The BBC  permalink

BBC Sport's new website is live!

Messages: 451 - 500 of 555
  • Message 451

    , in reply to message 449.

    Posted by Hermes (U3287665) on Thursday, 12th April 2012


    Yes, a near -global consensus' of nine postings. The UK has 70 million people.

    Plus the person who submitted it to the site.  

    In addition, if one Googles, for example, 'BBC Sport Website Redesign', one can sift through page after page of largely negative comments, many of which are from a design-orientated perspective, on a variety of fora, some popular and non-specialist, some professional and very-clearly specialist in nature and content.

    From the point of view of the ordinary user, seeking information, it's pretty much indefensible, but well-done for trying.

    One of the terms being used on one of these fora was 'corporate ostrich', to describe the attitude and (lack of) response to justified criticism exhibited by the BBC. As well as amusing me, it was also, sadly, applicable.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 452

    , in reply to message 448.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Thursday, 12th April 2012

    The website relies upon nominations from users - so its just as inconclusive as looking at the blog or messageboard when trying to determine whether the site is universally hated.

    I notice Vincent Flanders (the site manager) comments about the page are more angled towards the British than they are about the website design unlike many of his other daily suckers postings.



    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 453

    , in reply to message 449.

    Posted by conion (U9432813) on Thursday, 12th April 2012

    Yes, a near -global consensus' of nine postings. The UK has 70 million people.

    Plus the person who submitted it to the site. 


    Peta

    Those kinds of odds are good enough for the BBC when it starts a campaign about something that some one has moaned about.....


    As long as the BBC Guardianistas support it.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 454

    , in reply to message 453.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    In the new job description advertisement for the new DG part of the wording refers to the ability to defend the BBC'c position against public opinion but it also refers to the fact that when the BBC gets things wrong then the DG should be prepared to admit the mistake that was made. So apart from a minority of postings on here and in the Editors blogs the general opinion is that this web design has been poorly executed and that no matter how many people use the correct complaints channels no substantial explanations have been forthcoming as to how we reached this state of affairs. If as Ben has said that we are listening to the complaints and will resolve the issues then why didn't he listen to the people like me who pointed out the obvious when the beta version was launched? Did I waste my time in helping to improve what was an excellent web site of the old design? How many like me gave a negative reaction based on fundamental web design principles not just "I don't like it because it's new" as suggested by others. I posted the link to the US site merely to point out that this site is a mess and others have noted that for such a large organisation the BBC should have done a better job. So here's the challenge to the BBC can you give me one link to any person or organisation (other than the BBC) that says that the new Sports pages are better?

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 455

    , in reply to message 454.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    Indeed.

    Prepare to have the Design Museum nomination mentioned as an endorsement of the BBCs design prowess, although even that has caused a reaction of negative comment on the Design Museum nominations website. There's nothing worse than corporates telling their customers that their opinions are wrong. (well there is - telling customers they are wrong, and then asking for more feedback)

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 456

    , in reply to message 455.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    Indeed.

    Prepare to have the Design Museum nomination mentioned as an endorsement of the BBCs design prowess, although even that has caused a reaction of negative comment on the Design Museum nominations website. There's nothing worse than corporates telling their customers that their opinions are wrong. (well there is - telling customers they are wrong, and then asking for more feedback) 
    Thanks for the reference Lydia it appears that the nominated BBC web page is for the home page and not the sports pages and as you point out even the home page is not to every ones taste.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 457

    , in reply to message 454.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    There wasn't a beta version of the Sports homepage.

    I prefer the new site to the old site - I find the navigation easier and the presentation less cluttered.


    What do you think of the site today following the changes made?

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 458

    , in reply to message 456.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    Hi

    All the new sites are supposed to reflect the common GEL designs ( although each project team seems to be making the same mistakes and following a well orchestrated pseudo consultation after release and then clampdown after an unsuitable period )

    For comparison, the weight of negative feedback for the homepage was much greater than for the Sports site, or the mobile site, or the revamp to message boards.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 459

    , in reply to message 457.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    There wasn't a beta version of the Sports homepage.

    I prefer the new site to the old site - I find the navigation easier and the presentation less cluttered.


    What do you think of the site today following the changes made? 
    Better but no cigar....

    Here's the difference............

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

    www1.skysports.com/c...

