The BBC  permalink

Media Guardian

Messages: 161 - 210 of 252
  • Message 161

    , in reply to message 152.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Thursday, 16th April 2009

    It wouldn't be great if I went onto (say) Digital Spy and said "If you repost this on Points of View Digital" I'll reply there. 

    Sorry, but, smiley - doh Considering THAT is EXACTLY what Nick did with us. When he posted THAT first thread telling us about how he wanted to discuss "improvements", BUT that he WOULDN'T discuss it on the Message boards, and linked us to his blog, I thought he would soften, BUT NO. He was adamant that the CORRECT place to discuss Message boards was on HIS BLOG. smiley - doh He ONLY started talking to us about our MESSAGE BOARDS on the MESSAGE BOARDS when we refused to go to his BLOG. At least you seem to see how ridiculous THAT is/was.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 162

    , in reply to message 160.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Thursday, 16th April 2009

    OUR main objection to BBC blogs is that (as with all blogs) the author decides WHAT topic will be discussed, and "controls" the blog by either responding or ignoring, or hiding comments or closing the debate. On the message boards ANYONE can start a discussion, and THEN it is EVERYONE's thread. The original poster has no power over the direction, and certainly no control over hiding or closing the debate. EVERYONE's comment is valid and everyone's comment is EQUAL. There CAN be fluffy lighthearted threads (and I quite like to read those to lighten the day), BUT, there can be discussions of amazing intelligence, passion and information. Again welcome, and I hope you stay around.
     


    niclaramartin

    Totally agree with all of that.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 163

    , in reply to message 160.

    Posted by jTemplar (U13714316) on Friday, 17th April 2009

    niclaramartin, (or Nicaragua as my spellchecker suggests) smiley - winkeye wrote: OUR main objection to BBC blogs is that (as with all blogs) the author decides WHAT topic will be discussed  I totally agree and would add I believe the real reason blogs are preferred by the bean counters at the Beeb is that with a blog, aligned to a specific area of interest, programme, or person, then the popularity of that area, programme, or person is measured by the number of hits (reads) that webpage attracts.

    Similarly, programme makers like phone-in competitions and other feedback - not to get genuine opinion but rather up their 'count' of unique and validated viewers/listeners/readers.

    This is really a method adapted from the commercial sector and the BBC use it to justify the license fee as well as justify activities in various areas.

    Messegaboards don't provide this unique and verifiable way of building a user profile.

    john

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 164

    , in reply to message 163.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Friday, 17th April 2009

    John

    or Nicaragua as my spellchecker suggests  Wouldn't I love "exotic" (four grandparents with Scots/Irish ancestorssmiley - doh) ALTHOUGH, when I tried the "Celebrity" look-alike facial recognition on the following link, it said I looked like a cross between Eva Longoria, Angelina Jolie, Sally Field and ............some guy. smiley - doh

    celebrity.myheritage...

    Anyway, I diverse.

    The absolute strength of BBC message boards, is exactly what BBC are underselling. Unsolicited opinion from the public. Now, it MAY be negative, so..... in THAT case USE the information to improve the product. It USED to allow the general public world-wide to contribute to/and begin threads on topics, which if BBC read through (the way the newspapers do) could have provided them with leads for news stories. How many Television stations would get message board posters from Israel, or Germany or US or Malaysia or.......... Nowadays, instead of mature, grown-up discussions leading to possible news stories, they rely on the Twitter generation, and the information contained in 140 characters.

    If anyone watched the recent Boston Legal episode, THEY were saying what we have been saying here. Television (OK US in Boston Legal's case, but equally UK television), is dumbing down, whilst forgetting just how many older viewers/listeners are out there. WE have the spending power. WE have the time to listen/watch BBC programmes. WE are finding it harder and harder to find programmes which require more than flopping on the couch and watching Reality/makeover/dumbed down programmes, or listening to radio programmes which stretch our intelligence, instead of the wall to wall blather which pervades YOOF radio. AND to top ALL that, they take away a message board where people who wish to discuss things more stretching than what Chris Evans is doing for lunch, could post. In other words, BBC are continuing down the road to alienating their older or more discerning viewers/listeners/posters.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 165

