« Previous | Main | Next »

A new look for the World Service on the web

Post categories:

Dave Lee | 13:03 UK time, Thursday, 7 April 2011

UPDATE: Thank you for all of your comments. I am sorry that many of you are disappointed with the changes.

Your views will be taken into account when we look at future versions of the site.

Kelly Shephard, Managing Editor, BBC World Service Future Media.

Editor's note: Kelly is on this week's edition of Over To You discussing the changes.

--

Regular visitors to BBCWorldService.com will notice some big, exciting changes have happened to the website.

The new design will make it easier to keep track of what's going on and this applies not just to our award-winning global news coverage, but also to the in-depth documentaries and feature programmes that tell you not just what's happening, but why.

But despite the change in look and feel, our agenda remains the same.

Here we will be showcasing the best of BBC World Service content - and using text, audio and video to bring you the highlights from our programmes.

Links to our schedules and frequencies will ensure that you never miss a programme.
Meanwhile, social media links enable you to share and engage with the day's global news and regular blogs such as World Have Your Say, remain committed to engaging the audience in a global conversation.

We're looking forward to hearing your comments on the changes. You can get in touch with us by commenting on this post, or talking to us on Twitter and Facebook.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Incredibly basic website, it's so disappointing. Other BBC Radio websites have much more content.

  • Comment number 2.

    I love the old homepage.

  • Comment number 3.

    I don't like it at all. I miss the 4 feature stories w/ photos.

  • Comment number 4.

    The top-stories reel was a useful and aesthetically-pleasing tool for those of us looking to gain a quick summary of current trends. I used it on a regular basis and I'm sad to see it go.

    I disagree that "the new design will make it easier to keep track of what's going on" as the listener has to acquaint herself with each of the individual programs. Hiding the story content of each program requires the listener to embark on a thorough search for content each morning until several programs are chosen as dependable for regular listening and the others are only seldom heard if at all.

    Overall, I dislike the new layout.

  • Comment number 5.

    I don't mind the website layout, but now that you changed the listen live media player I can no longer listen to BBC World Service, this really sucks. So I hate the new website and please change the media player back to the old one.

  • Comment number 6.

    Wow I mean..... two steps back in my opinion. I liked to visit the world service home page because I dont have to seach for content like other sites. There were great suggestions on programs, pictures, the flash player which flipped through the top stories was great. I could easily go to the site at work and within a couple of minutes find something to listen to. Now I feel like I must search through pages of content to find what I want which I could have done with the other layout.

  • Comment number 7.

    Frankly I thought your last site was clean and easy to use. I am not sure how much easier you could have made it. This new layout seems like you cut out a lot of content that you had to manage on a daily basis, which I can understand based on the BBC's cuts. But you still need a landing page which catches the surfers attention, shows a schedule of programs throughout the day, highlights stories and programs that the BBC finds important or interesting to its listeners, gives me direct links to the content held within your programs pages so I dont have to search, and lists what is currently playing in real time.

    Good luck with this guys, I am not sure if i will partake in the many programs you provide now that I need to spend time to search those programs out.

    JR

  • Comment number 8.

    I miss having a click to the full bbc schedule.

  • Comment number 9.

    I much preferred the old site. This one turns your programmes into silos. I want to look at what interests me from the headlines/pictures and not restricted to a specific programme. Having to look in each 'box' separately means I will likely miss a lot of interesting information. Please don't put your great programmes and clips in 'boxes' that makes it harder for us listeners to click and read/listen to what interests us most.

  • Comment number 10.

    Unfortunately, the new web page has almost no content. The previous webpage gave a fair bit of information about the content of recent programs, whereas the new webpage seems to indicate only that a program exists, in the generic sense, while giving no information about the content of the latest broadcast of a program. I don't think this is progress.

  • Comment number 11.

    Please revert to the old BBCWS site - the new one is just dreadful.

  • Comment number 12.

    OK it's quite clear where the focus is meant to be. Though I find the design very poor. This new version of the website looks more like a directory. Some sort of bookmark page where it is possible to click the links to the programmes. This might be useful for someone already used to WS content, though I don;t think it will help acquiring new listeners.

    Although it probably does maximise the exposure of the programmes (in the end we are talking about radio programmes), it doesn't seem to me to stimulate the discovery of new content in the range of WS transmissions. Then, why taking the pictures away? The WS certainly has got a massive wealth of images from the world (for sure its streams from Flickr et al) that in my opinion should be made available too.
    One of the bonuses about the WS is the richness and diversity of perspectives, the hope is that by becoming essential it won't cut on the variety of contributions.

  • Comment number 13.

    Static, unimaginative and dull. Doesn't invite to explore the site. The funding cuts are obviously dropping BBC World Service from the first class into a mediocre news service at all fronts. I've already switched to Al-Jazeera. Sorry, guys.