    Given a blind test as to who produced what there is only one winner. You should also try this on your smart phone to see that Sky's pages are not only more dynamic in design but also easier to use - remember the old BBC site was near perfect which is why the changes have caused so much debate.

    This could be just my taste of course so I'd be interested in what others think when making the comparison.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 460

    , in reply to message 459.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    So.....

    One has large, animated graphics, lots of annoying adverts, and is very blue....

    The other is moderately yellow (less so than a few weeks ago), has been designed to be accessible (take a look at both when you turn of CSS) but annoys people on this board...

    Both seem to relate to a (strange) game called cricket and use a horizontal menu structure for navigation.

    Final comment the BBC site for cricket appears to be in transition with the home page using a new template along with news items but many of the supporting pages are using the old template. The pages I've checked use either www.bbc.co.uk/sport/... or news.bbc.co.uk/sport... URLs indicating that none of them are using the newer dynamic platform for page delivery (the URL would be www.bbc.co.uk/sport/....

    The fact that BBC cricket site is in transition definitely makes for a mixed browsing experience with menus and presentation styles shifting backwards and forwards.






    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 461

    , in reply to message 460.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    The URLs in my message are as follows:

    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / 0 / cricket (Static new platform)
    news.bbc.co.uk / sport1 / hi / cricket (Static old platform)
    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / cricket (would be Dynamic)

    The messageboard mangled them for me.....

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 462

    , in reply to message 461.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    The URLs in my message are as follows:

    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / 0 / cricket (Static new platform)
    news.bbc.co.uk / sport1 / hi / cricket (Static old platform)
    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / cricket (would be Dynamic)

    The messageboard mangled them for me..... 
    I admire you for being the lone voice in the wilderness but alas you do not prove your case. Adverts on Sky - of course, they are a commercial company relying on people (who have a choice) paying them money. By your thinking the BBC site should be even better without these incumbents - it is not. I say again to you to find me a web site praising the new version (any version) of the sports pages. Are you up for the challenge or will you merely find a polar opposite to the vast majority of posters on this board . Please include the link(s) when you next post.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 463

    , in reply to message 462.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    The URLs in my message are as follows:

    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / 0 / cricket (Static new platform)
    news.bbc.co.uk / sport1 / hi / cricket (Static old platform)
    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / cricket (would be Dynamic)

    The messageboard mangled them for me..... 
    I admire you for being the lone voice in the wilderness but alas you do not prove your case. Adverts on Sky - of course, they are a commercial company relying on people (who have a choice) paying them money. By your thinking the BBC site should be even better without these incumbents - it is not. I say again to you to find me a web site praising the new version (any version) of the sports pages. Are you up for the challenge or will you merely find a polar opposite to the vast majority of posters on this board . Please include the link(s) when you next post. 

    Can you find a website that praises the current version of the Sky sports website?

    There should be loads - Sky is much bigger than BBC sport.

    Please include the link/s when you next post. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 464

    , in reply to message 463.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    ..and of course in the interests of balance... a list of the campaigns against the Sky site. Peta - live by the sword...


    What we mustn't lose sight of course is that the BBC have forums (and maybe I concede a few temporary blogs) for their customers to write their views on. This has to be applauded - as no other broadcaster provides such a platform. But before you cut paste this plaudit to yet another PR blog, we should say that the message boards and blogs give the impression of accountability and maybe tick a few boxes for the "Corporate Responsbility Department", but in reality are a sacrificial anode and in practice have little or no influence whatsoever. As often mentioned... we are viewed as unrepresentative, and clearly the BBC don't want to engage with us. I'd rather they close blogs and message boards and dispense with the pretence of accountability. Even the online accountability executive ducks below the parapet at the slightest sign of trouble.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 465

    , in reply to message 463.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    The URLs in my message are as follows:

    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / 0 / cricket (Static new platform)
    news.bbc.co.uk / sport1 / hi / cricket (Static old platform)
    www.bbc.co.uk / sport / cricket (would be Dynamic)

    The messageboard mangled them for me..... 
    I admire you for being the lone voice in the wilderness but alas you do not prove your case. Adverts on Sky - of course, they are a commercial company relying on people (who have a choice) paying them money. By your thinking the BBC site should be even better without these incumbents - it is not. I say again to you to find me a web site praising the new version (any version) of the sports pages. Are you up for the challenge or will you merely find a polar opposite to the vast majority of posters on this board . Please include the link(s) when you next post. 

    Can you find a website that praises the current version of the Sky sports website?

    There should be loads - Sky is much bigger than BBC sport.

    Please include the link/s when you next post. smiley - winkeye 
    Peta, you got me thinking... I googled:

    "sky sports siterubbish" returned nothing of note... except a reference to the BBC site being rubbish

    Then "BBC sports site rubbish" returned too many entires to count.

    Then the message board crashed my browser.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 466

    , in reply to message 449.

    Posted by Think Tank (U15039872) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    Peta,

    For someone who said "As you know, I don't work for the sports, design *or* research teams - so I don't think that there's any value in continuing to discuss this issue with me - I'm not involved in the development of the sports site." it's more than just weird to hear you wade in and denegrate a posting with your barb of "Yes, a near -global consensus' of nine postings".

    You have previously emphasised how blogs etc are not necessarily representative (I wonder it you would have been so dismissive if the same blogs has been overwhelmingly positive instead of negative?);

    the BBC have previously trumpted unique web visitors pre-launch but now claim that the information is confidential;

    you seem to continously re-post blog comments made by the blog authors and highlight them as "sources" of information when the general response is that they are woolly / non-responsive / obtuse / etc - these self same blogs that promise an update cycle of 2 weeks & then tells us the corrections will take time;

    these self-same blogs that use the word errors in relation to the launch but insist in putting it in "quotes" - as if there weren't really any real errors.

    these self-same blogs that just ignore the absence of sufficient testing pre-launch;

    these self-same blogs that refuse to even ackowledge the issue with the colours used on the site and that this breaks the Editorial Guidlines;

    If you must quote these blogs could you arrange that the ones that say "we'll post updates here" and "this blog is where you'll find the updates" are a) updated and b) open for updates?

    Why quote the UK figure of 70 million when the BBC has already emphasised that the market research covered the UK and non-UK audiences? Why not really go hyperbolic and mention 7 (or even 8) billion?

    If having 9 (or ten counting the poster) entries is not enough for you I suggest you cast you eyes in the direction of the blogs you're so fond of ... there'll you'll hundreds (if not thousands) of entries ... and, on the plus side, they're not ALL against the new site (OK .. maybe 95%)

    See what happens when there is an appearance of toeing the corporate line / being open to the charge of bias? You just put yourself in the same frame as Ben, Cait & the motley crew ....

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 467

    , in reply to message 462.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    Please include the link(s) when you next post. 

    Here are a few to keep you going....

    www.zabisco.com/blog...
    blog.newsreach.co.uk...
    thomasmutton.blogspo...

    So remind me, what is it that hate about the BBC cricket pages and what is it that makes the Sky ones so much better? Why not give us some specific URLs for us from the two sites.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 468

    , in reply to message 464.

    Posted by DBOne (U14389107) on Friday, 13th April 2012

    .but in reality are a sacrificial anode and in practice have little or no influence whatsoever.  

    If this was the case then why would the BBC bother making changes in response to them? As far as I can see they have done what Ben said here www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    It would however be nice if Ben did this We will come back to this blog to let you know as and when we have more specific news to announce.  a bit more frequently. Maybe once the videprinter is redone he'll tell us what is next.


    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 469

    , in reply to message 467.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Saturday, 14th April 2012

    Please include the link(s) when you next post. 

    Here are a few to keep you going....

    www.zabisco.com/blog...
    blog.newsreach.co.uk...
    thomasmutton.blogspo...

    So remind me, what is it that hate about the BBC cricket pages and what is it that makes the Sky ones so much better? Why not give us some specific URLs for us from the two sites. 
    Here are some snippets from your links DBOne.....

    'Even though BBC uses colour cleverly to highlight certain content more and they have done a good job in presenting all the options on one page catering for all users. However the way content has been laid out appears disorganised'.

    'There is a lack of consistency with certain parts of the site. For example, all links are not blue. Some links, which seem to be most important appear in black, whilst section titles, which are also clickable appear green. It’s not clear why this has been done'.

    Not one of your links mentions text blocks overlaying pictures which is the first thing that struck me as being poor design and some even liked the bold (old) yellow!

    Now I could publish links to thousands of posts that have the opposite view to you but we've been down that road. Lets be clear I'm not even a Sky subscriber so I have no wish to promote Sky as such but lets take some of the reasons why I now prefer that site. I put up the links to the cricket pages just randomly. In the Sky version I can see a county team - it's fixtures, scores etc in one click on the BBC page it takes two clicks and they haven't even put up the league table yet on the main cricket page. But all these pale into significance when you view the overall package the Sky site looks far more professional and involving - yes the old BBC site may have looked dated but at least you could access the information quickly.

    Peta - I can find only one blog reference to some who loves the Sky site and I couldn't find one that hated it so if this is the measure on how we judge the two sites then the BBC is in deep trouble. Lets not forget that the budget for the BBC web sites (even after budget cuts) is about £145 million pounds that's a lot of money in anyone's books and of course web traffic from the BBC News pages considerably helps the traffic figures to it's Sports pages so it should outshine any sports pages out there with lots of people stating how good the site is so why aren't they?

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 470

    , in reply to message 469.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Saturday, 14th April 2012


    It not my argument ROD - I just suggested that it would be fair to look at both.

    Think Tank I suggest you re-read all the blogs, it might help you.

    Everyone else - I'll come back when I have something to add - this has now been done to death.

    Have a good weekend.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 471

    , in reply to message 470.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Saturday, 14th April 2012


    It not my argument ROD - I just suggested that it would be fair to look at both.

    Think Tank I suggest you re-read all the blogs, it might help you.

    Everyone else - I'll come back when I have something to add - this has now been done to death.

    Have a good weekend.  
    Peta - I sense frustration in your last message - I know the feeling oh so well as do many others, have a good weekend.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 472

    , in reply to message 470.

    Posted by Think Tank (U15039872) on Saturday, 14th April 2012

    Peta,

    I seem to be continually reading the same message - no matter which incarnation of the various blogs they happen to be in this week.

    I cannot see how rereading the blogs will enable me to find out the information that is not in them.

    In respect to the information in the blogs, I still cannot find any explanation as how to this carefully researched & tested offering was released full of bugs, how it was released with all videos auto-playing (am I right to assume the subjects were accessing the test-site on an internal many 00's mbit link and not a 4mbit ADSL line of a 3G smartphone? - nope, not in the blogs)

    Rereading the blogs doesn't shed any light on why updates were supposed to be on a two weekly cycle but fixes take months, nor why simple fixes (e.g. css changes) take months.

    Rereading the blogs doesn't explain why the WDL breaching the Editorial Guidelines was designed in, not caught in testing & released - mainly because the blogs have never admitted that this was the case - the closest I've seen is "may cause some difficulties". Also doesn't explain why this state of denial was allowed to persist (or the absence of the word Sorry).

    Rereading the blogs doesn't explain the hypocritical position of the BBC regarding visitor numbers. What it does do is provide a response from the BBC claiming exemption.

    Rereading the blogs doesn't explain your (apparent) distainful response to an external website where the BBC Sport Site is panned. If doesn't explain why, if you prefer 2000 from a pre-release test over many millions post-release, you don't prefer 9 over 2000. If you want to play with the numbers (as it seems you do (only 9 or 10) in your post) then may I suggested you rered both blogs - the one that says of the 2000 80% were in favour and the blog thats says all 9 (or 10) thought it was awful. 100% beats 80% any day!

    Rereading the blogs doesn't give the slighest clue when we can expect further infromation from Ben Gallop - the guy who says he can't respond to everyine individually (not that he was asked to) and so promised regular updates via the blog.

    You said it might help me - seems you were wrong .... still, maybe once you've reread the blogs, you may have a deeper understanding of the story of the last 2 and a half months!

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 473

    , in reply to message 472.

    Posted by Rhubarb in Custody (U14925615) on Sunday, 15th April 2012

    I think it's a bit harsh to have a go at Peta for this. It seems like she doesn't actually WANT to "Defend the Indefensible", and is only doing so because the people who SHOULD have been providing answers on their blogs (Ben Gallop et al) have failed miserably to do so, leaving this as pretty much the only BBC blog left which even seems to tolerate postings on the subject at all. It's the fault of BG et al that external people are so frustrated with the BBC Sport people in general that they are demanding answers via Peta's messageboard, which Peta is reluctantly responding to...

