Food Q&A  permalink

Ask the host

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 201 - 250 of 401
  • Message 201

    , in reply to message 199.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    To be brutally honest I don't care two hoots for how much worse off other BBC boards are. THIS is the board I post on, and it should not have so many design flaws and bugs in it. The techies who are supposed to fix these problems appear to be out of their depth - or else they are swamped with other, more urgent work. 

    Nothing wrong with being self centered TT but at least if problems affect other BBC mb those users are likely to support you.

    Unfortunately this Food mb was the Guinea Pig and so suffers unnecessarily.I would hope the Beeb dare not continue rolling this out onto other messgeboards. (but then I did not expect them to trash the R4 boards - www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... ).

    Report message1

  • Message 202

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by fiorella (U14428035) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    The Food MB was not the guinea pig actually John.
    The same changes happened on the BBC Disability Ouch Board over a year ago.
    Same problems, same dissatisfaction...not much learned or been taken on board unfortunately.

    Report message2

  • Message 203

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    "I should not need to check in preview."  
    That is where we differ. I ALWAYS check that my links work before I post. I learned the hard way. I posted a link that I had copied from my file of digital recipes and didn't notice that it was no longer a valid link.

    Also, sometimes links to a particular page do not work, even if copied and pasted in another tab. Most times one can link to the home page and direct people to search from there.

    I have never noticed that my links do not work subsequent to a successful posting.

    Your link, as before, shows Scribbler's past discussions. No change there.

    Report message3

  • Message 204

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    "Nothing wrong with being self centered TT..." 
    WHAT???? Hey, I resemble that comment!! Why should I be self centred just because I don't care to look at messageboards for radio and TV shows that I cannot even get where I live? Indeed!!

    :P ..... and an indignant toss of the head!

    Report message4

  • Message 205

    , in reply to message 202.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    Hi Fiorella

    I obviously will not be aware of all changes made on all boards. The Beeb tweeked the iplayer boards and the ID sytem a few times but I think the current discussion hinges

    (my understanding I may be wrong and others opinions may differ)

    on the changes mentioned in these two BBC blogs and specifically when such were applied firstly to the Food mb then secondly to the R4 mb. www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    (the Archers mb temporarily seems to have escaped changes)
    Blogs --> www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... & www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    Report message5

  • Message 206

    , in reply to message 203.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    Hi TT,
    Hold on to your hat, I am not trying to sytart an argument.

    In your message #203 you quote me saying
    * "I should not need to check in preview." *
    you then say "Your link, as before, shows Scribbler's past discussions. No change there. "

    If you are refering to my msg#198 that as i see it shows a link as intended to Ol post.

    Your msg#204 smiley - peacedove
    <quote>WHAT???? Hey, I resemble that comment!! Why should I be self centred just because I don't care to look at messageboards for radio and TV shows that I cannot even get where I live? Indeed!! <quote>
    No offence meant. I see nothing wrong with you being interested in whatever it is you are interested in, you have no need to be interested in other things, I myself like food & R4, but not opera: so may comment on food but would not think of reading about or commenting on opera - but if this snafu continues onto the R3 mb I may well comment about the mb changes there also.

    <quote>Your link, as before, shows Scribbler's past discussions. No change there. <quote>
    Unless we are using different nicknames for the same person or other wise misunderstanding then we each see something different, in which case maybe yet another bug
    Maybe it depends where you are in the N/NF system what a link actually shows or redirects to.

    Report message6

  • Message 207

    , in reply to message 205.

    Posted by Rosie (U2959985) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    In reply to John99:

    Hi Fiorella

    I obviously will not be aware of all changes made on all boards. The Beeb tweeked the iplayer boards and the ID sytem a few times but I think the current discussion hinges

    (my understanding I may be wrong and others opinions may differ)

    on the changes mentioned in these two BBC blogs and specifically when such were applied firstly to the Food mb then secondly to the R4 mb.  


    Fiorella was correct and you are incorrect.

    The changes did DOT apply first to the Food mb and then secondly to the R4 mg.

    The first mb that had the new format was the Ouch Disability mb and that was some time ago. I should know as I was a regular poster on that board from early 2005 until the change, and have rarely posted on it since.

    www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/m...

    However, if you look at the top right hand of the page you will see the following options:

    Change font size &
    colours on this site

    A lot of Ouch posters left because of the changes. Just as a lot of Food posters have.

    Report message7

  • Message 208

    , in reply to message 195.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    In reply to jollymrsowl:
    Hallo OI

    I've missed you. Where abouts are you in Mustardland. I've looked and not found. Also not seen on Wildfood

    MrsOwl
     


    I think you've already been told where I am in Mustardland - just click on my name for my posts lists. Mainly "discuss the archers"

    I got suspended from Wildfood for a week for having the temerity to disagree with a moderator there who was in dispute with someone else. Not been back since.

    Steve

    Report message8

  • Message 209

    , in reply to message 208.

    Posted by Sloe-Gin (U9887997) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    Come back, sunshine. I've missed you!

    Report message9

  • Message 210

    , in reply to message 207.

    Posted by Westsussexbird or Birdy aka Westie (U6316532) on Saturday, 9th October 2010

    That is a really good facility ... I wonder if it will be available on all the new format boards.

    Report message10

  • Message 211

    , in reply to message 202.

    Posted by pea whistle (U14517419) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    The Food MB was not the guinea pig actually John.
    The same changes happened on the BBC Disability Ouch Board over a year ago.
    Same problems, same dissatisfaction...not much learned or been taken on board unfortunately.
     


    Yes. Also last year's Strictly Come Dancing Board used this 'new' system - and the three minute counter wasn't working then either!

    Report message11

  • Message 212

    , in reply to message 203.

    Posted by meto (U14090385) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Quote from Msg #203 [quote] In reply to TexasTitch:

    "I should not need to check in preview."

    That is where we differ. I ALWAYS check that my links work before I post. ...[endquote]

    Hi TexasTitch. I've found that preview no longer shows links as a clicky, so only way to check is if you copy/paste it into URL line, which is a bit daft as that's where it came from to begin with. Only way to chick that I can see is after a post has been submitted.

    That said, I use Mozilla Firefox - I guess links could show differently in preview mode for other browsers maybe?

    Report message12

  • Message 213

    , in reply to message 212.

    Posted by NoFrillz (U14455049) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    I use Firefox Meto and links in preview are clickable for me
    (although the links show as truncated rather than the full URL which means they wont take up so much space)

    Let me double check here with a recipe I'm looking at
    www.independent.co.u...

    Yes, it works, shows green and is clickable.

    Report message13

  • Message 214

    , in reply to message 213.

    Posted by meto (U14090385) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    <LINK HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/recipes/cha-ca-la-vong-488545.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/recipes/cha-ca-la-vong-488545.html</LINK><BR /><BR />How odd Frillz. In my preview, the above shows in full as text: "<LINK HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/recipes/cha-ca-la-vong-488545.html"">http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/recipes/cha-ca-la-vong-488545.html"</LINK><BR /><BR />*Scratches head and rubs chin* Still, as long as we get there eventually it doesn't matter really as someone will say if a link doesn't work, so no worries.

    Report message14

  • Message 215

    , in reply to message 214.

    Posted by meto (U14090385) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Hmmm. Can't get the link to show in text now as it appears in preview on my screen. Try this: "http :// www. independent. co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/recipes/cha-ca-la-vong-488545. html" (ignoring my inserted spaces).

    Report message15

  • Message 216

    , in reply to message 215.

    Posted by LaConchita (U8276927) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Not clickable in links for me, using IE.

    Report message16

  • Message 217

    , in reply to message 216.

    Posted by Paulthebread (U3840406) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Clickable for me in preview, using Safari.smiley - biggrin

    Report message17

  • Message 218

    , in reply to message 215.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    @ Meto, message 212 and ff
    “I've found that preview no longer shows links as a clicky, so only way to check is if you copy/paste it into URL line, which is a bit daft as that's where it came from to begin with. Only way to chick that I can see is after a post has been submitted.

    That said, I use Mozilla Firefox - I guess links could show differently in preview mode for other browsers maybe?” 


    Meto, I use Mozilla Firefox and the links work in preview for me. I have no idea why they don’t work for you. When you type [or copy and paste] a link, do you make sure you include the http bit at the front? It must be there. Do you also make sure that there is no bracket of any kind just in front of the http bit? Likewise, the link should not be enclosed in any quote marks.

    Report message18

  • Message 219

    , in reply to message 218.

    Posted by meto (U14090385) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Well, I'm even more confused now!

    When I posted Msg 214, it showed both links as clickies for some reason, hence posting Msg 215 with spaces in the address to show it as text as seen on my preview screen.

    Now Msg 214 is showing the first link as a clicky and the second one as text (which is how I expected it to arrive in the first place). So if anyone can explain how the second clicky can suddenly turn into text in Msg 214 (you'll know I can't edit a message), then you're a better man than I.

    Anyway, as far as I'm concerned I can't check links in preview, so, well that's that unless something (whatever that might be) changes. Hey ho.

    Report message19

  • Message 220

    , in reply to message 219.

    Posted by meto (U14090385) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Well, since posting (plus server busy interruptions, the second link has gone from clicky to text to clicky and back to text again. I wish I could post screenshots to show to the men in white coats when they arrive.

    MInd you, it said I had to sign in (I was) and trying to reply simply took me back to Msg 1 of the thread.

    Is the new board like Monopoly? Do not pass Go?

    Report message20

  • Message 221

    , in reply to message 211.

    Posted by Rosie (U2959985) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    In reply to dog whistle:

    The Food MB was not the guinea pig actually John.
    The same changes happened on the BBC Disability Ouch Board over a year ago.
    Same problems, same dissatisfaction...not much learned or been taken on board unfortunately.



    Yes. Also last year's Strictly Come Dancing Board used this 'new' system - and the three minute counter wasn't working then either!  


    I have no idea when Strictly Come Dancing board started, but I can assure you that the Ouch Disability board was in existence way before SCD was.

    And for the Ouch posters, the Ouch board is way more important than the what, once a year? SCD board?

    Perhaps the fact that most Ouch posters can not dance might think you are less worthy than a once-a-year series such as SCD?

    Please wake up and smell the flowers.

    A Strictly Come Dancing message board is no way as necessary as the Ouch Disability board is, therefore to compare the two is really not right.

    SCD will not last forever, whereas the posters on Ouch are in it for life.

    Report message21

  • Message 222

    , in reply to message 221.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    "Yes. Also last year's Strictly Come Dancing Board used this 'new' system - and the three minute counter wasn't working then either!" 

    Rosie, when I read that post from Dogwhistle, I don't see any denigration of the board for those with disabilities, merely a comment to back you up that the Food boards were certainly not the guinea pigs. smiley - peacedove

    Report message22

  • Message 223

    , in reply to message 222.

    Posted by fiorella (U14428035) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    Yes - I think Dogwhistle was simply mentioning that similar changes had happened on the SCD board.
    Nothing else.

    Report message23

  • Message 224

    , in reply to message 223.

    Posted by Rosie (U2959985) on Sunday, 10th October 2010

    In reply to fiorella:

    Fair enough. But I still fail to see why a Strictly Come Dancing board, which is not a regular BBC message board, has to be used as an "oh dear, we had to put up with the change" without even considering the fact that, as you had already said, the Ouch board was the first one to suffer from the "new and improved" format.

    Actually I give up. When a temporary Strictly Come Dancing board is more important than a years old 24 hours a day board, that is when I know for certain that the BBC really is not interested in "normal" posters.

    What on earth has Strictly Come Dancing to do with food? OK so neither has the Ouch board got anything to do with food, so why are they being discussed?

    Just to put it straight. The Food board was not the first board to be lumbered with this format.

    The Strictly Come Dancing board was not the first board to be lumbered with this format.

    From what I understand from the blogs and comments, all BBC message boards will all be lumbered with this format.

    But the very first one was the Ouch messageboard.

    And the faults/problems have yet to be fully sorted on that board, over a year later, so what chance has this Food board got?

    As much chance as an empty sardine can.

