Online  permalink

Points of View Message Board Blog Post 5

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 301 - 350 of 1436
  • Message 301

    , in reply to message 300.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "Has in fact Nick given a single yes or no answer to a single question in the hundreds of postings and blog entries. Because I can't find it"

    Perhaps you missed this blog post where I answered Niclaramartin's questions:

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

  • Message 302

    , in reply to message 301.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Come on Nick you are seriously taking the wee wee now aren't you?

    We all ask questions on the messageboard about your implied proposal to replace it with a blog and the general resistance to that and you reply on your blog.

    Is that a dictionary definition of obtuse or what?

    I know you think you are making some sort of clever point but you have to see that's antagonistic. I'm not going to look at your blog now on principle!

    Report message2

  • Message 303

    , in reply to message 302.

    Posted by Helen May (U1633128) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Nick,

    I'm sorry but I've always thought it courtesy to answer a question where it was asked. If your sister asked you a question would you reply to your cousin? It may sound stupid but it's exactly what you are doing and the reason why we are becoming increasingly angry about this whole situation.

    In the meantime our licence fee is being wasted on meetings about meetings....... oh I won't go on as you've almost worn me down, but I suppose that was the plan anyway in the hope we would all go away and not bother you anymore.

    H

    Report message3

  • Message 304

    , in reply to message 302.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    I haven't made any "implied proposal" to close down the POV boards and replace them with a blog.

    And I have tried to answer as many of your questions as possible.

  • Message 305

    , in reply to message 304.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    And there again the word 'radio' disappears. Funny, that.

    You have made an implied proposal to close that board down though...

    Report message5

  • Message 306

    , in reply to message 305.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    I haven't made any "implied proposal" to close down the POV boards and replace them with a blog 
    Ok, my apologies if that's the impression I've got. I must admit I've not read the whole way back through the thread.

    So can you give a categorical confirmation then that the BBC will not be closing down message boards and putting blogs in their place?

    Report message6

  • Message 307

    , in reply to message 300.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    smiley - laugh Geoff.

    Excellent earlier post Angelic smiley - ok

    Report message7

  • Message 308

    , in reply to message 307.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    You know, it's a catch 22 situation here. If we don't post to his blog he can claim there's very little dissent. And if we do, he'll count the number of postings to make some sort of popularity point.

    Report message8

  • Message 309

    , in reply to message 308.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:20 GMT, in reply to loudGeoffW

    You know, it's a catch 22 situation here. If we don't post to his blog he can claim there's very little dissent. And if we do, he'll count the number of postings to make some sort of popularity point. 

    Geoff this has also been discussed on here well on here www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2... and a few of us stopped posting on them and stopped going over to have a look to see what was written.

    He says he's conversing with us, but he's not really. I don't think he likes us that much either.

    Report message9

  • Message 310

    , in reply to message 309.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Do you mean to tell me after exhausting myself over endless circular arguments and troll attacks I've missed this important thread.

    Aaargh.

    Report message10

  • Message 311

    , in reply to message 310.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:40 GMT, in reply to loudGeoffW in message 310

    Sorry............


    smiley - laugh

    This part of the board is not frequented by other posters, so Nippie in her wisdom posted what she felt to important to be missed by us regulars about the first blog etc.

    Report message11

  • Message 312

    , in reply to message 309.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Nick

    When you wrote your blog TO me (note TO me) I said it was NOT acceptable. WE are a community on the messageboards, and you DO NOT pick ONE poster and write a blog to them smiley - doh

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

    I did NOT respond to THAT blog, as I felt it was inappropriate to address it to me (almost like a letter).

    I had lots of questions, BUT so did VERY MANY other posters. WE are ALL entitled to have our "direct" questions answered.

    To address a blog to a poster is a really strange thought process. I felt very uneasy about the whole thing.smiley - sadface As I say, I have NO intention of becoming the wee-er one in The Two Ronnies (although Ronnie Corbett is Scottish too).

    Nick, I think you have shown YET AGAIN the problem with blogs. The author can OVER-focus, by writing a blog to ONE person smiley - doh It felt patronising, isolating and to be perfectly honest rather strange, to find my name on the heading to your blog. A very queazy and unnerving experience.smiley - yikes THAT was part of the reason that I decided that I would NOT be contributing to your blogs again. It is just too wierd for words.