    Peta: What would help is if you could ask BG et al, via whatever internal communication routes there are, if they do intend to provide any further updates themselves, and if so when. If they give you an answer, please pass it on. If they don't give you an answer, just let us know that, and we will then at least know that you have tried to find out what's going on, and are being treated like us.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 474

    , in reply to message 473.

    Posted by Think Tank (U15039872) on Sunday, 15th April 2012

    RiC

    In general I agree with your sentiments regarding the fact that Peta & PoV are the open channels and should be applauded for that. I also agree that a response (almost any rsponse) from BG et al would be most welcome.

    However, notwithstanding Peta efforts, I feel a line was crossed in terms of the tone of the response regarding the least-BBC-desired award (especially denigrating the post due to the numbers involved when the BBC refuses to publish its own figures) and then suggest I may learn something by rereading closed blogs I have read many times in trying to understand what the BBC position is, what we can reasonably expect, what we should be able to expect and what, if anything, is likely to happen next.

    Peta seems to have moved from the "I dont know / I don't work there/dont work with them" to more of a "that's unfair/so what/try harder" position.

    It seems to me that one could compare this to the BG "no matter what you say we've done research so we know best" position.

    I really hope Peta can elucidate a response from BG ... but, in the meantime, I'll continue to breathe .... in .... out .... in ... out

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 475

    , in reply to message 474.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Monday, 16th April 2012

    I agree Think Tank.

    There is little value in this thread I'm afraid. I feel nothing can be achieved from this dialogue as it is not with the people who are empowered to respond to the audience's needs. Those (albeit ineffective) channels are closed. A third hand message is not much benefit either. Winding us up by denigrating our posts and sending us back with links to closed blogs we are all very familiar with will just build on the frustration.

    A lot of posts have been made, yet we have no progress, and no more information than we had at post No. 1

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 476

    , in reply to message 475.

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

  • Message 477

    , in reply to message 475.

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

  • Message 478

    , in reply to message 475.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Tuesday, 17th April 2012

    Dear BBC

    football score links were wrong all last weekend.

    that surely will not be modded?

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 479

    , in reply to message 478.

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

  • Message 480

    , in reply to message 478.

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

  • Message 481

    , in reply to message 478.

    Posted by lauriemar (U8562848) on Tuesday, 17th April 2012

    Also, is it just my imagination or have they recently made access to details of the Football Conference North and South more difficult than it used to be? I feel certain that it was much easier before.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 482

    , in reply to message 481.

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

  • Message 483

    , in reply to message 475.

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

  • Message 484

    , in reply to message 483.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012

    Thanks ThinkTank - postings were mine.

    In fairness 476 did break the House Rules.

    477 onwards however did not & I cannot understand why they were modded - no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 485

    , in reply to message 484.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012

    Thanks ThinkTank - postings were mine.

    In fairness 476 did break the House Rules.

    477 onwards however did not & I cannot understand why they were modded - no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming. 
    Hi Groucho

    Moderation of individual posts is not discussed on the boards and posts asking why posts have been failed will be removed, as posts querying moderation decisions are off-topic for the board as it leads to reposting of removed content.

    If you would like to query a moderation decision, please don't post to the board (repeatedly!) instead follow the instructions in the welcome message at the top of the TV topic and contact the moderation services team.

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

    smiley - star Have a question about the moderation of a post, or would like to appeal against a decision? All the info about moderation is here, and you can contact the moderation services team via these information pages and they will be able to advise and answer any questions you have.
    www.bbc.co.uk/messag... 

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 486

    , in reply to message 485.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012

    Thanks for advice Peta but in my experience appealling a decision is pointless. The decision is made & thats it - hardly fair IMHO but thats the way the message board works.

    c'est la vie.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 487

    , in reply to message 486.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012


    I was hoping that you'd twig that all of the posts after the one you had correctly failed were querying the mod decision. We can't get into debate about posts failed on the boards, so they were failed for off topic, that's all - so yes, they wouldn't be reinstated.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 488

    , in reply to message 487.