    , in reply to message 164.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Friday, 17th April 2009

    Quite agree with your last post Niclara smiley - ok

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 166

    , in reply to message 165.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Friday, 17th April 2009

    Curmy

    The worrying thing (from BBC's perspective) is that when I, like other older posters, FIRST joined these boards, I was an avid television watcher. I would plonk myself down with my knitting or embroidery or watercolours and watch BBC from 6o'clock until I went to bed (hardly ever changing channels). NOWADAYS I can hardly find a thing on BBC which I like (and more importantly - look forward to). BBC has launched itself on a mission to dumb down television and radio (how I detest all that vacuus blathering by DJs on Radio 1) - I quite like the music (Queens of the Stone Age, Fall out Boy......) BUT the DJs are honestly dire - I find myself shouting at the radio, telling them to shut up and play the music. At least the more mature presenters on the other radio stations sometimes have something worthwhile to say.

    The problem for BBC is that over those last few years they have ALIENATED their more mature (over 25) viewers/listeners, in a bid to capture their "future" older audience (the current YOOF audience). And, then the bite on the bum for them, is that the YOOF audience are busy living life or using other media outlets, so NOT using BBC. So, what do you do when you've lost your older audience and you have never quite managed to capture the younger audience. You just invent MORE and MORE ways to alienate the older audience, whilst convincing yourself that the youngsters WILL get it, and become the core audience.smiley - doh Nero - fiddle - Rome

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 167

    , in reply to message 166.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Friday, 17th April 2009

    I quite agree with you Niclara . I don't understand why Saturday nights on the Beeb is so dire .smiley - yikes

    Don't they know all the "Yoof" are out clubbing /getting drunk ? so they might just as well put on some programmes that older viewers like .

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 168

    , in reply to message 167.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Found THIS interesting....

    www.bbc.co.uk/bbctru...

    Page 7

    We have also been cautious about comparing very different types of sites against each other as, in television and radio, it is more usual to accept that different genres of programming get different levels of appreciation 

    And yet, THAT is exactly the reason which Nick Reynolds gave us for closing the Radio Board (not enough traffic) Nick was trying to compare two DIFFERENT audiences/boards, by saying that they appear on message boards, so were the SAME, and should therefore have similar numbers, smiley - doh WITHOUT factoring in the DIFFERENCES. Lower numbers does not mean that it is NOT WORTHY.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 169

    , in reply to message 168.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Another one.......this is about blogging, but...

    mediatingconflict.bl...

    And (on a similar theme) identified as a priority for Radio Five Live: "Expand use of user-generated Content.  

    As long as it is BLOG user-generated Content.smiley - erm

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 170

    , in reply to message 169.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    From the BBC Trust report

    Linking to external sites needs to be more effective. We are disappointed to find that bbc.co.uk’s provision of links to external sites is not leading to more click-throughs, despite this being identified as a priority in the Graf review. We are asking BBC management to find ways of increasing the effectiveness of its provision of links and ensuring that bbc.co.uk helps its users navigate to external sites from all parts of the site. 

    Which explains concisely, Nick's obsession with linking to ANY external comment (no matter how ridiculous - "argy bargy" smiley - doh). He's on a one-man quest to up the number of external hits. AND, explains the shambolic design of the new messageboard front page, with it's links to Digital Spy smiley - laugh etc.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 171

    , in reply to message 170.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    3 very interesting posts niclaramartin it makes me wonder about Nicks real motives were for declaring WAR on the Points Of View messageboards

    How about clarfying some of the points niclaramartin has raised Nick or are you to busy adding comments to your beloved BLOGS

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 172

    , in reply to message 171.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Well I do think the BBC should link out more.

    I don't think the new links on the POV home page make it more "shambolic".

    As for the other points I'm not sure I understand what's being said.

    And I never "declared war" on the POV boards.

