BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Website problems

Post categories:

Steve Herrmann Steve Herrmann | 09:42 UK time, Thursday, 5 November 2009

Some people will have had trouble accessing the BBC website in the past few hours. We've had a network failure that has resulted in access to the site being slow and at some points inaccessible. Our network provider's engineers are working on restoring normal service as soon as possible. We're sorry for the inconvenience.

Update, 11:07: I'm pleased to say the problems should now be fixed - we're not aware of any remaining issues.

Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    I think there could have been other problems. For some reason I was asked to sign in and register again a couple of days ago.
    Is the other problem I flagged up a couple of weeks ago sorted ??

  • Comment number 2.

    Er...I've just checked, no it isn't.

  • Comment number 3.

    Oh dear !

  • Comment number 4.

    ..and er, another problem I flagged up a few months ago is repeating itself.
    i.e. ''you are currently signed in as SSnotbanned'' then it calls me ''you''.
    See post#1 above.

  • Comment number 5.

    I think the registering again thing a few days ago might have been the prompt to upgrade to the BBC's new ID system as described here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/welcome_to_bbc_id.html

    As for the second "issue", is that not just clarify that you yourself made the comment in more personal language? I don't think its a fault with the usernames, it'll say "you wrote" above this post when I've posted it too because I am signed in.

  • Comment number 6.

    It's far from fixed. Been having horrendous problems since 0700 this morning. On different computers, different ISP's, different physical locations etc etc.

    Browsing the pages is very slow and streaming the live news channel is pretty much impossible (i.e I get 3 seconds, then it buffers for about 20 minutes, then another 3 seconds, etc etc".

    At least admit there's a fault...please?!

  • Comment number 7.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 8.

    Still cannot connect at all here on any bbc online radio stations?

  • Comment number 9.

    In reply to comments @ #6:

    "At least admit there's a fault...please?!"

    Did you actually bother to read Steve's blog before firing off...

  • Comment number 10.

    @9 - Yes, I did, specifically this:

    "Update, 11:07: I'm pleased to say the problems should now be fixed - we're not aware of any remaining issues. "

    Did you even bother to note the time of my post?

    Still having problems at home today, will try it at work later and report back.

  • Comment number 11.

    I think you'll find that the notion that things are fixed is VERY optimistic. The sign on platform still creeks; it still refuses to accept entries.... and I am still awaiting a response to my technical fault report sent a week ago....

    what is that message now... "There has been an unexpected problem. Please reload the page and try again."

    even on a newly created account.....

  • Comment number 12.

    10. At 06:30am on 06 Nov 2009, neilmonk wrote:

    [my emphasis]

    "@9 - Yes, I did [read the original blog], specifically this:

    "Update, 11:07: I'm pleased to say the problems should now be fixed - we're not aware of any remaining issues. "


    Obviously not, considering what you said in #6...

    "At least admit there's a fault...please?!"

  • Comment number 13.

    @12

    I think you may have considered emphasising the words "pleased to say" which rather suggests "all is well"!

    Of course, I am drawing on all my experience of people passing on "good news" a little prematurely. Please see my entry at 11.

  • Comment number 14.

    *facepalm*

  • Comment number 15.

    problem has not been fixed 6 nov --will not play tv or radio programmes

  • Comment number 16.

    One thing is for sure. There is no point complaing via Have Your Say as anything critical of the BBC is automatically rejected.

  • Comment number 17.

    Cool, now how about you do something about the completely random & unpredictable way you seem to decide what to publish and when on the main comments threads.

    Its completely arbitry and senseless at the moment. If you want us to spend our time contributing then surely its only polite to publish the comments within a reasonable time of the original posting, or at least give us an explanation, as with the blogs, why its been moderated or ignored.

    At the moment the site seems to be run on a casual part-time basis, i suspect the moderators have other duties which take priority over HYS, which is fair enough, but you could at least try to update a couple of times an hour.

    A bit of consistency on the moderation front would be nice too.

  • Comment number 18.

    Steve:

    When I went to BBC Website at 0820AM Eastern Time on Friday...
    It was working perfectly....

    =Dennis Junior=

  • Comment number 19.

    Eastern as in Norwich?

  • Comment number 20.

    Its working now!!

  • Comment number 21.

    A number of [an error occurred while processing this directive] messages are appearing on the homepage.

  • Comment number 22.

    im not sure if this is the right place to post but could somebody who is writing the news headlines up please spell sergeant correctly. i refer to the latest soldier to die in afghanistan named headline. it is spelled with a g and not a j.

    thankyou

  • Comment number 23.