    Posted by Lydia Dusbin (U15056042) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012


    I was hoping that you'd twig that all of the posts after the one you had correctly failed were querying the mod decision. We can't get into debate about posts failed on the boards, so they were failed for off topic, that's all - so yes, they wouldn't be reinstated.  
    what can we do about the thread being disrupted by all these extra posts telling us that we can't discuss moderation as it's disruptive?smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 489

    , in reply to message 486.

    Posted by DragonFluff (U6879248) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012

    Thanks for advice Peta but in my experience appealling a decision is pointless. 

    [Panto style]

    Oh, no, it isn't! smiley - smiley

    I've appealed decisions on this board and on the Archers board and had posts reinstated. It's always worth doing, as you get an individual reply from a real hooman bean, and if your appeal's rejected, you'll get a further explanation as to why.

    Fluff

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 490

    , in reply to message 489.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Wednesday, 18th April 2012

    Thanks for advice Peta but in my experience appealling a decision is pointless. 

    [Panto style]

    Oh, no, it isn't! smiley - smiley

    I've appealed decisions on this board and on the Archers board and had posts reinstated. It's always worth doing, as you get an individual reply from a real hooman bean, and if your appeal's rejected, you'll get a further explanation as to why.

    Fluff  
    I'll take your advice DragonFluff once I receive an email referring to my message that was removed.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 491

    , in reply to message 486.

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

  • Message 492

    , in reply to message 491.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Thursday, 19th April 2012

    I've given up ThinkTank - BBC beaten me into submission. My licence fee is payable whether I like it or not but am not given right of reply.
    Welcome to 2012 in the UK.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 493

    , in reply to message 492.

    Posted by andyp1965 (U15125447) on Thursday, 19th April 2012

    I've given up ThinkTank - BBC beaten me into submission. My licence fee is payable whether I like it or not but am not given right of reply.
    Welcome to 2012 in the UK. 
    Have to agree GrouchoM. The BBC has absolutly no interest in listening to its customers except when it is praise.

    As a Scot I am doublely hit as I can no longer comment on the Scottish blogs. A situation that is beyond belief when the political debate up here is so intense.

    Therefore I too will be leaving this blog, because it is dying. Even the affable Peta has shown signs of exasperation in some of her posts and I see no point in causing anymore hassle for her when it is all so obviously pointless.

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 494

    , in reply to message 492.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 19th April 2012


    For someone who isn't given right of reply, you've replied an awful lot GrouchoM. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 495

    , in reply to message 493.

    Posted by Spinning_head (U10049943) on Thursday, 19th April 2012

    Therefore I too will be leaving this blog... 
    I'm staying! smiley - biggrin

    There have been changes to the original mess of a "revamped" Sport website. The changes that have NOT been made are to the LOOK of the site. The colours for text on the homepage are too bright and contrasty. An eyesore!

    Until that's sorted I'm not visiting that site.

    So there!

    smiley - tongueout

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 496

    , in reply to message 485.

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

  • Message 497

    , in reply to message 495.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Thursday, 19th April 2012

    Therefore I too will be leaving this blog... 
    I'm staying! smiley - biggrin

    There have been changes to the original mess of a "revamped" Sport website. The changes that have NOT been made are to the LOOK of the site. The colours for text on the homepage are too bright and contrasty. An eyesore!

    Until that's sorted I'm not visiting that site.

    So there!

    smiley - tongueout 
    Visit the Olympic tab site and you'll be asked to fill in a survey on how you've reacted to the new sports pages - now that's a survey I'd love to see the results.

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 498

    , in reply to message 494.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Friday, 20th April 2012

    Sorry Peta.

    Instead of "right to reply" I should have said "right to express an opinion that may not necessarily please the BBC".

    smiley - biggrin

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 499

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Friday, 20th April 2012

    We have relaunched the BBC Sport website for the first time since 2003, and have made a number of improvements. 

    Improvements? Just who are you trying to kid, it's an absolute dogs dinner and even worse than the BBC Homepage - which takes some doing.

    Apologies for being late to this thread...

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 500

    , in reply to message 473.

    Posted by Think Tank (U15039872) on Saturday, 21st April 2012

    RiC,

    Do you think enough time has passed for us to reasonably conclude that there was no reply forthcoming from Ben Gallop to Peta?

    Or perhaps that BG is njust not forthcoming? Or maybe functioning? Anyone heard of him recently? Has he left? Do we care?

    Answers on a postcard to .....

    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.