    Reply to this message 12

  • Message 173

    , in reply to message 172.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Nick

    Well I do think the BBC should link out more 

    Yes, Nick, that may be so, and I realise that that is a directive of the Graf Report, that BBC introduce THEIR audience to commercial sites, BUT, YOU don't have to do it all on your own. Some of your linking is mind-numbingly insulting. I continue to cite the "argy bargy" link, for the simple reason that THAT is the VERY worst linkage I have EVER seen on ANY of the thousands of blogs I have read. IF you MUST link, make sure that it is WORTHY of being linked to, and is not just a link for the sake of "upping the hit rate". GOOD use of links IS a benefit, linking to all and sundry is simply insulting/time-consuming reading/blood pressure raising POOR use of a very useful tool. May I suggest that you go back to the drawing board, (and although continue to link out) at least think of the BENEFIT to the reader, of YOUR links.

    I don't think the new links on the POV home page make it more "shambolic". 

    That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I work with people who design websites, and NOT one of them think it is WORTHY of BBC staff input. I would love to know how much of the dialogue between web designers and editorial staff involved "We MUST have links to external sites on show", and "THAT will just look stupid/over-fussy and extremely amateur". I think I can guess that the Editorial imperative outweighed the design. Whatever, the case, IT IS A MESS.



    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 174

    , in reply to message 173.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Oh, and IF you had bothered to learn the Quote function WHILST "in charge" on these boards, instead of a blog-style link to "argy bargy" and US readers having to read a WHOLE article, with the two words "argy bargy" AND the meaning, you could simply have found the site yourself, and quoted the few lines which were actually RELEVANT. THUS.....

    Jiggerypokery is back, thank heavens. After a week in which sport replaced politics, theology, and economics, and became the number one topic for every phone-in bore in the nation, the heart leapt at the return of the one man in Britain still capable of seeing a sporting contest as a bit of a lark.

    'The sides have to stay apart at the line-out,' said Bill McLaren, commentating on the Scotland-Wales rugby international. 'It lets the referee see whether there's any jiggerypokery going on.' God bless Bill. After 48 seasons commentating on the Five Nations for the BBC, despite the introduction of professionalism and the considerable amount of ill-will sloshing around rugby union these days, he can still describe cheating at the line-out as jiggery-pokery. More serious foul play is, of course, argy-bargy. 


    Now, THAT, is enough reading for most readers on the meaning of "argy bargy" (with Jiggery-pokery added in for free).

    Of course, THAT does not fulfil your quest of linking, so all you have to do AFTER posting the above quote is say, "For those interested in the FULL article, here is the link"

    www.guardian.co.uk/m...

    THEN, you will NOT have insulted your readers, AND fulfilled YOUR need to link. It is then up to the reader IF they WANT to read the full article, or just the part in quotes.

    In the case of "argy bargy" MOST posters will be content with the quote, but, if it was a link to an "interesting" comment, then, SOME posters may wish to read the FULL article.

    WHICHEVER, you must learn to reign in on linking "willy nilly".

    www.timeshighereduca...

    smiley - doh

    See how insulting THAT link was.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 175

    , in reply to message 172.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    As for the other points I'm not sure I understand what's being said 

    OK Nick, YOU tell us WHICH points you don't understand, and WE'LL try to explain them to you, so that you DO understand them.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 176

    , in reply to message 175.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    I would say that

    We have also been cautious about comparing very different types of sites against each other as, in television and radio, it is more usual to accept that different genres of programming get different levels of appreciation 

    is clear that you don't compare apples to oranges, or in the case of message boards, you CAN'T compare the NUMBER of comments to Television, to the NUMBER of comments to Radio.

    accept that different genres of programming get different levels of appreciation 

    Just as you can't quantify passion/appreciation of a programme.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 177

    , in reply to message 176.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Also Nick i personally feel the boards have not improved one iota since the the new host has started according to you "better hosting=better quality message" but even though it is early days the new host has only contributed to a handful of discussions and has been largely anonymous

    If this is the sign of things to come it begs the question of what was the point of bringing in a new host in

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 178

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by mNonpayer (U4229695) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    From Lee,
    "Yes, Curmy, but that’s only PART of what Martin said. He also acknowledged there are other places where people can “vent their spleen more openly” and he suggested it’s not always necessary for the BBC to host such sites."

