBC boards are no more a "communities" than Facebook or Wikipedia, a Google search page or the computers start-up 'splash screen' is, a computer screen - who are you, who am I - just (highly) contrived user-names - those who think that a internet based forum is somehow a 'community' needs to get out more and find out what a real community is, find what is beyond a (contrived) name!
Complain about this comment
#221, I am referring to communities like h2g2, which I consider to be a "proper" community as well as being called a "community" by the BBC. The others you mention have indeed just been called "communities" in a contrived fashion. And we do "get out more"...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A649299
Complain about this comment
#222
"I am referring to communities like h2g2"
Sorry but there is no way a group of anonymous 'users' on the web can be described a community, a group perhaps but never a community, and using such a term is at best nothing more than vanity or marketing. Calling them communities is much the same as how Facebook call people, who link to each others profiles, "Friends"...
Attempting to keep this somewhat on-topic, I wish that the BBC would drop the "communities" label for the MB and blogs etc, but I suspect that it helps them to 'sell the product'.
Complain about this comment
#223, it's pretty clear you couldn't be bothered to follow the link.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #224:
It's obvious that you have one meaning of what a "community" is and I another, that URL you cited (in comment #222) seems to show a list of meetings/meet-up's, a list of meetings attended by a group or Club of loosely affiliated people (with one common interest, h2g2) at best, hardly a "community", in my opinion.
Sorry but in my opinion the internet and 'social' networking sites especially, have corrupted the true meaning of the word "community".
Complain about this comment
I think we are drifting off topic. This thread is not about what a community is or isn't. Keep it civil please!
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Nick. I was just annoyed by Boilerplated's characterisation of HooTooers as "a group of anonymous 'users' on the web". Particularly after I had provided some evidence of face-to-face interaction. We are a "community" by most standards - we turn to each other for help when we are in trouble, we share the good times and the bad. I've been present when two hootooers have met for the first time and again at the meet after they got married. When someone just dismisses HooToo with a glib reference to Facebook (an artificial entity dedicated to trawling personal data to package and sell to advertisers) it makes me angry.
Complain about this comment
#226. At 6:28pm on 13 Aug 2009, NickReynolds wrote:
"I think we are drifting off topic. This thread is not about what a community is or isn't."
Actually Nick I think it's at the heart of the question you originally asked (or at least in your clarification post), what is the function of the BBC's 'social' media, where should it be going and (probably more importantly) where it should not - I don't think that anyone would have supported the BBC had they decided to compete with ITV's (previous, now sold) investment in Friends Reunited or to allow the users of the message-boards and blogs to exchange personal information via a 'users profile' and thus compete with Facebook for example - both of which the BBC's social media could do very easily with a few modifications to the server-side software.
Perhaps it's just a subject for another time and another blog though?...
Complain about this comment
hi
Nick Reynolds wrote: "Are there forms of social media we should be doing as well as - or even instead of - the current stuff?"
First off, maybe the BBC views the comments I type here as a kind of "public email" in reply to the blog at the top of the page. If that is the case, we all ought to address our replies to Mr Reynolds. But I realise that Mr Reynolds will not relpy to each and every post - how could he?
Again, I would like to comment on some of the points raised by other posters on this blog. This might start a converstation. However, like all conversations, it will inevitably include whatever it is that I and the other posters are thinking about at the time. This will (also inevitably) result in the comment being removed.
Finally, in my dilemma, and in the fear I may actually be only talking to myself, I shall answer that there ARE indeed forms of social media that the BBC could be doing, including using some of the social networking sites including Facebook, integrating the BBC iPlayer into education, linking some of the sports pages to local BBC, among other things.
I would want to be absolutely clear, however, that when invited to express my thoughts or views, I am participating in (a) an 'open' email reply to the author (b) a two-way conversation with a host (c) a conversation amongst equals (d) a mind-map exercise (e) or any other process - so that I know where I stand.
nikki
Complain about this comment
Nick:
The details of the presentation are confidential. The independent company who do moderation for the BBC wouldn't thank me if I gave you financial data which might prevent them running a successful business.
General Question: Who does the moderation for the BBC or not the Corporation???
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Nick:
The independent company who do moderation Spelling...(insert) The independent company who does the moderation...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick says:
"As you can see from the pie chart above the vast majority of the money we spent on moderation last year was spent on message boards and other communities with a very small slice spent on blogs."
That is a rather silly statement without stating the audience reach of each. It is as silly as saying "we spent so much money on petrol driving to scotland compared to engine oil. Look how little oil cost us"
Complain about this comment
I wonder what Nick's piechart will look like after the closure of the 5Live boards.
In a way, I'm not surprised about their closure, and it's another inevitable casualty owing to their post-moderated status. Nick keeps telling us that post-moderation doesn't imply a more expensive overall cost, but I have never believed that.
I think the writing is on the wall for the remainder of the post-moderated board areas (Asian Network, iPlayer, Radio 2, Religion) if they remain post-moderated. The case for post-moderation of the Religion boards is perhaps arguable, but I cannot see why any of the others should remain post-moderated.
Russ
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS