The BBC  permalink

Removed

Messages: 351 - 400 of 555
  • Message 351

    , in reply to message 350.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 352

    , in reply to message 351.

    Posted by Fedster (U14967576) on Sunday, 1st April 2012

    Masterville lets not accuse each other of being trolls just because we have differing views thats just childish, like i said earlier on in this thread, posts on blogs/messageboard do not give an accurate representation of the true picture,this thread should not be taken seriously, it does not give an accurate view of the bigger picture.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 353

    , in reply to message 352.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 354

    , in reply to message 353.

    Posted by Fedster (U14967576) on Sunday, 1st April 2012

    By evidence i take it you mean this thread and the blog posts?

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 355

    , in reply to message 354.

    Posted by masterville (U15197509) on Sunday, 1st April 2012

    Well its the only evidence that exists to be fair.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 356

    , in reply to message 355.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    Well its the only evidence that exists to be fair.  and that is why any suggestion that the blogs or boards are unrepresentative is merely conjecture unless corroboration can be provided by two sources of data - traffic figures to show how people voted with the mice, and the BBC survey average rating.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 357

    , in reply to message 355.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    I decided to revisit the sports site after a few weeks away & its still a very messy site.

    Do us all a favour & visit Sky sports site - suggest you copy as much as possible.
    Its a very clean, crisp site - driven by each sport rather than having to go search for a sport. Its also feature minimal blogs & opinions are from ex pros rather than hack journalists.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 358

    , in reply to message 357.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    I decided to revisit the sports site after a few weeks away & its still a very messy site.

    Do us all a favour & visit Sky sports site - suggest you copy as much as possible.
    Its a very clean, crisp site - driven by each sport rather than having to go search for a sport. Its also feature minimal blogs & opinions are from ex pros rather than hack journalists. 
    Maybe you have got something there GrouchoM?

    The sites from the BBC, certainly the homepage, all seem to be a bit dumb, as if it is the web bods that are assembling the news items and deciding "what we should see". The result looks like it is driven by corporate guidelines rather than insight into the audience's interests - and cobbled together in bite-size chunks to fit a design template. Technology shouldn't drive the selection of the people who run these channels, the content should.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 359

    , in reply to message 358.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    Indeed Lydia - a sports site should primarily be about sports news, not massaging egos of overpaid bloggers. IMHO the BBC have lost site of what is important about sports - news & statistics - thats all we really need.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 360

    , in reply to message 299.

    Posted by Think Tank (U15039872) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    Peta

    Just to complete the variability of sports blogs lifespan:

    Compared to the New Site Is Live (many weeks) and the "general rule" of two days;

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...
    opened at 10:03 UK time, Friday, 9 March 2012 and
    closed following a comment at 23:23 9th Mar 2012.

    So the range now has to be expanded down to as little as 13 hours 20 minutes.

    In light of this perhaps more kudos should go the BG (or his team) for leaving it open as long as they did. Well Done!

    (Shame it was operated in such a half-hearted fashion though smiley - doh)

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 361

    , in reply to message 360.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    I see they've taken some of the yellow away. The video play button only turns yellow when you hover your mouse over rather than all the time.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 362

    , in reply to message 348.

    Posted by Tami-Jo (U15215652) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    As this is a new feature of the BBC I am sure that getting fans to this page would not be a problem!

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 363

    , in reply to message 361.

    Posted by izy (U15164938) on Monday, 2nd April 2012

    Yes, they've tinkered with it and made some slight cosmetic changes but nothing of any substance and nothing to improve the awful navigation issues, layout and the accessibility debacle.

    This suggests that they are playing around with small aspects to satisfy their own artistic agenda whilst completely ignoring the real problems that have been reported by users in response to their own requests for feedback.

    The whole issue stinks. I cannot imagine any other organisation, public or private, allowing a situation like this to exist. Only in the ivory towers that is the BBC where they have the benefit of an outdated tax regardless of their customer's opinions could this situation be allowed to continue. But biting the hand that feeds you is never a good tactic and will inevitably lead to stronger calls to abolish the licence fee tax which is an inevitable and fair reaction from the "customers".

    All over what seems to be a matter of arrogant pride. That might be the hair that broke the camel's back. Sorry - but bring it on.

    Let the BBC be commercial - even put the sports website behind a paywall and we'll see just how well the BBC does in the real world. Not very well with this attitude, I wager!

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 364

    , in reply to message 363.