    It is also part of the reason WHY I said that I wanted nothing to do with a ONE-to-ONE, or few-to-one with you. I am distancing myself from what I found a rather distasteful experience of picking ONE poster to compose a blog to. smiley - doh I gave up pen-pals when I was fifteen. smiley - erm

    NOW, please focus, and answer as many of the "direct" questions from a myriad of posters, as you can. You complain that messageboarders can't focus the way bloggers can, BUT, there have been very MANY direct questions to you, and YOU have evaded them, as I say, cherry-picking the ones you WILL answer. If you look back, you will see the SAME questions being asked over and over and over, for the simple reason that WE do want answers to questions. THIS, and the other threads/blogs could have been so much more focussed if YOU had kept on top of the current blog/thread, before moving on to composing yet another blog.

    TEN blog/threads is OVER-egging it, and you only have yourself to blame for the meandering of the topic. WE came on the first blog with LOTS of suggestions, and, we received scant feedback. You then moved onto the next blog, and the process of evading/insulting (from both sides) began. IF you want to make peace with YOUR messageboarding community, you will have to stop being so unpleasant about messageboarders and the quality of their postings. We ARE the COMMUNITY you have to deal with, so, get a grip, and COMMUNICATE with the community you have, and NOT the one you WISH you had. smiley - doh

    Report message12

  • Message 313

    , in reply to message 312.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Again it seems like I can't win.

    I deliberately answered your questions because other people seemed to be asking similar ones so I wouldn't have to keep answering the same questions over and over again.

    And yet when I answer your questions, you don't like it.

  • Message 314

    , in reply to message 313.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "So can you give a categorical confirmation then that the BBC will not be closing down message boards and putting blogs in their place?"

    No, because I don't speak for the whole BBC

    This conversation is supposed to be about the Points of View Message Boards not all BBC boards

    However if you read my last blog post carefully, it says that no one in the meeting suggested closing the POV boards.

    You seem to think that this is some kind of battle between blogs and message boards. It isn't.

    It's about finding the best way of getting BBC people to talk with you online. Which might be a blog. Or it might be a message board. Or both. Or something completely different.

  • Message 315

    , in reply to message 314.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "WE came on the first blog with LOTS of suggestions, and, we received scant feedback"

    This is untrue. I left comments on the first blog post and followed up with more blog posts covering many of the things you were talking about.

  • Message 316

    , in reply to message 315.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    And yet time and time and time again you're quite prepared to discuss removing the non TV boards without investigating, contacting appropriate departments or making any sort of plans about what you're going to do with those forums.

    I KNOW the TV boards are safe (at the moment, the future who knows). It's the others I'm concerned about. And I'm not exactly getting any real sense.

    Report message16

  • Message 317

    , in reply to message 316.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    In fact, will the first we know be when we log in one morning and find that there's just a TV feedback forum on POV?

    Report message17

  • Message 318

    , in reply to message 314.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    So can you give a categorical confirmation then that the BBC will not be closing down message boards and putting blogs in their place?"

    No, because I don't speak for the whole BBC

    This conversation is supposed to be about the Points of View Message Boards not all BBC boards 

    OK I stand corrected. In that case can you give a categorical confirmation then that the BBC will not be closing down the POV message board and putting a blog in its place?

    Report message18

  • Message 319

    , in reply to message 318.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "And yet time and time and time again you're quite prepared to discuss removing the non TV boards without investigating, contacting appropriate departments or making any sort of plans about what you're going to do with those forums."

    That's precisely what it is - a discussion. When we have some plans then you'll be the first to know.

  • Message 320

    , in reply to message 319.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "However if you read my last blog post carefully, it says that no one in the meeting suggested closing the POV boards."

  • Message 321

    , in reply to message 319.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Okay, I'll be prepared to be amazed. I will keep my sunglasses at the ready, to be dazzled by the new shiny bright radio feedback forums.

    smiley - biggrin

    Report message21

  • Message 322

    , in reply to message 320.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "In fact, will the first we know be when we log in one morning and find that there's just a TV feedback forum on POV?"

    No, because the whole point of what I'm doing is to keep talking to you about what we might or might not do.

    So as soon as there's any more information I'll be telling you about it.

  • Message 323

    , in reply to message 313.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Nick

    You COMPLETELY do not get messageboarding do you!!!!!! You DO NOT pick ONE poster and talk to them. WE all contribute equally, and we are ALL entitled to be treated the same.

    I deliberately answered your questions because other people seemed to be asking similar ones so I wouldn't have to keep answering the same questions over and over again. 

    LOTS of posters have listed questions the way I did, BUT, I don't see a blog to Geoff, or Nippie or any of the others. It was WRONG to address a blog to ONE person (ANY one person). Your blog SHOULD have included SOME of MY questions, some of Geoff's, some of Nippie's, some of Angelic's etc).

    Again it seems like I can't win 

    NOT when you are wrong, and it WAS wrong to address a blog to ONE poster.