  • Comment number 14.

    I visit the BBC world service homepage daily. I loved the old website. It was much richer in content. It was easier to pick and choose programmes based on the pictures or the one-line description.

    The new website has almost no content that can be navigated easily. It seems like a bunch of links to programmes of BBC. One has to do a thorough search to actually find something interesting to listen. I totally dislike it! Please revert back to the old website to retain the regular visitors.

  • Comment number 15.

    Thinking the conspicuous absence of photos reflects cutbacks, cutbacks, cutbacks. Disappointing.

  • Comment number 16.

    I agree with most of your bloggers and am intensely disappointed that my screen does not offer me up to date news visibly and at retirement age am thinking of changing my opening view when I turn the computer on.

    Additionally I am not the slightest bit interested in what is on TV and find it annoying enough that there are more reference to tv on the radio. I bet I'm part of a huge majority that listen because I want to listen - for all kinds of reasons.

    P L E A S E give us a web-site which is for world service radio!!!!!

  • Comment number 17.

    I was dismayed to see your new web page today. I see that is comprehensive, but it is also completely unappealing. I really thought that the feature part was a good way to be introduced into things happening around the world and the easy access to the news I like to listen to everyday. I look at it during lunch at work now it is not fun to browse at all. I was able to find the other programs if I was interested. So, I am very disappointed in this page. I am not even going to use it today.

  • Comment number 18.

    Usually a nasty surprise to see the portal all changed without any previous warning. You might have posted one previously.
    Nice to have an overview of all available items and we'll get used to the new format.
    However, items such as Business Daily now require 3 clicks instead of the previous 1. Other items require at least 2 clicks. Is this progressive in a 1-click world?
    Hopefully this is just a face lift and I'm sure it will not affect the excellent brains behind your programmes.

  • Comment number 19.

    What a loss.

    Without the updates, summaries, and links to highlighted stories and reports there's hardly a point to visiting the World Service homepage anymore.

  • Comment number 20.

    I miss one very essential link on the new website: the link to the 24 hour news channel feed, where you can listen to all live news broadcasts indepentent from the region you live in. Please give us back the possibility to listen to the 24 hour news stream.

  • Comment number 21.

    [Please note: this comment was reposted after Firefox 4.0 crashed when clicking on 'Post Comment']
    "Big, exciting changes have happened to the website. The new design will make it easier to keep track of what's going on." Indeed: "What's going on?" Is this a bad joke? If so, it should have come a week earlier. I used to visit this site several times a day, the site I visited most; I won't anymore, probably like many others, I'll do so only when looking for a specific category of programmes.
    This new look is very disappointing. No more than a direct access to the page with links for all programmes, a page which was previously available anyway.
    The "old" homepage had the advantage of attracting attention to all kinds of programmes, documentaries, etc. one would not have been aware of. This is no longer true.
    Is this a result of the cuts (less people working on the website)? If so say it, don't tell us it's "big, exciting".
    WS management seems totally oblivious to listener's reactions and the end of 648 kHz is a case in point. The WS website says: "direct broadcasts to Europe [648 kHz are cut] in response to a declining number of direct listeners". Where did they get that from?
    The WS website tells us listening to WS radio on digital (DRM) is possible in Europe: how much is the BBC spending on DRM broadcasts to Europe? How many DRM listeners around in Europe? I'd bet no more than 1,000, if that many (prove me wrong). Compared to the 648 broadcast that's really money down the drain (how many pounds / listeners on DRM compared to 648 please?)
    Having worked for WS for more than 10 years I know from experience that one cannot really hope for bad decisions to be reversed. Yet, you should seriously reconsider this latest move.

  • Comment number 22.

    In adddition to my previous remark, I have just found out that the mobile website for BBC World Service has been axed completely. In Western Europe, where they closed down 648 kHz, that website was one of the alternatives. Please bring back the mobile version of the BBC World Service website.

  • Comment number 23.

    Appalling. The new site is awful - boring, bland, and would be hard to navigate if you didn’t already know what content was there hidden in the categories. Horrific – like something from the first age of websites 20years ago. The oldsite was at least bright, informative and offered so much and linked to lots of things – those that you knew already and wanted to find quickly and led you to lots of news features you had missed as well. I listen a lot and use links to listen again later, and hunt down stuff I missed to listen again too. And I don’t normally bother replying or leaving comments on stuff like this. First time I have been moved so much to do. I think you can see where the comments so far are leading. Don’t be too embarrassed to revert or modify back to something similar as it was before.

  • Comment number 24.

    The story links were what I went to the page for. Now they're gone. Also, this seems to be all just about International English-Language Broadcasting by the BBC - where is the foreign language stuff?

  • Comment number 25.