    Report message24

  • Message 225

    , in reply to message 224.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    I am good at opening my mouth and sticking my foot in it ; is that a food related comment ?

    my other unresearched comments are about the changes are

    - All boards will change
    - - I think all boards will be changing, the BBC did say in the blog that they hoped all would be changed by the end of October (That may well be getting delayed now - or at least users will hope it is delayed untill the changes work, and some of the buggs are fixed)

    - Was the Food board first ?
    - - it was the first one I noticed had been changed, I could obviously be wrong if others did change

    - is OUCH going to change further ??
    - - has anyone asked about that,
    - - it is possible changes last year are not related to the current round of changes, and so Ouch may well be total revised yet again complete with the small close linespaced text.

    - R4 (afaik ) are the latest boards to have been improved
    and certainly yesterday were suffering badly with the board being locked for new discussions, but a 500= comment thread about the changes. (www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... )

    Report message25

  • Message 226

    , in reply to message 225.

    Posted by fiorella (U14428035) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    I am good at opening my mouth and sticking my foot in it ; is that a food related comment ?  smiley - biggrin

    Yes all the boards will change eventually. For better or for worse it's going to happen.
    I can't find anything anywhere about someone claiming the SCD board was more important than Ouch..or anything else. The references to Ouch and SCD were purely to mention that similar changes had happened elsewhere before they happened here.
    And that is all.

    Report message26

  • Message 227

    , in reply to message 224.

    Posted by Scoobydoo (U11966922) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    <quote>Actually I give up. When a temporary Strictly Come Dancing board is more important than a years old 24 hours a day board, that is when I know for certain that the BBC really is not interested in "normal" posters.
    </quote/
    Your message started with "Fair enough" yet you repeat your ill concluded assertion from an innocent post.
    I give up.

    Report message27

  • Message 228

    , in reply to message 227.

    Posted by Rosie (U2959985) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    In reply to Scoobydoo:

    My "Fair enough" comment was in respect of Fiorella's post #223. Nothing more, nothing less.

    You can make of that comment as your please, but I still say that a regular 24 hours a day BBC messageboard should take precedence over a temporary SCD board.

    Report message28

  • Message 229

    , in reply to message 225.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    @ John99, message 206
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Sorry for confusing you, John. Yes, we are talking about the same person. I called Scribbler by his nickname he used when he first joined the food boards. I think he gets bored with the same old name all the time and every so often he changes it to something else. It’s usually quite an interesting name, but I have given up trying to call him something else, only to find that as soon as I get used to it, he has gone and changed it again! Now I just call him Scribbler all the time and forget that newcomers to the board may not recognise him by his original name.

    The occasional and random publication of a post with links and/or smileys as HTML gobbledegook has been explained to us by another poster [Peet] as stemming from an old problem with a rogue server that has reappeared. If your post happens to go through that server, then you are the “lucky” one with the gobbledegook message!


    @ La Conchita, message 216
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    I have signed in on Windows Internet Explorer this time, and my links still work in preview. I cannot explain what is happening when you preview.

    Report message29

  • Message 230

    , in reply to message 229.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    @ John99, message 197

    ”It may be enlightening to explore other BBC messageboards especially the newly improved R4 before being too critical of the situation here.” 
    From what people tell me about the changeover to the new, shiny version of other messageboards, and from what I have read on the other boards myself [thanks for the link to R4 – very interesting], the basic problems are exactly the same on all the boards. We are not asking for anything different from what we had before the changeover. We don’t need support from people on other boards; it must be painfully obvious to everyone at the BBC that some of their utilities are not working. It is quite disheartening to realise that the BBC knew of these bugs and design flaws a long time ago and appear to have done nothing to fix them, or are not capable of fixing them. Why do they continue to roll out the same bug-infested board template when they know perfectly well that major flaws have not been corrected?


    QUESTION FOR HOST RAMONA:

    Check out this link given by Rosie:
    www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/m...

    Look towards the top right. Those user-selected font size and colour changes on the Ouch board look very useful and may alleviate many of the readability problems on Food Q&A. I found the Ouch board much more pleasant to read when I changed it to the yellower tones. Please may we have that same utility incorporated in Food Q&A?