    I'd disagree with Mr Kelner, do you? Surely as the BBC is a public organisation, funded by a tax, it does have a duty to provide a forum for the public.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 179

    , in reply to message 178.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Yes I do disagree with Mr Kelner, I think the person who wrote to him was obviously very angry about the radio board being closed.

    I wonder if it was a poster from here ? smiley - erm

    However Martin Kelner did infer the Beeb should give way on this issue....


    "Nevertheless, because of the intimate relationship we have with radio, views tend to be fairly passionate - more so than those on television - so it may be politic for the BBC to give some ground on message boards. "



    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 180

    , in reply to message 179.

    Posted by The Great Gildersleeve (U1650602) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    smiley - laughCurmy

    There should be a radio and television message board and then the BBC can decide if it wants blogs and to use facebook and twitter. To ask for a radio and tv message board is pretty basic.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 181

    , in reply to message 177.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Completely agree with you Professor.

    I know it's early days but the boards were meant to improve. I thought that the new host would come in and stamp their mark on the boards straight away, given what we experienced in the run-up to it!

    After this long-drawn out affair, I thought the new boundaries would have already been set before the new host actually arrived, given the amount of questions we have asked.

    Maybe the changes will appear in time for the Points of View programme coming to the end of its run.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 182

    , in reply to message 180.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Nick has used the reasoning, (following on from the Graf Report), that BBC should not be providing services which may be found on external "commercial" sites.

    Now, I could understand Nick's reasoning, IF we were discussing a "Flower Arranging" Message board, or a "Lifestyle"/"Parenting"/"Religious"/Ethnic/Boat Building or any number of other NON-BBC product boards. BUT, the fact is that we are discussing a BBC RADIO Message Board. I am incredulous that Nick, continues to use the argument that we can go over to Digital Spy to discuss BBC Radio. Does Digital Spy produce BBC Radio Programmes? NO. It discusses "Broadcasting" (huge umbrella), BUT it DOES NOT create an actual Radio programme in-house. BBC does, and therefore, THAT fulfils the criteria of BBC being able to provide a "General" Radio Message Board, as it IS directly connected to BBC (unlike the General Lifestyle/Parenting/Religious/Ethnic Boards which DO appear on BBC's Message Board site).

    Nick answered me some time ago, to say that the boards were NOT closed because of budgetry constraint. From my posting above (of the bbc.co.uk Report), it can be seen that THEY accept that numbers SHOULD NOT be used, feeling that you have to make allowances for the different audience input), AND as I have said in THIS posting a GENERAL Radio Message Board, would NOT break the rules of BBC NOT providing services found on external sites (by dint of the fact that BBC Radio is a product of BBC, and NOT external "Commercial" sites)

    I would therefore like to know what other criteria Nick used to come to the conclusion that Radio/Online and Digital served no purpose WITHIN the BBC site?

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 183

    , in reply to message 182.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    From one of Nick's braindumps

    nickreynoldsatwork.w...

    comes this comment.....

    One thing I want to make sure is that if (and I do mean if) changes are made to the POV boards I don’t want people there to say “we didn’t know what you were doing 

    And, yet, do we actually have a clue what, when, how and why the decision was made to close THREE message boards. I would certainly say that THAT qualifies as "Changes".

    As far as I am concerned, Nick evaded in a very simple manner - give them so much writing to read (in his blogs) that they can't separate the wheat from the chaff, and so have NO idea what is being said, instead of simple answers.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 184

    , in reply to message 183.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Re 183,

    I haven't got the faintest idea why we need blogs like the one you mention.

    If people want to 'blog' let them do it in their own time. It has got nothing to do with messageboards.

    I realise I am a ridiculous old hayseed who deserves to be laughed at and pitied, but as far as I can see, seven years ago we had a set of really good forums that actually worked and gave the TV Taxpayer excellent value for money.

    Now we have an incomprehensible mess. Most of the posting is just about the mess things are in rather than any substantive issue.

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 185

    , in reply to message 184.

    Posted by Helen May (U1633128) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    I've been around for 6 years and I totally agree with Z. The forums were interesting to read and you actually could learn something from a lot of them. Now as you say it's now all about the mess that the BBC have made of it all.