    Posted by chancedog (U1658952) on Wednesday, 4th April 2012

    Great, just checked in again, and I see that those ridiculous "tweets" are back. This is a sports news homepage, not some area to showcase some designers talent.

    Unfortunately as has been mentioned many times, we no longer have any means of giving feedback to those responsible for this terrible impersonation of a sports news homepage.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 365

    , in reply to message 363.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Wednesday, 4th April 2012

    Yes, they've tinkered with it and made some slight cosmetic changes but nothing of any substance and nothing to improve the awful navigation issues, layout and the accessibility debacle.  

    As far as I can see there is a lot more change than tinkering implies. Football results and fixtures are now in the must requested date order and all events, tables have WDL and the colours, there is a lot less yellow, removal of the top-left tags, tweets and that's just the changes I've noticed.

    What is the problem with navigation? As far as I can see its easier to navigate between sports and is very logical - a sport selection menu and a a more detailed sub menu...much like any other website. More logical than the old site's navigation in my book.

    And now moaning about Twitter which seems to me an ideal medium for quick, live comments on sports events.

    I get the feeling that posters are almost blind to the changes and just want blood. Maybe its a new sport that could be covered by the BBC? I'm sure its cheaper than F1.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 366

    , in reply to message 365.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Yes, they've tinkered with it and made some slight cosmetic changes but nothing of any substance and nothing to improve the awful navigation issues, layout and the accessibility debacle.  

    As far as I can see there is a lot more change than tinkering implies. Football results and fixtures are now in the must requested date order and all events, tables have WDL and the colours, there is a lot less yellow, removal of the top-left tags, tweets and that's just the changes I've noticed.

    What is the problem with navigation? As far as I can see its easier to navigate between sports and is very logical - a sport selection menu and a a more detailed sub menu...much like any other website. More logical than the old site's navigation in my book.

    And now moaning about Twitter which seems to me an ideal medium for quick, live comments on sports events.

    I get the feeling that posters are almost blind to the changes and just want blood. Maybe its a new sport that could be covered by the BBC? I'm sure its cheaper than F1. 

    A lot of changes have been made recently as a result of feedback from the users of the sports site users. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/...

    I see that the colours have been amended on the football tables as well, which should resolve things for those with colour blindness problems.

    www.bbc.co.uk/sport/...

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 367

    , in reply to message 366.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    They now need
    to deal

    With the way the
    headlines

    are displayed as
    they are

    hard to read.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 368

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    I have no problem reading your posting or the headlines....

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 369

    , in reply to message 368.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    I'm so very pleased for you DBOne


















    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 370

    , in reply to message 366.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Peta - its a very messy website with a lack of intuitive use. The changes appear to be lip service.

    Its still RUBBISH.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 371

    , in reply to message 370.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Why not tell everyone why you find it not intuitive rather than just ranting? What would you change to the current design to make it less rubbish.....

    Ranting helps no-one including yourself.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 372

    , in reply to message 371.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    I'm not ranting, I just used block caps to emphasise the point. As I stated previously the Sky Sports website is so much easier to use, & thats why I use it now instead of BBC sport.

    The BBC site is a mess. For example - I'm a big fan of rugby & cant find the info I need without scrolling down, down, down, down.

    The front page
    headlines are
    poorly thought
    out.

    Sportsday live? Why not just have a headlines area?

    Comment & Analysis - should not be on front page but on individual micro areas

    Horse racing doesnt have its own banner

    ok?

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 373

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Thanks GrouchoM

    Horse racing doesn't have it's own banner - but neither do many other sports because they clearly wouldn't all fit along the top. The Sports team have put individual banners to the most often used pages, the others are all listed, just one click away under 'more sports'.

    The Sportsday live page is comprehensive and refreshes automatically by time of day - all of the the information on the Sportday live page wouldn't fit in a simple headline.

    If comment and analysis were not on the front page, but in their own micro area how would people know where it was? That's a subjective editorial decision - people are interested in reading what the punters say within a range of sports, so it makes sense to make them reasonably easy to find.


    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 374

    , in reply to message 365.

    Posted by Grantoid (U14551761) on Thursday, 5th April 2012


    As far as I can see there is a lot more change than tinkering implies. Football results and fixtures are now in the must requested date order and all events, tables have WDL and the colours, there is a lot less yellow, removal of the top-left tags, tweets and that's just the changes I've noticed. . 
    Good. Shame it's taken three months to get to a point close to the state it should have been in before a launch was even contemplated. Given that these changes that the BBC have made presumably reflect the comments they have recieved perhaps even DBOne will now acknowledge that the site he has defended to the hilt from day one was seriously flawed.