    This maybe a bit off topic, but I find the BBC news to be quite informative. I would like to feature it in a health blog posting BBC health news on it. Is this possible?

  • Comment number 24.

    Hi all,

    I'm now able to watch video from the site again, including the live stuff - for the first time in several days.

    Whatever the problem was, it's been fixed overnight.

  • Comment number 25.

    Guys, you have still not sorted the sign in problem on these blogs (see #11 above). Do you have any idea what you are doing? The new sign on screens with the password change and information options and the email confirmation all work but when you try to POST a message you still get the following message

    "There has been an unexpected problem. Please reload the page and try again."

    Please sort it.

  • Comment number 26.

    Steve - I would just like to register my horrendous lack of disgust. I didn't even notice there was a problem (and I use the site all the time).

    I don't know why I pay my licence fee...

    Yours
    in Tunbridge Wells

  • Comment number 27.

    Not sure if it's related but I'm seeing (at 17:00 GMT) delays of a few seconds completing page loads - looks like it's pausing to load irrelevant adverts (I'm UK based but cursed by assumptions geo-ip are making because I'm working for an American company).

    If I must be subjected to adverts can they non-region specific and load quickly please. delays in seconds for each page load will certainly loose me as a viewer from work and I'm sure will be a significant detractor for any genuine international customers of these resource.

  • Comment number 28.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 29.

    Since last week I have been unable to access any of the BBC radio stations, I can access independent radio, all BBC television programmes. I am using my office computer, none of the other members of staff have this problem. It was working last Wednesday and then come Thursday failed, all I get it the circle going round and round. Our IT chappie has no idea. Any advice please.

  • Comment number 30.

    I have today tried to "Listen Live" to BBC Radio 2. No problem last week - this week am told (when using Safari) to enable Java Script. It is enabled!!!! When using Firefox I am told to update Flash player - I did and now have version 9.0.246. It still does not work. Help.

  • Comment number 31.

    at the time of posting I still get the odd page load error.

  • Comment number 32.

    0750hrs
    Took ages [over a minute] to load on two different computers running Safari and Firefox.

    Still a problem?

  • Comment number 33.

    Can I just echo #17

    The way HYS comments are actually published is farcical, I posted one at about 1.30 AM yet my comment was still 'awaiting moderstion' well into this afternoon yet other later posts were appearing in the HYS stream.

    This is an ongoing issue and has happened to me several times. If you request comments please deal with them in the order they are submitted by users. At present it seams like the moderators just grab a load of comments off the top of the pile and deal with them without any thought to when they were submitted.

  • Comment number 34.

    Again the problem flagged up previously,continues.
    1:Subtle differences in username is being accepted providing the password is correct.
    ((Hint (again))
    Ssnotbanned
    2:Prior to the above complaint, another problem. I got prevented from using a past username (mindthegjc)because someone registered a very similar username and different password to me. I couldn't get access at all after that, so had to change(username).

  • Comment number 35.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 36.

    A bbc website that has suddenly disappeared!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm

    Yet you can read the full text of it if you google it and look through its cache.

    Can it be that the BBC is censoring itself?! A claim made frequently in my favorite bbc blog thread (and proved yet again):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

    Why can't we discuss this subject? There is more discussion on more heretical subjects... but not the science within...

  • Comment number 37.

    36. At 7:34pm on 12 Nov 2009, ynda20 wrote:

    "A bbc website that has suddenly disappeared!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm

    Yet you can read the full text of it if you google it and look through its cache.

    Can it be that the BBC is censoring itself?! A claim made frequently in my favorite bbc blog thread (and proved yet again):"


    Looks more like a simple server side scripting error to me, the page template is there, just not the CMS content, if the page was being 'censored' then all one would get is a 404 page error. I supose it's easier to just suggest a conspiracy than go in search of a little basic webpage knowledge...

    "http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

    Why can't we discuss this subject? There is more discussion on more heretical subjects... but not the science within..."


    Could it be that the page is now over a year old and with Five Thousand Five hundred (yes, 5500) comments to that blog surely all that could be said has been said?!

  • Comment number 38.

    @37, Hi Boilerplated,

    I'm not really too sure what you mean about a server-side script error. One day it was there, the next day it is not. I guess I could be being paranoid but on the otherhand I do have evidence of the suppression of 9/11 news and discussion.

