Deleted  permalink

Points of View Message Board Blog Post 5

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 461 - 20 of 1436
  • Message 461. 

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Saturday, 12th January 2013

    Well the POV boards don't HAVE to be affiliated to the POV programme.

    They could have the POV name taken off them, I suppose.

    But would doing this make them any better than they are now?

    At the meeting I blogged Helen from the programme said she valued the boards, so I'd like to follow this lead, so to speak.

    Rest asssured Officer Dibble, as soon as there is a plan I'll tell you.

  • Message 462

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Saturday, 12th January 2013

    Well the POV boards don't HAVE to be affiliated to the POV programme.

    They could have the POV name taken off them, I suppose.

    But would doing this make them any better than they are now?

    At the meeting I blogged Helen from the programme said she valued the boards, so I'd like to follow this lead, so to speak.

    Rest assured Officer Dibble, as soon as there is a plan I'll tell you.

  • Message 463

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Saturday, 12th January 2013

    Sorry about the double posting.

    I'm doing this on the train - a slip of my fingers.

  • Message 464

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Saturday, 12th January 2013

    Nick

    Well the POV boards don't HAVE to be affiliated to the POV programme.

    They could have the POV name taken off them, I suppose.

    But would doing this make them any better than they are now?

    At the meeting I blogged Helen from the programme said she valued the boards, so I'd like to follow this lead, so to speak. 


    To be perfectly honest Nick, up to now, the Points of View programme have had very little input on the boards. It seems a bit strange to me, to have the messageboards called Points of View, when Points of View programme/staff (other than the occasional mention on the programme) have virtually washed their hands of the boards.

    IF Points of View programme IS going to align itself closer to the boards, then it would seem fair enough to keep the name, but, if it is going to be "more of the same" (no, or little input from programme staff), then, YES, I think BBC should rebrand the boards as BBC Feedback or something else.

    You have been using the name Points of View for the messageboards as one of the reasons why the Radio board does not sit well. If the boards were disassociated from the POV programme, there would be nothing in the way of having a Radio Feedback/TV Feedback and Miscellaneous BBC Feedback boards.

    I won't mention the double posting (oh I just did) <ok>

    Report message4

  • Message 465

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Saturday, 12th January 2013

    Nick as long as you decide to listen to and act on all the pleas that have

    been made here, and

    don't just decide to do it all your way, I think people would be a lot happier.

    Thanks in anticipation ! <laugh>

    Report message5

  • Message 466

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by jTemplar (U13714316) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    People - you may find this interesting:
    www.guardian.co.uk/m...

    john

    Report message6

  • Message 467

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:47 GMT, in reply to jtemplar in message 466

    Ok who blabbed?

    Report message7

  • Message 468

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    <laugh>

    Who was the "one reader"?

    But I can't help feeling that longer term, messageboards have too little structure to easily invite newer users, are complex to browse and don't have the topicality of chronologically organised blogs. Aren't they just a legacy format, headed the same way as betamax? It's not that blogs are the perfect answer, but that answer is probably a combination of many things far more open and distributable than messageboards.
    For that reason, I also think users are far more likely to have their voices heard on a good, readable, well-focused blog that has contributions from more senior production staff. Isn't that the point? 


    This ^^^^^ is worrying, though. :-(

    Report message8

  • Message 469

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Perhaps we should put the links to these threads onto that Guardian blog,

    so that people can come over here and read what we're all saying.

    Report message9

  • Message 470

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Typical media person outpourings, obsessed with the latest web developments like Twitters, unable to understand messagboards and blogs are complimentary approaches to feedback, not replacements for one another. Probably got an apartment in London stuffed with iPhones, Blackberries and everything else the techno-porn mags say is so cool this year.

    Report message10

  • Message 471

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Ooooooooooooh

    cricket

    I agree with you. That article says more concisely than the five blogs Nick has written, about where he sees messageboards going. Doesn't make for pleasant reading.

    Glad that the article pointed out the strength of messageboards is that WE get to start the threads and air OUR thoughts, rather than ONLY being able to answer blogs which are authored by BBC staff.