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 375

    , in reply to message 373.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Thanks Peta

    Racing should have its own banner IMHO.

    Sportsday live is pointless. Have headlines, then "read more" underneath if you need to look at. Needless repetition.

    Comment & analysis? Should never be on a front page.
    A front page should grab attention not overload with detail - exactly what the new BBC sport website is guilty of.

    Sorry, its a big step backwards IMHO.

    DBOne seems to like it though!

    Oh well............back to Sky Sports wesbite.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 376

    , in reply to message 375.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Thanks Peta

    Racing should have its own banner IMHO.

    Sportsday live is pointless. Have headlines, then "read more" underneath if you need to look at. Needless repetition.

    Comment & analysis? Should never be on a front page.
    A front page should grab attention not overload with detail - exactly what the new BBC sport website is guilty of.

    Sorry, its a big step backwards IMHO.

    DBOne seems to like it though!

    Oh well............back to Sky Sports wesbite.

     

    That really is fine GrouchoM

    The site is trying to cater for a *huge* range of sporting interests, so it's completely understandable that some people may find that another page, by another broadcaster suits their personal choice in sports better.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 377

    , in reply to message 374.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012


    As far as I can see there is a lot more change than tinkering implies. Football results and fixtures are now in the must requested date order and all events, tables have WDL and the colours, there is a lot less yellow, removal of the top-left tags, tweets and that's just the changes I've noticed. . 
    Good. Shame it's taken three months to get to a point close to the state it should have been in before a launch was even contemplated. Given that these changes that the BBC have made presumably reflect the comments they have recieved perhaps even DBOne will now acknowledge that the site he has defended to the hilt from day one was seriously flawed. 

    It's not possible to get feedback from all sports site users *without* launching the page to get feedback.

    The feedback from the public has been very helpful and the sports team have made changes in response to that.

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 378

    , in reply to message 374.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    DBOne will now acknowledge that the site he has defended to the hilt from day one was seriously flawed. 

    You'll be glad to know I don't consider any of these items warrant the label 'seriously flawed' . Comments and feedback are exactly that. As far as I can see the BBC responded and the changes reflect those Ben commited to in his blog.







    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 379

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Sorry DBOne

    Anything that makes a user switch, or even consider switching, to another site must imply there are flaws for that individual in the website.

    I think its very poor ergo am using another site.

    We all have opinions - I am as entitled to mine as you are to yours.

    C'est la vie.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 380

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    The BBC site is a mess. For example - I'm a big fan of rugby & cant find the info I need without scrolling down, down, down, down.
     


    Only the home page for Rugby has been updated - this was stated in the FAQs for the sports site. Why not tell everyone what you scroll to look for so that everyone can understand your frustration with evidence to support it. Without the evidence it just sounds/reads like a rant.

    Why should comment be relegated to micro areas - sports reporting is more than just the facts - if it was then TV coverage would be very simple - no commentators, post match analysis etc.

    Sky Sports website exhibits many of the accessibility and presentational issues that people have critisised the BBC site for but if you like it and you use it in preference then why post here?

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 381

    , in reply to message 380.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Here's another................

    Championship cricket.

    Notts are 42-5 v Worcs per Sky Sports.

    According to the BBC website play is yet to start.

    Another example of style over substance - too much emphasis on glossy website, blogs, comments & not enough facts.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 382

    , in reply to message 381.

    Posted by Fedster (U14967576) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    I am beggining to think the vast majority of posters on this thread are working for skysports................................................

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 383

    , in reply to message 382.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    nice one Fedster.

    but very, very wrong.

    I'm not the worlds biggest fan of Sky Sports but what they do, they do very well.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 384

    , in reply to message 381.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Here's another................

    Championship cricket.

    Notts are 42-5 v Worcs per Sky Sports.

    According to the BBC website play is yet to start.

    Another example of style over substance - too much emphasis on glossy website, blogs, comments & not enough facts. 

    Here's the score on the BBC Groucho

    www.bbc.co.uk/sport/...

    I know nothing about cricket, so I hope I've found the right match for you. smiley - blush

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 385

    , in reply to message 381.

    Posted by andyp1965 (U15125447) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    DBOne

    It seems that you are still as blinkered as ever.

    The new Sports Website may suit your tastes, but it sure as heck doesn't suit the vast majority of the users of the old site.

    Even taking out the many coding errors which the site launched with, the site is still a disaster, especially all the main pages. These now seem to be just a list of various headlines spread over three or four pages, with an obscene amount of images which are hellish for those with a slow bandwidth connection.