    Like almost everyone before me I am really disappointed about he new cut-to-the bone website. So very cerebral, speaking just to the mind, not to heart and imagination. Offering pieces of information instead of stories. I understand the cuts in the programme for financial reasons although I regret them. But you can't save money by stripping the website of all sensory appeal? Please keep telling stories in words and images!

  • Comment number 26.

    Seems fine; lack of news content is a little surprising, but perhaps this is the face of austerity. Real problem is that I can't get the radio player to stream world service--it opens, it does all its little flash animation stuff, but no audio. I'd also put the link to listen to the live stream below the banner, where you currently have the links to podcasts, radio & tv programmes, and hourly bulletins.

  • Comment number 27.

    The new website is simple awful. Bring back the old website please! And the old player too...or modify the new one so that it's easier to pick out the desired station.

  • Comment number 28.

    A bit disappointing. It seems (unless I'm missing something) that it's no longer possible to have the WS and Radio 3 up at the same time.

    In fact, for this household, it's a real drag, and I fear that R3 will win out.

    p.

  • Comment number 29.

    For me the new page is worse than worthless.
    It has stolen much-valued services.

    I regularly found a story via the four current highlights and the dozen recent favourites.

    There is simply not enough time in a week to monitor, individually, every worthy programme on the BBC.

    If you wanted to aggravate your listeners, you could not have done better than this new page. It motivated me to register.

    Re-instate the old page. If you've laid off web-editors, re-hire them. You may think that cutting a few website jobs saves others in programme production, but this has been a loss for all BBC programmes. If you need to sacrifice jobs, cut your vastly obese and overly broadcast sports sections. That should get a some of your more vocal listeners lobbying.

  • Comment number 30.

    Ohhhh... The only thing worse than seeing your fave news-site so ruthlessly AMPUTATED, is to see the BBC having to cover it up to its listeners. Please, BBC World Service, DON'T try to pass this off as an 'improvement'? Not only are we not stupid, you've also never treated us as stupid before. It's pretty obvious that this "new web-page" just a simple reduction, not an improvement. I've never before seen the BBC insult the intelligence of their listeners like this. From what I see, the main change is just that the front page, which showcased teh latest most interesting stories, has just been removed, and the 'new' front page, is an index that was there all along, I used to click on 'programmes' on the front page, and get to this same page that is now the "new front page". I can't see any other reason for amputating your web page like this than the recent funding cuts the BBC World Service has suffered, which clearly must have been tragically brutal. This 'new' web page makes me think the BBC has had its entire web editor section sliced away?

    Please, BBC World Service: be honest with your fans! (I've been one since age 10). If you had all the funding cut for maintaining the website, just tell us - we sympathise! But PLEASE don't try to pass it off as an 'improvement'.

    I'll remain a fan, but I can't use this page at all. I've already started using Al-Jazeera, RFI etc instead. I'd never thought the World Service could become a beautiful but fading childhood memory.

  • Comment number 31.

    And GREAT idea by Doug Ray above, about channeling the energies of your listeners (eg the sports listeners). Don't take it lying down - think strategically about where you cut and what responses can help your cause. The sports section is a great idea. The way you're presenting this web page is like you're trying to get us to agree that the cuts are a good thing. Your listeners are your fan base - trying to pass off the cuts as something good, how does that help you fight the cuts?

  • Comment number 32.

    It used to be a simple matter of clicking on "listen live" to have my browser call up Windows Media Player to listen to streaming audio. Now I click on what looks like the nearest thing to it (I'm not really sure), the "on air now, etc." and I get this mysterious thing called "BBC iPlayer" which doesn't give me any sound at all. I have no interest in downloading podcasts, I want streaming audio of what is currently on the air -- and now I can't get it any more. Put it back the way it was!












  • Comment number 33.

    We have to be open to change, but the new site looks so bare and compartimented, business-like. Like many others I miss the top-stories reel with the photos: they caught your eye and make you want to listen, it gave a 'real' feel to the homepage, and much more inviting to look at ... Sorry, but hopefully you can combine the best from old and bad

  • Comment number 34.

    no sir, i dont like it...
    its even less informative than the previous version...
    kinda like looking at a menu with no prices and no pictures of the food...
    fail...

  • Comment number 35.

    The new web site design was a dismaying surprise. The former design let me quickly scan and determine the most current content on World Service and decide if there was a special topic I should investigate. Now, I must do so much more clicking and searching, and I don't have cues as to what is on offer. The BBC World Service is an invaluable information resource for me--but the new website has stripped away guideposts I relied on.

  • Comment number 36.