    H

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 186

    , in reply to message 185.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    I realise I am a ridiculous old hayseed who deserves to be laughed at and pitied, but as far as I can see, seven years ago we had a set of really good forums that actually worked and gave the TV Taxpayer excellent value for money 

    Well from one old hayseed to another z, I completely agree with you smiley - ok

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 187

    , in reply to message 186.

    Posted by cricket-Angel twinkly lights Tucker (U3382697) ** on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Also Nick i personally feel the boards have not improved one iota since the the new host has started according to you "better hosting=better quality message" but even though it is early days the new host has only contributed to a handful of discussions and has been largely anonymous 

    I also find this quite odd.

    I understand Sarah will become fulltime soon. But why rush her in to the role before she's fully ready? Rowan was doing an admirable job. Why not have a proper hand over process, maybe having the two Hosts overlapping so that Sarah was not thrown in at the deep end.

    After months of dithering, the closing of boards and introducing of a new Host seem to have been implemented far too hurriedly and with no plan.

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 188

    , in reply to message 187.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    That explains why Sarah doesn't seem to be around much, I didn't realise she was only part time at the moment.

    Who's stupid idea was that ? smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 189

    , in reply to message 188.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Now we are in a situation where the boards are not being hosted properly because the new host is part time even though Nick used that very reason to close the radio board

    The lack of a presence of a host on the radio board was in Nicks opinion "the sign of a poor quality board" yet he is prepared to allow a similar to happen to happen to the remaining boardssmiley - doh

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 190

    , in reply to message 189.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    You couldn't make it up Prof smiley - yikes

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 191

    , in reply to message 190.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    So after all those Blogs and threads started by Nick and after all the effort we have made into communicating with him it would have been fair to assume that the remaining boards would be of a higher quality and generally they would be of a better standard stemming from better hosting etc

    However the oppostie is true we have a host who hardly interacts with the community because she is part time(btw how can you be a part time host does that mean a full time host will work 40+ hours per week doing nothing but surfing the pov boards all day?)

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 192

    , in reply to message 191.

    Posted by The Great Gildersleeve (U1650602) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    This is not a criticism of Sarah, I think that needs making clear...but if for now these boards are being watched over in a part time manner... is it the same for the blogs?

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 193

    , in reply to message 186.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Greetings Helen and Curmy,

    It is great to see a measure of consensus on this.

    It used to be really excellent those years ago, but the BBC has now turned its back on the world.

    We didn't know how lucky we were!

    For me this has all been a learning curve in the exercise of censorship and control by those who for one reason or another have managed to get their hands on [some of the smaller] levers of power.

    It is also about what constitutes censorship, as the right to speak ones views is systematically withdrawn board by board.

    The nuances are incredible. Many people think censorship is simply preventing people from speaking. In fact, as I have discovered, it is a very complex matter. The illusion of freedom of speech has to be preserved - of course you can post your ideas in The Bull on The Archers thread; why are you grumbling.

    Of course you can post your views on the UK - but only on Five Live [not quite the obvious place for UK News - oh, and by the way, you need a link, so only the topics newspaper barons think worth discussing can be discussed - oh, and by the way, the rolling format will stifle any discussion before it has got going].

    Why not try Have Your Say, where we will vet the suppliant's comments before allowing the acceptable ones to go through? Well, it worked on the Today boards - we soon made sure that nobody wanted to use them and then, well, if nobody wants to use something.......close it; it is all down to providing value for money, I am sure you understand.

    Etc. Blah...

    The PhD in deception goes on regarding the type of person who will stick around to see what happens in the long run, or perhaps another who will vote with their feet. Plainly we (3)! are all hanging in here to see if the BBC will once again find the confidence to take it's place in the world - instead of down some fictitious back street pub - the Bull - in the village of Ambridge.

    One has to consider that a new generation of people is arriving here and only those who can survive the stagemanagement of the blogs will stay. Others will find it a sterile forum, but will not quite be aware of the value of the testimony of "yesterdays witness".

    As with all people farming, dumb down for a generation, and you will be dumbed down for good.

    In other words the reduction to trivia of communication via BBC messageboards will be complete.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 194

    , in reply to message 191.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    I actually think that as Nick WAS the host, AS WELL as the person responsible for the changes, that HE should have introduced Sarah to us, explaining WHAT her responsibilities, input and timescales to full hosting would be.