    There is not even enough space for many of those headlines to make much sense.

    The logic for doing this makes no sense to me and indeed it seems a retro step back to the days when main web pages were just a series of links to other pages. Only now it is cluttered with excessive images.

    Perhaps the best way to illustrate this would be between a page which has been updated and one that hasn't. I only just noticed that the American football home page seems to have retained the old style.

    Please look at this layout and compare it to the layout of one of the sports that has been updated. It has the images and the video links that Ben seems to be using to justify the change, but it also has a clearer layout. The links to stories are clear and the navigation toolbar on the left does not seem out of place.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 386

    , in reply to message 385.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012


    The new Sports Website may suit your tastes, but it sure as heck doesn't suit the vast majority of the users of the old site.  

    Andy - unless you personally know the 'vast majority of the users of the old site' you can't possibly know what they think. The BBC commissioned research and the vast majority *liked* the site - so it's very unlikely that your all encompassing statement is true.

    I can see that you don't like the page, but people do like different things and their brains all work in different ways, so just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else holds the same view.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 387

    , in reply to message 365.

    Posted by chancedog (U1658952) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Yes, they've tinkered with it and made some slight cosmetic changes but nothing of any substance and nothing to improve the awful navigation issues, layout and the accessibility debacle.  

    As far as I can see there is a lot more change than tinkering implies. Football results and fixtures are now in the must requested date order and all events, tables have WDL and the colours, there is a lot less yellow, removal of the top-left tags, tweets and that's just the changes I've noticed.

    What is the problem with navigation? As far as I can see its easier to navigate between sports and is very logical - a sport selection menu and a a more detailed sub menu...much like any other website. More logical than the old site's navigation in my book.

    And now moaning about Twitter which seems to me an ideal medium for quick, live comments on sports events.

    I get the feeling that posters are almost blind to the changes and just want blood. Maybe its a new sport that could be covered by the BBC? I'm sure its cheaper than F1. 
    DBOne,

    Much as you love to defend the site, I see that you think that tweets have been removed as one of the changes (unless I have misread what you mean - I had before someone edited your message several hours after it was posted).

    If you believe that having pointless tweets taking up valuable laptop screen space when exactly the same information is also displayed as a headline is a good use of resources then fine, but I don't.

    I have no issue with tweets appearing in some circumstances, but they have no place on a main headlines page, nor on a live text feed, unless they are from different contributors. We do not need the same message posted by the same person in both a live text stream and a tweet alongside it - that is just ridiculous.

    Still fed up with several other aspects of the site, possibly it would be better if I had an A4 tablet rather than a 1366 x 768 14 inch laptop screen. Maybe then I wouldn't have all the unused white spaces on my screen.

    .

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 388

    , in reply to message 384.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Thanks Peta

    Only 2 hours after play started ..........................


    Even DBOne can't argue with this, an he?

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 389

    , in reply to message 386.

    Posted by andyp1965 (U15125447) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Peta

    Surely the huge amounts of negative feedback give some credence to my view and in fact of my many friends and colleagues who used this site before, none of them like this new site.

    I am an IT professional and have been for over twenty years. I have been involved in creating websites and indeed even teaching at some times, and I can heartily say that the site that Ben Gallop and his colleagues presented would not have been accepted by any of my managers as fit for purpose.

    Has the commissioned research released it's findings as I would very much like to see what it says, because my experience in the real world states otherwise.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 390

    , in reply to message 384.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    for info Peta the link to latest score is not working on my pc - still says "yet to bat" against both teams. Lousy.

    SkySportsCentre is working fine.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 391

    , in reply to message 389.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    andyp - I'm not sure 358 messages on a message board represents huge amounts of negative feedback.
    This is the only outlet we have however.

    The BBC do not admit mistakes - decisions are made & that's it - even if things are changed there is never an acknowledgement of fault.

    time to move on methinks

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 392

    , in reply to message 386.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Thursday, 5th April 2012


    The new Sports Website may suit your tastes, but it sure as heck doesn't suit the vast majority of the users of the old site.  

    Andy - unless you personally know the 'vast majority of the users of the old site' you can't possibly know what they think. The BBC commissioned research and the vast majority *liked* the site - so it's very unlikely that your all encompassing statement is true.