    Dear BBC Worldservice,

    I don't like de new look one bit. I have the World Service as my homepage for many years now, and when I open my browser, I like to see at a glance items of interest. But now, I only see icons and no news, no nothing. You can't imagine my disappointment. You are forcing me to make a choice the moment I landed on your homepage. Who in his right mind invented this layout? Have you done a survey amongst the users and who where the respondents? It looks very childish, and how I miss the pictures of newsworthy events. Please don't believe the hype that users always want to make choices, trust your own good judgement that you can make a selection that many users of the website of the World service do appreciate (you have done so for many years until now).
    I sincerely hope you made a proper backup of your previous perfect website and that you will restore it as soon as possible. I understand I have to wait until monday for it to be fixed.
    Yours sincerely,
    Gert-Jan Odijk
    Amsterdam, the Netherlands

  • Comment number 37.

    Could you keep the aesthetic face lift, but put back the content? Perhaps when I click on 'News and Current Affairs' it could take me to a page with content, rather than just scrolling up the patchwork quilt of categories.

  • Comment number 38.

    Absolutely dreadful. I used to be able to log in, click "schedule" on the right hand side and see the schedule within seconds. The new layout makes finding the schedule almost impossible. I can only assume the BBC is saving money by having remedial IT students program the website.

  • Comment number 39.

    Please, oh Please put back the previously perfect website! The new website isn't serving any purpose. As DougRay_vic_au put it - 'There is simply not enough time in a week to monitor, individually, every worthy programme on the BBC.'

  • Comment number 40.

    Not so long ago the Russian Service website was revamped. It was OK before, but the new version is brilliant. Why not ask your Russian Service colleagues how it's done?

  • Comment number 41.

    Like everyone else, I am hugely disappointed! What a shock... Surely there must be some form of compromise possible with SOME content not just a directory. I even think some of us would be prepared to pay a subscription fee to have the old site back. The "new" front page (which as another listener pointed out is just the old front page of the programmes section) does not fulfil the same function as the old one at all! This is dramatically bad - perhaps a provocation in order to fuel internal pleading? If so, good luck! If not - this kind of mistake could cost you a large number of users.

  • Comment number 42.

    Awful, nothing, absolutely nothing "big, exciting" there. The new web page says "tell us what you think" Let's hope you'll listen.
    I used to look at this page 5-6 times a day at the very least. I won't any more if it stays like this.
    This is not a matter of getting used to a new interface: this is simply a very poorly thought-out layout - I dare say by far the worst of all international broadcasters' websites I've looked at.
    I know you usually do not reverse decisions - even when bad, but you should do so, unless you're on a secret mission to lose users and listeners

  • Comment number 43.

    "If so, good luck! If not - this kind of mistake could cost you a large number of users."

    Me for one. Because I can't get to the schedule quickly and conveniently, I don't know what's on each night, and because I can't be bothered to go hunting for it I'm simply not going to listen.

    Radio 4 Extra will be having my ears overnight now, I'm afraid. I'll check back periodically to see if you've listened to your audience and put the old site back though.

  • Comment number 44.

    I share the majority of the sentiments expressed earlier
    1- I LOVE the old website and H A T E the new one.
    2- I believe it is due to budget cuts.

    The majority of my almost daily interaction with the World Service website resulted in me sharing via facebook or twitter, the stories that I saw highlighted. It was easy to use and it enticed me to go explore the site to see what else was there. Now that you have removed the enticement, you have removed the impetus to explore... I tried to explore- and with the very bland lay out it was tedious and random and quite frankly, an unfulfilling experience.

    I should probably have prefaced my post by saying I am generally not one opposed to change! I don't wage warfare when facebook changes its lay out or companies change their logos or even the prices for some goods. But this.. I literally went through a phase of denial which saw me close the page and try to reload and retype . Finally, in frustration, I read that this was no mistake but an actual change...

    I really do hope that you change it back, because as you can see the public is not pleased and whatever you are saving in the change, your losses are guaranteed to be orders greater.

  • Comment number 45.

    While it is a bit easier to access the full list of programs, I really miss the filmstrip scrollbar at the top suggesting highlights and recent programs. Could this perhaps be added back?

  • Comment number 46.

    the previous home-page looked much better & was user-friendly, this one is very utilitarian & dull. the highlighted programme section with fotos brought a lot of interesting programmes to my attention that i would otherwise have missed.....

  • Comment number 47.

    I used to go to worldservice/news, and was able to listen to solely news programmes, particularly useful at weekends as I'm not interested in sports. Now the new page takes me only to the regular schedule. Does the news-only channel no longer exist? I do wish people wouldn't fix things that aren't broken.

  • Comment number 48.

    Agree with flossie51 here, about not fixing things which aren't broken. However this seems more like the whole editorial effort behind the website has been gutted, taking the content with it and leaving behind only automated feeds. Big shame.

  • Comment number 49.