    Of course a lot of Nick's concerns could be rectified if he had the will to improve the boards properly (Search facility being the most important), better Hosting and Moderation, AND getting BBC staff to come onto the messageboards and talk to US THERE.

    Who was the "one reader 

    Maybe someone who Jem sent off to speak to the Daily Mail, or other newspapers and messageboards. <doh> Actually, it's probably a poster who has gone onto one of the Guardian blogs and voiced concerns, and so they have picked it up, and run with it. Careful what you ask us to do, Jem. And, before anyone asks, NO it was not me. I'd have gone to Sky News <laugh>

    IF BBC really want viewers talking to the wider audience of multitudes of messageboards and daily newspapers, then it turns on it's head, the concept of keeping problems "in-house".

    You can just see the Daily Mail journalists picking up titbits and running with them (rubbing their hands as they type out their article <doh>)

    OK the BBC messageboards are viewable by the general public (and newspaper journalist), BUT, VERY little in the way of complaints goes as far as newspaper articles. IF we have to post to newspapers, that could very well change, with journalists monitoring THEIR blogs for juicy comments.

    Report message11

  • Message 472

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    The article implies that the journalist has spoken to both Jem and Nick about this. Is that the case, guys?

    Report message12

  • Message 473

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Nick: to rewrite your twitter - "one man's evasion is another man's conspiracy"


    That Guardian article reveals your true feelings. It also reveals that you have not appreciated the fundamentals of our arguments.

    IMHO you were talking bunkum... especially all that rot about the comparative advantage of chronological topicality of Blogs. Tosh.... and you should know it.

    Report message13

  • Message 474

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    John

    You should post that link onto Nippie's thread on the Television Board, so that as wide an audience of POV Messageboarders see it. Then, maybe it needs a completely NEW thread, with a catchy thread name, so ALL messageboarders (including those who have wearied of the whole thing) can see it.


    Well spotted, by the way. <ok> I just popped in here BEFORE reading the newspapers.

    Report message14

  • Message 475

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by U13804688 (U13804688) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    "There is no conspiracy and no decisions have been made, said Nick Reynolds. What is going on is a shift towards a different way of making these kinds of decisions, he said."
    from the guardian article..it just makes your heart sink.."What is going on is a shift towards a different way of making these kinds of decisions". d'oh

    Report message15

  • Message 476

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:17 GMT, in reply to sparkysson in message 475

    Saying one thing and doing another is my impression. Yes it does make the heart sink.

    Report message16

  • Message 477

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    I've had the impression for a wee while, and I've posted it to previous blogs/messageboard threads, that what BBC propose, is to flannel a little, give us a few improvements, marginalise the POV messageboards, contract them out to an outside agency, and finally wash their hands of the whole thing.

    Not sure now, if they will even bother marginalising them. Just improve their beloved blogs (taking OUR ideas), give us a few improvements, then say "the boards are not working, so we shall close them".

    Report message17

  • Message 478

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Nick is evading us continually. The only candour we see is from jem in his single post, and on a third party website. 2 months on, and Nick is still incapable of summarizing the findings from our consultation. We could do it, he can't. He then shows his true colours in the Guardian, and reveals he has completely discounted our opinions and he has the same opinion as he stated on day one.


    Meanwhile he faffs about writing little, saying nothing. What a waste.

    Report message18

  • Message 479

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by U13804688 (U13804688) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    message 476 and 477 honestly what is happening here is the exact same process which destroyed 606/fans forum i know you are passionate users of this messageboard..but beware its all going to go to pot..keep up the fight...nick will leave ruins in his wake and disappear into the bbc mists..

    Report message19

  • Message 480

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Sunday, 13th January 2013

    Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:25 GMT, in reply to sparkysson in message 479

    A few of us from the beginning have said that the way these boards are going is going down the line of the 606 boards. In other words these boards are kaput. They will no longer exist and no matter how much Nick waffles about no decision has been made, it was made up more than 2 months ago that's for sure.

    I just will not believe a word that man spouts now!

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.