    Within the 5500 comments within

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

    it has identified countless times where the BBC has been economical with the truth. Pushing, for instance, one side of the argument and ignoring evidence within published science papers and other evidence that casts doubts on the official 9/11 story. I'll mention just three:

    a) The collapse of WTC7, which was pre-announced and fell at freefall acceleration (indicating that it was a man-made and not a natural collapse). There are books written about this event and its cover-up but have you heard about it?
    b) Molten metal - seen pouring from the side of the WTC1 and found underneath WTC 1, 2 and 7 - Ground Zero was boot-meltingly hot for months. This has never been explained by the official story and cannot be explained by natural collapses.
    c) Prof N Harrit, a reputable Danish scientist, has identified an exotic explosive, nano-thermite in the Ground Zero dust and published his peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. (This is easy to google). While official story scientists cannot agree on the collapse mechanism or even the temperatures inside the buildings, Harrit proves conclusively that the tower collapses were not natural.

    5500 comments were enough to prove... we are being lied to. Not one credible piece of evidence to support the official story...

    Sorry if this sounds conspiratorial, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. But hey, even the official story is a conspiracy, right? Have you heard of Sibel Edmonds?

  • Comment number 39.

    In reply to comments made @ #38:

    [nothing worthy of quotation]

    I guess that it's easier to shoot the messenger than find a clue, easier to find a conspiracy than face the unconformable facts, if you can't be bothered to find a clue about missing web-page content how can you seriously have a clue about something like attacks on 9/11 (and indeed 7/7 no doubt)...

    Sorry but the [WTC attack] facts DO hold up, it's the conspiracy and the multiple posting accounts boosting the conspiracy theories that do not stack up, prove that multiple accounts were not used in that blog - now there's a conspiracy for you!

  • Comment number 40.

    @39. Boilerplated wrote:

    "In reply to comments made @ #38:

    [nothing worthy of quotation]

    I guess that it's easier to shoot the messenger than find a clue, easier to find a conspiracy than face the unconformable facts, if you can't be bothered to find a clue about missing web-page content how can you seriously have a clue about something like attacks on 9/11 (and indeed 7/7 no doubt)...

    Sorry but the [WTC attack] facts DO hold up, it's the conspiracy and the multiple posting accounts boosting the conspiracy theories that do not stack up, prove that multiple accounts were not used in that blog - now there's a conspiracy for you!"


    Well the web page has not re-appeared. Emails have been sent to the BBC. I agree it would have been easier to delete the whole page but I image that the workflow to alter content may have been quicker and easier. I presume you agree, at least, that the page put up on Wednesday (and available on google-cache) has at least been deliberately altered since then?

    Which facts about 9/11 hold up? Because I have seen nothing presented in a court of law or anything that would be legally admissible in a court of law. If you know of anything then please let me know.

    Er, so you are you suggesting that there was only one (or two) people posting and the same people replying to their own post in this thread:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

    Even though, for example, there are hundreds of named architects and engineers asking similar questions at www.ae911truth.org or hundreds of other professionals asking questions at http://patriotsquestion911.com/ - yet somehow questions in that blog thread are just a paranoid delusion?

    I guess you have heard that Charlie Sheen (highest paid actor on US TV) has asked to debate 9/11 with anyone that can defend the official story and yet no network has taken him up on the challenge? Now you would have thought that they must be somebody, somewhere that could could take on a mere actor and defend the official story? Apparently not.

    Hence my worries...

  • Comment number 41.

    #40. At 4:04pm on 13 Nov 2009, ynda20 wrote:

    "Hence my worries..."

    Yes, and hence mine, you are far to quick to smell a conspiracy than go find a clue...

  • Comment number 42.

    re #40 and my reply @ #41:

    forgot to add;

    "Er, so you are you suggesting that there was only one (or two) people posting and the same people replying to their own post in this thread:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12"


    Who knows, after all people like you are claiming that it was possible to fake 9/11, to do the above would be a snitch, perhaps not a couple of people but certainly less than all those who would have needed to be 'in on it' whilst faking 9/11.

    Life, who needs one when you have a conspiracy theory or two?...

  • Comment number 43.

    42. Boilerplated wrote:

    "Who knows, after all people like you are claiming that it was possible to fake 9/11, to do the above would be a snitch, perhaps not a couple of people but certainly less than all those who would have needed to be 'in on it' whilst faking 9/11. Life, who needs one when you have a conspiracy theory or two?..."

    Hmmm, so I point you to to thousands of named people that have expressed concern about 9/11 (at ae911truth.org) and you just say "forget it" - who cares about Illegal Wars, Wars of Terror, Torture - just as long as the BBC and government tells me that everything is ok and that my "life" doesn't need to worry about such details. Ho hum...

    Tell me more about the official conspiracy story that you trust so much...

  • Comment number 44.