    I definitely don't like the new website which depersonalizes the news, and removes some essential headline information. The Programs rubric was previously available on the old website anyway (if one simply clicked on Programs). What I especially miss are the illustrated main story focus, and the dozen or so news headlines which were linked to articles. This was once my home page; it isn't any longer. I am afraid that this is just one more symptom of BBC World Service's decline due to budget cuts. Having been a faithful listener for 40 years, I always feared that this would happen one day, and it's now happening. Other signs of decay are the axing of first-rate programs, like THE INTERVIEW which is irreplaceable, especially by an inferior television soundtrack called HARD TALK. This shows that your brass do not know the difference between good radio and TV. Other regrets: whatever happened to the weekly play and the daily readings? It seems that some of your management have a limited understanding of the cultural, educational, and political role the BBC World Service played (past tense) globally. I would have gladly made a financial contribution to help keep quality World Service broadcasting alive. Now I have to sadly witness its demise. For the moment, TV and mediocrity have won and we, the world listeners, have lost. The radio experience is now severely impoverished. I wonder what you are going to axe next, since you are already obviously in the process of axing your listenership. RIP BBC World Service.

  • Comment number 50.

    I am surprised to realize how much I liked the photographs on the page. I used to feel like I had a window to the important events of the world, I now feel like someone has boarded up my window and stuck a bunch of news paper. The computer, and therefore the internet, is a visual medium. Just because this is a radio station makes it no less so. I agree with, what seems like, everyone else - that the new look of the World Service web site is not attractive, is not easier to navigate, and please change it back.

  • Comment number 51.

    I liked the old look. Also, I object to the loss of the Real Player feeds; I use a Linux system, and I didn't want to load the Flash on to it, I liked the Real Player and have that on it. Please go back to Real Player as an option!!! Don't make us a pawn of Microsoft and Adobe!

  • Comment number 52.

    DOUBLY DISAPPOINTING

    Please STOP "improving" the Worldservice website!

    Disappointment #1 - Unannounced, unwelcome change.
    Far more thought could have been put into the timing and management of this change.
    Users rely on the BBC for consistent, familiar quality. Sudden unexplained, unwanted redirection is unkind.

    Disappointment #2 - inferior quality: Easy access??? Nonsense!

    WHY WHY WHY have the old URL (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/)
    redirect people to http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/index.shtml
    a page with NONE of the "new, improved" menu options [Home:UK:Africa:Asia-Pac:etc]
    NO links to Most Popular, Top Stories, or Features & Analysis, and
    NO News:Sport:Weather:Travel:etc links across the top.
    and where the "Home" link takes you completely OUTSIDE the WorldService (to http://www.bbc.co.uk/)

    SURELY http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
    OR
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-12985543
    would be more reasonable - IF you MUST make changes at all!

  • Comment number 53.

    Crap. What a strange utilitarian website. I have always used the world service site as my morning newspaper, no more. why did you do this?

  • Comment number 54.

    How about a response from WS?

  • Comment number 55.

    No content anymore. No topical appealing visuals. It feels lik my window to the world has been closed.

  • Comment number 56.

    Website layout seems all right, but I can no longer listen live online by streaming it, instead I have to use the iplayer (which is blocked from work). Really disappointed I can't enjoy the BBC World Service anymore! Why was this changed?

    Also - how about using Disqus for comments?

  • Comment number 57.

    Media player not compatible with Android Froyo 2.2 with Adobe Flash 10.2.1 on HTC Desire HD. The old media player was. I don't know what to do, all the latest software yet no love. The net is the best medium for BBC/W in Australia. So sad BBC, you help me sleep. :-(

  • Comment number 58.

    Boring home page with no pictures; looks very dry.

    And where did "Europe Today" go??!!!! I'm desperate to have it return! I'm stuck in a small midwestern town in Ohio, USA and thrive on learning about what's going on over in Europe/UK. Why on earth would the BBC remove a program that covers such a large geographical area? Are you kidding me?

  • Comment number 59.

    its not user-friendly at all, it looks bland. radio 4 website is much better, will go back there more often rather than somehow trying to navigate any sense out of this one...

  • Comment number 60.

    First impressions.

    I am disappointed with the home page. Everything is shouting too loud (pictures too large, characters too large). I think the old home page was much better. And why do we need to do so much scrolling? On the home page?

  • Comment number 61.

    Very disappointed with the new site, it looks like the whole world service has been cut. It feels like an archive, it is not dynamic or engaging, in fact it would put me off listening at all. Like many others I loved the rolling content of current programmes, that was what engaged me, the use of photographs were essential to draw people in too...was it not considered that many people accessing the world service site are speakers of English as a second language? The site is too text heavy and static, I don't think I'll be checking the site everyday now.

  • Comment number 62.