    We have NO idea, what "improvements" there are to the boards with regard to Hosting. Will Sarah be the ONLY host? Is Sarah part of the Points of View Production Team? Will Sarah's only job be to read comments and feedback to the programme/BBC? Will Sarah be full-time or only on the boards for an hour a day? What happens to Hosting of the boards if Sarah is on holiday or ill?

    So, Nick, WHAT are the improvements to hosting? We seem to have one host leaving (Rowan) and one host taking her place (Sarah), BUT, no explanation from you about timescales or job remit. Oh, and as you are still appearing on THIS board with your green hat on, are YOU still hosting THIS board, or have you washed your hands of us?

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 195

    , in reply to message 194.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Nick despises difficult questions he will probarly claim he cant understand them

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 196

    , in reply to message 195.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U13719387) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Oh and if he waits long enough before even attempting to answer, the posting will have moved to the previous page, and be forgotten, so he won't need to answer any of the questions at all. smiley - erm

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 197

    , in reply to message 193.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    PS Sarah,

    I would be more than happy to read your assessment of my message No 193.

    I am not sure whether you were around this neck of the woods around the time of the Iraq War, and the run up to it. If you were you will have a pretty good insight into the decline of the BBC messageboards since that time. At that time the BBC had excellent people who were really trying to go places with the internet. Maybe you were/are one of themsmiley - biggrin

    After the Hutton report, when the government gave the BBC that kicking, and the top men left (with their severance pay), the whole thing was sidetracked into trivia, and as we see here, it is still in sharp decline.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 198

    , in reply to message 195.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

    Gildy I agree with you, this isn't a critisism of Sarah .

    Z , I agree with you as well and I suspect everybody else who's kept posting on the BBC thread ( I havn't got time to name them all ) ! concurs with your summary of events as well smiley - ok

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 199

    , in reply to message 198.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Sunday, 19th April 2009

    Rowan said

    ....we're proposing is that all
    messages go live immediately (again, apart from a new user's first few)
    and that together all of you, along with a proactive host.  


    ....And although we would start with a trial, if things went well we'd carry on with that moderation model here. I think
    that it's something which will work really well if the system has your
    support - so what do you think?  


    So how long is the trail going to last?
    Will the fact that the host has been far from "proactive" effect the end result even though the messageboard community has embraced the changes?


    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 200

    , in reply to message 199.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Sunday, 19th April 2009

    Well although it's probably not Sarah's fault, our new Host isn't as "involved "as Nick promised .

    Having said that, she'll probably come back tomorrow and close down half the threads smiley - yikes

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 201

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    I was on leave.

    I am no longer hosting these boards. But I may pop in from time to time to post a comment or two.

    Reply to this message 41

  • Message 202

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by cricket-Angel twinkly lights Tucker (U3382697) ** on Monday, 20th April 2009

    Nick, if you're no longer hosting the boards why are you still green?

    I thought former Hosts were purple?

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 203

    , in reply to message 202.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    Yeah, confusing innit.

    Purple used to be the royal colour, so that figures.

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 204

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    Nick or Sarah how about addrssing some of the points raised in the last 2 pages of this thread

    Thanks

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 205

    , in reply to message 202.

    Posted by deansay - one skint shepherd (U5811575) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    I see Nick has gone purple smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 206

    , in reply to message 205.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    I'm saying nothing..........smiley - biggrin

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 207

    , in reply to message 206.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    He is still green

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 208

    , in reply to message 207.

    Posted by cricket-Angel twinkly lights Tucker (U3382697) ** on Monday, 20th April 2009

    He's both green and purple on that thread, Prof. Nasty!

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 209

    , in reply to message 207.

    Posted by deansay - one skint shepherd (U5811575) on Monday, 20th April 2009

    the man has many 'coats' it seems!

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 210

    , in reply to message 209.

    Posted by cricket-Angel twinkly lights Tucker (U3382697) ** on Monday, 20th April 2009

    And they clash horribly! smiley - laugh

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

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.



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

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2014 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.