    I can see that you don't like the page, but people do like different things and their brains all work in different ways, so just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else holds the same view.  
    Peta, that is a bit misleading. The BBC conducted research before launch. That research became redundant once the site went live, when the vast majority of real users feedback received was negative. If you wish to tell us the Survey rating average then maybe I'll consider historic research as being valid.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 393

    , in reply to message 384.

    Posted by Grantoid (U14551761) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Notts 118 all out; Worcs 34-2.

    But still both sides "Yet To Bat" here: newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sp...

    The match will be over before the BBC even start.

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 394

    , in reply to message 393.

    Posted by Grantoid (U14551761) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    ...... but, to be fair, Peta's link does at least show Notts at 107-7, updated just under three and half hours ago.

    Ben Gallop and friends must have a definition of "dynamic" which i completely unknown to me.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 395

    , in reply to message 388.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Only 2 hours after play started ..........................

    Even DBOne can't argue with this, an he? 


    I can't - you're right. I don't think I've ever said that the LIve updates shouldn't work.

    I've got no evidence this is a 'new' website issue, human error or something that could have happened before the website relaunch.

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 396

    , in reply to message 386.

    Posted by Spinning_head (U10049943) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Andy - unless you personally know the 'vast majority of the users of the old site' you can't possibly know what they think. The BBC commissioned research and the vast majority *liked* the site - so it's very unlikely that your all encompassing statement is true. 

    Sorry Peta,

    but you seem to by following the BBC party line. Yes (apparently) the new site was tested. Those polled seemed to like it. What the BBC must take into account is the overwhelming rejection of it by many other users who cared enough to state their views in the various blogs.

    This amount of negative comment overturns the initial testing and the results it obtained. Based on the blog comments (and those in this thread) the vast majority DO NOT like it.

    Also, clearly things still don't work. On the homepage I wanted to see the Championship table. The UPDATE button doesn't work.

    I'm one of many who misses the old site. It worked. It was easy to look at. The new homepage is STILL an eyesore.

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 397

    , in reply to message 387.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    DBOne,

    Much as you love to defend the site, I see that you think that tweets have been removed as one of the changes (unless I have misread what you mean - I had before someone edited your message several hours after it was posted).  


    Are you implying that someone edited DBOne's message hours after it was posted?

    No one tampers with people's messages here - if you're implying what I think you are then this is a *really* shoddy way to try to win an argument.

    Have a good Easter. I'll leave you to it.

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 398

    , in reply to message 392.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 5th April 2012


    The new Sports Website may suit your tastes, but it sure as heck doesn't suit the vast majority of the users of the old site.  

    Andy - unless you personally know the 'vast majority of the users of the old site' you can't possibly know what they think. The BBC commissioned research and the vast majority *liked* the site - so it's very unlikely that your all encompassing statement is true.

    I can see that you don't like the page, but people do like different things and their brains all work in different ways, so just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else holds the same view.  
    Peta, that is a bit misleading. The BBC conducted research before launch. That research became redundant once the site went live, when the vast majority of real users feedback received was negative. If you wish to tell us the Survey rating average then maybe I'll consider historic research as being valid.  

    No, user research doesn't 'become redundant', just because some people posted to the blog. It's just as valid as it was before.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 399

    , in reply to message 396.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012


    This amount of negative comment overturns the initial testing and the results it obtained. Based on the blog comments (and those in this thread) the vast majority DO NOT like it.

    Also, clearly things still don't work. On the homepage I wanted to see the Championship table. The UPDATE button doesn't work.
     


    The update button works here so it may an issue with your browser. Maybe posting more details would help.

    The site is only an eyesore to those that find it so - you may miss the old page but it worked no better than the current one and was removed. Its likely the BBC will enhance the new one but the old page is gone forever.

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 400

    , in reply to message 392.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 5th April 2012

    Peta, that is a bit misleading. The BBC conducted research before launch. That research became redundant once the site went live, when the vast majority of real users feedback received was negative. If you wish to tell us the Survey rating average then maybe I'll consider historic research as being valid.  

    It is not misleading or redundant. The Blog/Messageboard is not a true sample of users - it is a group of users who are vocal in their opinions but not necessarily reflective of the overall user population - the test sample was an attempt to be this.

    Your proposition that the evidence you can see must reflect the truth and that this is further re-enforced by the BBC not publishing the survey stats is groundless. An open blog will never reflect the 'truth' - they are too dominated by a small number of serial complainers.

    PS: It's ironic that even when the BBC do present summary stats
    (as they did in a recent blog on the homepage), it doesn't appear to be sufficient to some who imply that the stats must be either selective or lies.....





    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 © 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.