    Dear Aunty Beeb,

    This new website is rubbish. No World Service on the front page, you can't customise it, it's boring, it's just not user friendly in any way, shape or form and you haven't given the user the option of switching to the old one at least until any teething problems were sorted out.
    You have changed the radio media player. What was wrong with the old one?
    What's even more annoying you've plastered this "Royal Wedding" story on the front page too. That's "Human Interest", not news.
    More like something like you'd expect from a "Metro" website. Have the budget cuts affected you so much?
    Please change back as soon as possible.

    Greetings from Budapest..

  • Comment number 63.

    I share some of the views expressed here I prefer the old home page - The new look is "cool" but's it does not show what is being broadcast and what has recently been broadcast in an organic way - Please have a another think Auntie I seem to be back to long wave!

  • Comment number 64.

    I'm disappointed with the new web site - what is the point of this massive table of links - it is definitely step back to 1990 where web pages with no content - just links were common.

    The worst of all - there was some change to the on-line radio player - which no longer works on my Ubuntu 10.04 and SuSE 11.3/4 Linux systems. No more listening for me as result of this "improvement".

  • Comment number 65.

    I know this section is about the changes to the homepage of BBC World Service, but I would like to take the opportunity to tell you that I can no longer listen to live World Service using the new Radio player on my work. I do not konw what has changed, but it some how is blocked on my work, where the old radio player was not. Another listener less.

  • Comment number 66.

    It has never been easy to find archived audio files of BBC programs and now this new page makes it even harder to track down even the most current content let alone older content. When I looked at it today for the first time my first impression was "this is a wall between me and the content". I love BBC programming and only wish it were easier to browse and discover the content on your Web sites. I would like to see a summary of the currently aired program and even that seems to be hidden somewhere else if it's still available at all.

  • Comment number 67.

    I think that the new wesbite is not nearly as good as the old one.

    The world routes programme is not interesting at all!! What has happened to the world music programme that starting after Charlie Gillett's programme ended?

    Why are we subjected to so many changes!!??

  • Comment number 68.

    Regrettably, the Over To You radio programme did not spent any time on the many complaints received regarding the website changes. How long do we have to wait on a proper explanation?

  • Comment number 69.

    The BBC has a "complaints" form at https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
    I suggest everyone here, myself included, uses that form to put across both their dissatisfaction with the new site, and with the BBC for seemingly ignoring our comments here despite them "looking forward to hearing [our] comments on the changes".

  • Comment number 70.

    the new web-site is inaccessible & an obstacle not a gateway to the programmes....

  • Comment number 71.

    I am here because I was looking for today's version of BBC Click. I am really confused as whatever I click on the the Click Web page I seem to end up here on the World Service site on which I can find no reference to Click.
    I remember hearing or reading that the BBC was reducing the number of staff working on the BBC's web site. Is this the result? I am computer literate but find today's 'Click', no I cannot. Apard from this providing feedback, any advice on how to follow Click would be welcome.

  • Comment number 72.

    no.....I don't like it.....remove it immidiately.....switch to the older one plzzzz.

  • Comment number 73.

    noooooo! what have you done! I always come to the WS website to have a quick look at what is going out on the station that day - the main service I use was the really nicely designed quick access to the best interviews/ features of the day - as others above have said, I don't have time to go through all the programmes - how on earth can you have a radio station website that has absolutely no 'best features of the day' - no clear links on the front to key interviews etc?

    You can't expect people to trawl through every programme - also, the old design was far more professional and enjoyable to go through.

    I presume this is a money saving exercise as now nobody will have to update it?

    In a world where people are increasingly listening online/ using websites to interact with radio stations this is a massively backwards move - how can you compete with sites like the guardian/ other bbc radio sites when you have such a basic site?

    this is really really damagaing.

  • Comment number 74.

    I also agrewe with a comment above - the site now looks like an archive not a live radio station -there is no way to see that anything is actually live or happening right now - and no clear indication of what stories are being covered that day. This is madness - I honestly think this will be really bad for the World Service.

    When cutting services - you simply cannot ignore the importance of a highly professional, lively and engaging website.

  • Comment number 75.

    I agree with others - I hate it. I finally figured out which URL to bookmark so that I could see what the top world stories are. the home page redesign is an index of BBC, not an informative NEWS page - which I thought BBC was.
    I listen to the live feed nearly all day and with the other radio player, if the signal cut out, you could at least tell by the circling arrow. this one is a black background and so far as I can tell, i can't find any status marker. in the last 30min alone i've had the signal cut out, didn't know what happened and had to close and launch all over again. waste of time.

  • Comment number 76.

    In my opinion the previous format was better. I would like the site to go back to its prior state or an improvised version of the previous state.

  • Comment number 77.