    Report message30

  • Message 231

    , in reply to message 230.

    Posted by meto (U14090385) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    Replying generally, I take Rosie's point that the BBC is likely to fix currently popular boards much faster than it will ongoing boards - I suppose that's inevitable when the Beeb knows that its performance will be judged more instantly by a voluminous if shortlived influx of posters.

    It is beyond me as to why the BBC "rolls out" so-called improvements, since, if existing and "improved" formats can run simultaneously, there is seemingly no technical need to introduce before bugs are fixed. I suppose it's to meet time targets imposed and then it's just too bad for the users who have to live with the unfixed bugs. I can't see a business surviving for long if run that way.

    Report message31

  • Message 232

    , in reply to message 231.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    Hi Texas Titch,
    I agree that is a useful function of the Ouch board. I've asked the team leading the messageboard changes why we can't have that on this board and will let you know once I hear back from them.
    Ramona

    Report message32

  • Message 233

    , in reply to message 232.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    Thanks very much, Ramona! smiley - biggrin

    Report message33

  • Message 234

    , in reply to message 232.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 11th October 2010

    Ramona - could you also ask them why we can't have an easily readable font in the first place?

    I presume it is not actually INTENDED to discourage people over 45? Or is it?

    Report message34

  • Message 235

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Rosie (U2959985) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010

    Good afternoon Ramona

    Whilst I appreciate that part of your job is to promote the blogs by posting links to them on this board, do you think that you could possibly address any of the major problems that are still waiting to be fixed?

    I am sure that the television programme which is the subject of the latest blog is very interesting, but as with the blog about EastEnders, it is hardly a food programme, is it.

    Thank you.

    Report message35

  • Message 236

    , in reply to message 232.

    Posted by Tatihou (U6849712) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010

    Hello Ramona -

    A blog request: With Masterchef Professional underway at the moment, it is interesting to see the elimination rounds and watch a dish being created by Michel Roux or Monica and then watch the contestants try.

    It appears the contestants are given a recipe / instruction sheet but I - and others - would love to know how detailed the recipe and instructions are. Is it sheer nerves that leads to 7 cloves being added to a dish instead of 1 or isn't the recipe that precise?

    Could we have a blog on how this part of the show is put together and particularly may we have sight of one of the recipe / instruction sheets as given to one of the young chefs. I'd find it particularly interesting as I'd be able to judge how competent I'd be at this task... or how utterly incompetent. smiley - biggrin

    Thanks in advance.

    Report message36

  • Message 237

    , in reply to message 235.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010

    Hello all,
    David Williams from the technical team has written another blog post about the latest fixes:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    I hope this helps.

    He also tells me that they're looking into the font size issue on the request of many of the messageboarders here. They won't be able to supply the Ouch style selection option quickly as that’s something the Ouch team implemented themselves on a custom homepage, but they will be taking a look at the default font sizes.

    Report message37

  • Message 238

    , in reply to message 237.

    Posted by Wokman (U3734939) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010

    David Williams also says that each messageboard will be able to supply a custom set of emoticons.

    Do you intend to revert back to the emoticons that we have been using for the past few years, or add them back to the board as an option besides the old h2g2 emoticons?

    Report message38

  • Message 239

    , in reply to message 237.

    Posted by LaConchita (U8276927) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010

    Hi Ramona, many thanks for the link to David's post re fixes update. Might be good if you could copy and paste content into your reples thread as it will answer many q's and not all posters are confident with or can read links if they are at work. Thanks.

    Report message39

  • Message 240

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Tuesday, 19th October 2010

    Hi Ramona,

    As this thread appears to have slowed down so much it has stopped (a bit like the board?), I wonder if you would consider this previous post of mine


    Message 77. Posted by Denadar (U8017493) Thursday, 23rd September 2010 permalink forum: Ask the host

    Hi Ramona,

    Would you, could you, in the interests of peace on the board please reconsider the use of the word 'snagging'. It is such a small thing to cause such aggravation and an olive branch by you would be fantastic.