    As I say, most things are water off a duck's back to me, BUT, THAT was just very strange. I frequent lots of blogs, and I have NEVER been on a blog where the author writes ONE of their community's names in the heading, and THEN effectively writes a blog TO them (with other bloggers effectively side-lined).

    MY questions were important to ME, but, to other posters they may not have touched ANY of the aspects/questions THEY were interested in. It was a WASTED opportunity to communicate with YOUR community.

    What you SHOULD have done with THAT blog was say, "I have had lots of questions, and I propose to list a dozen of them in THIS blog and address the issues raised". And, THEN, you should have re-read the postings to pick questions from SEVERAL posters, with the diversity that you would get from more than ONE poster.

    BUT you chose...

    Just before Xmas niclaramartin asked a number of questions in a comment on my previous blog post.

    Rather than writing another long comment I thought I would answer them in a new blog post. Nicalamartin's questions are in italics. 


    If you don't see what a wasted opportunity THAT blog was, then there really is NO HOPE for you to get to grips with the COMMUNITY aspect of messageboarding.

    Ask your wife how she would have felt if someone addressed a blog to her. smiley - doh BECAUSE, "special" is NOT how it makes you feel. smiley - yikes



    Report message23

  • Message 324

    , in reply to message 313.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Again it seems like I can't win.

    I deliberately answered your questions because other people seemed to be asking similar ones so I wouldn't have to keep answering the same questions over and over again.

    And yet when I answer your questions, you don't like it. 


    Nick,

    To be honest you can't win the hearts and minds of the people who pay for all of this and want to use it to their best advantage.

    The only area you will win is in implementing the BBC's agenda.

    The blog idea as a whole is ill conceived, for us the format is like being in the presence of royalty - in fact it is worse. IN the presence of royalty one is not supposed to speak first, but on a blog one cannot speak first.

    You say that you like it because you can consolidate answers to similar questions, but we don't see the world from that perspective. I haven't got all day to find out if someone has asked a similar question to me, and then go to a blog to see if perchance it has been answered. The whole idea is unworkable.

    There are two elements going on here on the messageboard. We would like the BBC to tell us the answers to any questions we ask - that can be done on the messageboard. This isn't just a matter of pooh poohing our comments. Second we would wish to talk amongst ourselves about whatever issue it is (or not as the case may be), thereby to garner information from other users on the matter.

    This does not work on a blog. The blogs are just a massive amount of extra obfuscation by the BBC and it does not work to the advantage of the TV Taxpayer.

    The BBC has been systematically ruining its own brainchild here for the past four or so years, and has never listened to a word that anyone has said on the matter.

    At first the BBC rearranged things to minimise the global impact of it's internet operation. We can only guess at this time that the BBC was told to do so by the government after the Hutton debacle.

    There now seems to be a further attempt to obfuscate, split, divide, compartmentalise etc.

    This is creating an increased number of venues where people can ramble on to each other about virtually nothing of any importance - apart from why the BBC is so hell bent on screwing up something that it could do really well five years ago.




    Report message24

  • Message 325

    , in reply to message 323.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:52 GMT, in reply to niclaramartin

    Just as Nick thought we were insulting to him, I think its insulting of him to ignore questions put to him and just ignore others (like me). If he doesn't have an answer for one particular question, just say so instead of ignoring the poster and their question.

    I think Mozo has been totally blanked (like me) and Nick wonders why we are getting shirty!

    Report message25

  • Message 326

    , in reply to message 325.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Niclaramartin - Well Nippie Sweetie said this at the time

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

    So she seemed to find it helpful.

  • Message 327

    , in reply to message 322.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    "In fact, will the first we know be when we log in one morning and find that there's just a TV feedback forum on POV?"

    No, because the whole point of what I'm doing is to keep talking to you about what we might or might not do.

    So as soon as there's any more information I'll be telling you about it. 



    Would that be following the SAME model as Tom is adopting? He came on the messageboards, asking us on 29th November 2008 for what WE wanted to improve the Messageboards. We were given until 1st December (before lunch). We gave LOTS of information (same as with you), and from 2nd December we have not heard a dickie bird from Tom (at least you HAVE fedback SOME information).

    What bloggers who come onto Messageboards asking for input/advice/information are showing, is that they will come onto the messageboards, get the boarders excited/posting/asking questions/making suggestions and then, (in Tom's case - just disappear), and in YOUR case, word answers in such a way that the question has to be asked over and over (you, yourself say THE SAME questions are being asked over and over). IF you don't know the answer, say "I don't know that answer, but I'll look into it". If you do know the answer, but not how or when it will be implemented, just say, "I THINK we shall be implementing XXXX BUT we haven't firmed up when or how - but it is obvious that messageboarders feel THAT is important". If WE want something, BUT, you honestly can't deliver it, just tell us.