    A great pity, the changes you've made. Clearly the budget cuts have spread to the website. I no longer know what's available on The Strand, for example, or how to find your latest documentaries that you so eagerly advertise for weeks before briefly airing them. Like many of the other commentators, I wish you would revert to what you already had; if it ain't broke, don't fix it...but then perhaps the World Service is broke.

  • Comment number 78.

    i miss the original 4 photos highlighting programes to listen again to !
    and i want the http address to reveal the home page not programmes.

  • Comment number 79.

    Deserves mention in the Guinness Book of World Records for the worst web site on the internet. And just when I thought BBC couldn't get any worse.

  • Comment number 80.

    BBC is the ultimate proof that socialism doesn't work.

  • Comment number 81.

    For all of BBC's prior shortcomings, being strongly biased, sensational, and having its reporters and correspondents write in a literary essay style rather than in a journalistic style, it has managed to eclipse those by first becoming dreadfully boring and now utterly inane. Clicking on BBC's new web site is like staring at a blank wall for all the good it is. To me, BBC is no longer the place to go for news biased and incomplete or otherwise. BBC, you're fired! I'm going to Fox or CNN.

  • Comment number 82.

    May I make a suggestion? Transcripts from each of "From Our Own Correspondent" correspondents should be published separately. That way I can easily share an item on twitter and facebook. As it is I can only share the whole programme but asking my community to sort through a ten minute segment is impractical.

  • Comment number 83.

    BTW, while I'm at it, BBC could you please take Piers Morgan back? He's boring, clueless, and completely irrelevant to any contemporary issues in American society. Alan King was no Charlie Rose but Morgan is death warmed over. Tombstones like him belong at BBC, it was made for them.

  • Comment number 84.

    The world service website has been completely changed, apparently without any notice or trialling. I find it boring and with less functionality than before, for example, I can't find a link to the days schedule. I found the previous website really appealing and useful.

    Looking at the comments on the "Have your say" blog 95% didn't like it, most said they hated it and the remaining were indifferent. There were no comments in favour of the change.

    Can we have the old website back please?

  • Comment number 85.

    Well, well, the old website still exists. Photos, articles, and everything only slightly changed. It's the same one they've been using for several days without any fanfare. But the link changed and if you don't find it, the old link takes you to a menu of archived programs.

    BBC is running a story about children broadcasting radio in India, something like Butterfly Broadcasting Children who also call themselves BBC. I'll bet that not only are their broadcasts more accurate and interesting but I'm virtually certain that they are much better at IT than the British Broadcasting Corporation. But then so are most 10 year olds in the US. Once again socialism strikes out just like it always does.

  • Comment number 86.

    I liked your previous homepage much better. The combination of feature stories, documentaries, and photos covered a much broader range of topics at first sight. This was very helpful because you always learned about interesting stories even if you did not look for them in particular. Now you have to go through all your favourite programmes and are likely to miss the best ones nevertheless.

  • Comment number 87.


    MarcusAureliusII,


    Ceud Mile Failte!

    >8-D

  • Comment number 88.

    Dear BBC World Service,
    It must be depressing to read all these negative comments about the new website. We're just all so disappointed because typically the BBC World Service is absolutely fantastic and the old website reflected that. I felt like it was 'my' website. I felt like I was part of your world - involved, engaged, up-to-date. As a compromise, can't you just put back the scrolling menu and the live stream button and then have your new front page underneath? Currently, three out of the first four programmes have the word 'world' in the title - and because there's no durations listed, I can't tell which one is which - and I used to choose one of those shows according to how much time I still had in the house. I have moved to the US and I loved streaming live from the website and regularly listened all day this way. I am a huge fan of the BBC World Service and admire your consistent brilliance. Thank you for your exceptional journalism. Please let your website do you all justice.

  • Comment number 89.

    Your new design maybe clean and easier to navigate in your vieuw, but i miss the Pictures and updates, This one is Very Very Boring, Do Something about it Please if You Can, It's not interesting anymore

    Nana, from Amsterdam

  • Comment number 90.

    There needs to be a link to the worldservice schedule from the first page. You now have to search through a few pages to find it - which is silly. Also, as commented by others, the new media player does not always play worldservice radio, which is a big problem - please fix it!

  • Comment number 91.

    Wonders of wonders!
    I have just seen the response with the Update at the beginning of this blog. Something I have mentioned previously is the lack of response from BBC people here, unlike in many of the other blogs. Is this a first time here? Whatever keep it up.

    Would have posted earlier but the last three weeks I have been travelling and as I had my laptop with me it's been interesting accessing the WS and BBC website from three continental european countries and the UK.

    Looking at the response to the blog it is interesting that whereas normally it difficult to get one or two comments, never mind half-a-dozen, to entries so far there are 90 to this and unanimously they are, to a greater or lesser degree, negative and critical of the new site (okay, I'm excluding spurious entries such as "proof that socialism doesn't work" - this nothing to do with political ideology).