    43. At 11:23pm on 13 Nov 2009, ynda20 wrote:

    "Hmmm, so I point you to to thousands of named people that have expressed concern about 9/11 (at ae911truth.org) and you just say "forget it"...//..

    Prove that that are not the same person or people, after all you are the one who is telling us "9/11, forget it, the video is not real,. the CCTV is not real, the ATC radar is not real". As I said, if 9/11 could be faked then faking a few (thousand) internet comments, pages or what ever would be a snitch and then (like a snowball) it then just needs people like you to come along and carry on!

    If "9/11" can be a conspiracy then so can the "9/11 conspiracy theory".

    Feel free to have the last word on all this carp (it's way off topic anyway), I'm off to have a life, I suggest that you do like wise...

  • Comment number 45.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 46.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 47.

    45,46

    Great. I complain about censorship and I get censored. It is not off-topic!

  • Comment number 48.

    #47. At 10:10am on 15 Nov 2009, ynda20 wrote:

    "It is not off-topic!"

    I suggest that you actually bother to read the blog...

    [quote - my emphasis]
    "Some people will have had trouble accessing the BBC website in the past few hours. We've had a network failure that has resulted in access to the site being slow and at some points inaccessible."
    [unquote]

    Thus this blog is NOT about editorial decisions nor conspiracy theories.

  • Comment number 49.

    Hey, I thought you were going to let me have the last word on this subject? :-)

    The blog concludes by saying "...we're not aware of any remaining issues"

    I have pointed out an issue and now you too are admitting it is an "editorial decision" - rather than a server script problem?

  • Comment number 50.

    #49

    The blog concludes by saying "...we're not aware of any remaining issues"

    Yes, about the network failure!

    If you spent as much time finding a clue as you do finding a conspiracy around every twist in the road...

  • Comment number 51.

    Boilerplated wrote: "...finding a conspiracy around every twist in the road..."

    But isn't this you arguing from a specific and making a generalization? Why are you so determined to "put me in my place"? Is is perfectly natural to ask questions - apparently my Doublethink isn't as finely tuned as yours!

    So you claim better technical understanding than me, what is your technical explanation why the website below is not displaying the content it contained last Wednesday?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm

  • Comment number 52.

    #51. At 5:34pm on 15 Nov 2009, ynda20 wrote:

    [../cut rant/..]

    "So you claim better technical understanding than me, what is your technical explanation why the website below is not displaying the content it contained last Wednesday?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm"


    I think you mean "web page"...

    But what you complain about is NOT a network fault, and thus off topic here, as you would known if you bothered finding a clue rather than a conspiracy theory!

    This page, http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/default.stm (the BBC Suffolk 'Home Page'), is working., so the NETWORK is up and running, the server is up and running, if they were not than that page would not be accessible either.

    Might I suggest that you read this page, and then follow the instructions found there and notify them of the problem... Of course had you bothered to find a clue rather than yet another conspiracy theory you might have found that self same web page...

  • Comment number 53.

    Thanks, bolierplated, for the useful information. I, of course, agree with you that the failure of that one web page is nothing to do with a network failure.

  • Comment number 54.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 55.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 56.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 57.

    Over the past month it was obviously that BBC News webpage was having problems, now the problem does not seem any better and in fact worse, and I have already tried to email through a different method, and so far no response. In fact you cannot go into any of the subjects for long, the cursor freezes or error on page comes up. There does not seem to be any satisfactory reasons and I am wondering how long this problem is going to continue. There is nothing wrong with my machine as I first thought and it was only when I went on the blog that I found out there had been problems for a while. Any chance that someone will read this and sort this mess out asap. thank you

  • Comment number 58.

    #57, your problem is most likely something to do with your operating system, your browser settings, one or more browser plug-in, it could even be an issue with your own ISP/network, it's certainly nothing to do with the BBC's network fault that was the subject of this blog...

  • Comment number 59.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 60.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 61.

    When I went to BBC Website it was working fine mate.

  • Comment number 62.

    Hello

    I searched for a place name in “What’s in a Name?”(very interesting and informative).
    However, there seems to be a broken link.
    This was the page I accessed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/whatsinaname/sites/placenametool/?q=Rassau
    When I tried to comment there was an error message:
    "Error: Configuration file /home/system/data/wales/whatsinaname/cas/sendemail/sendemail.cfg does not exist [failed to render error template - Can't locate template /home/system/data/apps/ifl/sendemail/error.tmpl - file not found at /home/system/cgi-perl/apps/ifl/sendemail.pl line 28]"
    Hope you can fix it

    Thanks

  • Comment number 63.

    I have been using iplayer to watch the news and to my dismay the news at ten will not play? why does the BBC do this?

 

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.