    The technical problems seem to be getting fixed and the main bone of contention now seems to be this word. I'm sure it would be considered a very magnanimous gesture on your part - we all miss Sakkarin's search engine so much, such a wealth of information seems to be too valuable to be lost.

    Please could you give this your most serious consideration.

    Thank you

    Dena

    Report message40

  • Message 241

    , in reply to message 240.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Snagging isn’t a word that’s banned in any way. I just politely requested that you could find something more constructive to write as a comment.

    I’m happy to cut and paste content into replies for people on the site, but I’m guessing that if you have access to our messageboard at work, it’s most likely you have access to the rest of the BBC, including the internet blog linked from above - sorry if I’ve got this wrong (hang on, not sure I should really be encouraging you to avoid working…) smiley - winkeye

    Finally, the original emoticons should be back now. Will be in touch as soon as I have more news about fixes.

    Report message41

  • Message 242

    , in reply to message 241.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Hi Ramona

    It appearsthat we have our on-line stars back - thank you.

    Why was the "tis is a reply to message xxx" changed to "link to"? I don't see this as an improvement - te otehr wording was much clearer IMO.

    To answer your questions, no - if we can access here it doesn't neccessarily mean that we hav eccess to all BBC sites.

    New question (or another go at asking it) - why is tehre no new MC Professionals page? It seems very odd that there isn't - surely there could have been a list of contestants, M Roux jr's recipes & a couple of semi-finalists own recipes? It seems to have no coverage whatsoever here.

    Report message42

  • Message 243

    , in reply to message 241.

    Posted by U14638467 (U14638467) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Good morning Ramona,

    Thank you for reaffirming the "snagging" situation. I was starting to think I was going mad with the replies I got when I posted the same.

    Report message43

  • Message 244

    , in reply to message 243.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Hi Cherry,

    There are nuances to this that are not immediately obvious smiley - peacedove and until this is sorted it doesn't seem that we will be able to access Sakkarin's search engine.

    Please forgive me if I am being presumptuous but I think you joined the boards after this was closed, and maybe don't realise what a fantastic facility this was. Far more useful (imho) than these food blogs and ask the chef type threads we have been given.

    Report message44

  • Message 245

    , in reply to message 244.

    Posted by U14638467 (U14638467) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Denadar,

    Yes I joined after it closed. On the site it says it closed due to the anti snagging rule.

    Snagging is not banned, as you have proved many times recently.

    What else do you want Ramona to do? (genuine question)

    The loss of the search engine is purely down to Sakkarin, not Ramona or the BBC.

    Report message45

  • Message 246

    , in reply to message 241.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Hi Ramona,

    I don't access the BBC from work - I retired many years ago - it is my own computer and my own time that I use. smiley - smiley

    Thanks for getting our emoticons back - they are so much nicer .

    Report message46

  • Message 247

    , in reply to message 244.

    Posted by Scoobydoo (U11966922) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    There are nuances to this that are not immediately obvious 
    Sorry Denadar, what are they?
    If snagging is not an issue isn't this totally in the hands of Sakkarin or am I missing something?

    Report message47

  • Message 248

    , in reply to message 242.

    Posted by Rosie (U2959985) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    As Dee said in message 241, why was the "this is a reply to message #xyz" changed to "link to this"?

    "Link to this" does absolutely nothing as far as I can tell, unless I am a total idiot, and I really don't think that I am that stupid. It certainly does not show to which message a poster is responding.

    For those posters who joined after the change to the board, before then if you clicked on "this is a reply to message #xyz", you were immediately taken back to that message, it appearing at the top of the page on which it was posted.

    Now? Unless you start a post saying "In reply to [name] in message #xyz" there is no way to know to which person/post you are responding.

    Report message48

  • Message 249

    , in reply to message 247.

    Posted by U14638467 (U14638467) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    Phew, Thank you Scoobydoo!

    Report message49

  • Message 250

    , in reply to message 249.

    Posted by Scoobydoo (U11966922) on Wednesday, 20th October 2010

    I'm not taking sides Cherry.
    I genuinely don't understand why it can't be resolved which is why I asked the question about nuances..

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

BBC Food messageboard

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

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.