    Basically I agree, more or less, with all that has been said - this site is clunky and unappealing, give is back the old site with the full internet schedule available with one click, the info items which where interesting and stimulated one to go further and the links to programme details, as well as local schedules and frequencies available with one click.
    What was, and still is, missing is an index of all programmes with all the broadcast times for each regional stream broadcast. And where broadcast times are given on the info page for a programme why are the times in BST? Wouldn't GMT be much more logical? It is, after all, the basic time for all of us to work from.

    Also please note that that a lot of the links, be it from Programmes or elsewhere, are not working, or at least working incorrectly. To give three examples:
    Over to You leads to the blog, not the programme archive. This occurs from the Programmes page, the Podcast page and even the 'Listen to Previous episodes link in the blog itself.
    Documentaries which takes you to podcasts not the programme archives for listen again and info on a programme.
    Click where the link from podcasts takes you to the Click homepage, not the programmes
    (and in the UK the same happens from the programmes page).
    I have mailed Over to You about this, twice at least, over the past two weeks but nothing has happened.

    Finally one possible positive sign for everyone. When I logged on to the World Service home page earlier this evening I got a pop up saying 'Keep your finger on the Pulse - Do you have 5 minutes to tell us what you think about this site%3

  • Comment number 92.

    Was I being to wordy? The last part of my last paragraph has been cut short. Here it is:

    Finally one possible positive sign for everyone. When I logged on to the World Service home page earlier this evening I got a pop up saying 'Keep your finger on the Pulse - Do you have 5 minutes to tell us what you think about this site?'. The survey is being carried out by GfK Nop Media for the BBC. It took me a lot longer that 5 minutes but it does give you the opportunity to say what you think about the site. And my marks about what I think about it, would I recommend it where low whereas in the past they have been high. Hopefully a lot of other listeners will get this pop up and a chance to take part in the survey.

    Guy (back in Amsterdam)

  • Comment number 93.

    DEAR KELLY: Thank you for wishing to assuage the anger of the rumbling masses who used to listen to the BBC World Service; but I think you should rather be talking to the Controller, Mr. Craig Oliver, and not us. Try using some Hardtalk with him. Good luck!

  • Comment number 94.

    As a dyslexic user, I find the new lay out to be less user friendly than the previous one. Not being able to easily process written information and accessing the BBC primarily online, the world service and its visual labeling of programs, specific stories, Interviews and projects helped me to keep in touch. The absence of visual aids means that beyond the 5 mint news summery I am less likely to go looking for stories.

  • Comment number 95.

    Finding your way round the new website is like wondering where to start if you've a round jigsaw puzzle and the picture is of beans.

  • Comment number 96.

    This home page is not very welcoming. It has no content of its own, only a bunch of links. It's like you arrive at someone's doorstep and instead of being asked in for tea you're handed a list of neighbors they rather you'd visit. Preparing/editing content for a home page requires staff... Is this a cost saving measure? (Love the World Service)

  • Comment number 97.

    Dear BBC,

    I understand that the UK is making cuts. However, thats no excuse for such a sorry website. The old site was nothing flash, but it was informative. I think you should have left it alone. Apparently the new site has everything, but we just have to find it. So it's reasonable to assume that your not saving money by reducing content. So change for the sake of change?

  • Comment number 98.

    This web-site has gone the way of so many others - The news website used to be my favourite home-page - No more. This was my second favourite - It is now a total disappointment, much more complicated to use, and not worth bothering with for pleasure.
    Don't bother complaining about it, 'those who did it' have their own agenda and will not listen - We mounted a concerted opposition to the news page changes - no-one wanted to know.
    Kelly just uttered the typical BBC platitudes - Nothing changes.
    They are now so obsessed with Facebook and Twitter that those of us who like old-fashioned, sensible, detailed communications no longer have any value.

  • Comment number 99.

    I really liked the previous homepage, and your stupid attempts to say it's better than the old one is pathetic, as it is worse as a result of cuts.

    Two examples of how it is worse, is that when I click on documentaries, there is no alphabetical list of previous documentaries, now they are impossible to find.

    And also there used to be a link to previous special reports, which is no longer there, which is a shame as I was listening to somethings about communism

  • Comment number 100.

    Re: the new website look: The streaming audio is frequently interrupted every 5-15 minutes for no known reason. I can restart the programme from the home page and it will pick up where it left off, but what a hassle! Perhaps this does not relate to the new website... Am I the only one having these issues?

    I also miss the audio buttons on the old website that allowed me to start streaming from the main site without having to go to the individual programme pages.

 

Page 1 of 2

More from this blog...

Latest contributors

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.