    All we are asking is, WHICH of the MANY points that we have brought up, have you discussed positively and which came out negatively. Also I think Geoff has raised a lot of important points about the radio boards. You HAVE said it wasn't addressed properly at the meeting. Why not just say to Geoff "Thank you for raising this matter, as we didn't foresee what you have highlighted. We'll have to address it next time we meet. Any more input from posters about the radio boards would be appreciated". It's all about how things are worded. AND Nick, you are extremely blunt.

    Report message27

  • Message 328

    , in reply to message 326.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    I don't think either of you have been "totally blanked".

    I'm doing my best to answer your questions.

    And I seem to be giving you the same answers again and again.

    Maybe some of the answers are here;

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

  • Message 329

    , in reply to message 323.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    LOTS of posters have listed questions the way I did, BUT, I don't see a blog to Geoff, or Nippie or any of the others. 

    To be fair to Nick (smiley - yikes smiley - winkeye)I think a lot of our questions are quite similar and your posts Niclara appear to sum them up in a more organised manner. It was probably easier for Nick to respond to just your ones than wade through all of the responses answering the same thing over and over again.smiley - smiley


    So, to recap what we know so far. The Television messageboards aren't going but *may* be going under the control of BBC Vision. IF this happens, it will be around about the same time as POV comes back on our screens.

    The Radio mesageboard *may* be evicted from the POV messageboard as radio has nothing to do with POV (the programme)

    And as for Digital, The BBC and Online messageboards - I can't remember! Possibly blasted into cyberspace?

    I think..........

    smiley - smiley

    Report message29

  • Message 330

    , in reply to message 329.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    The Radio mesageboard *may* be evicted from the POV messageboard as radio has nothing to do with POV (the programme) 

    That's the bit that REALLY bothers me folks smiley - yikes

    Report message30

  • Message 331

    , in reply to message 323.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    HI niclaramartin,

    It'll be 'pistols for two, coffee for one' in a mo. by the look of it.

    You COMPLETELY do not get messageboarding do you!!!!!! You DO NOT pick ONE poster and talk to them. WE all contribute equally, and we are ALL entitled to be treated the same.
     


    Agreed!

    I think as well as a Points Of View board - where surprise surprise people anticipate they will be able to express their ..er..points of view.....There is a need for a Questions Specifically to be Answered by the BBC board.

    So if you actually have a question for the BBC, it goes to that place...and is answered there.

    It could have an FAQ database and people could be encouraged to check that before spouting off.

    It would have to be pretty well designed, some of those FAQ things are just plain irritating, but - the BBC does actually know a thing or two about the technicalities of this game, so I reckon they could do itsmiley - biggrin

    Get rid of these newfangled blogs. They are a waste of space.

    Report message31

  • Message 332

    , in reply to message 320.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    However if you read my last blog post carefully, it says that no one in the meeting suggested closing the POV boards 
    Come come Nick, that's not what I asked.

    [puts on best Paxo face]

    I didn't ask for a confirmation that it didn't come up in the meeting. I asked for you to confirm that it won't be done.

    Stop dancing on a pinhead and answer the question please.

    Report message32

  • Message 333

    , in reply to message 326.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Niclaramartin - Well Nippie Sweetie said this at the time

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

    So she seemed to find it helpful. 


    Well, bully. You got a poster who found the blog went some way  to clarifying things for HER. What about ALL the other posters, who might have wanted some of THEIR questions aired and answered?

    Nick, that in a nutshell, is the problem we are experiencing conversing with you.

    You have had screeds of questions and postings from dozens and dozens of posters (from all walks of life, with all sorts of priorities regarding THEIR use of messageboards), and YOU quote ONE poster's POSITIVE response.

    It's going to take you a VERYYYYYYYYYYYYY long time and a great many blogs to clarify things for EVERY poster on these blog/threads, IF you only please ONE poster at a time.

    Address the REAL issues. I actually think that these blogs/threads have meandered SO much that it will be almost impossible for you to find the core questions we are still asking, and for US to feel that WE have received answers to the important questions for us.

    I think you should re-focus and ask people AGAIN to succinctly put down their REAL concerns and questions they want answered, and THEN for you to actually keep on top of answering THOSE concerns.

    You have lost so many posters (there's really only a very small number who have stayed the course), so, surely you can NOW, answer "DIRECT" questions promptly.

    Report message33

  • Message 334

    , in reply to message 329.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    To be fair to Nick ()I think a lot of our questions are quite similar and your posts Niclara appear to sum them up in a more organised manner. It was probably easier for Nick to respond to just your ones than wade through all of the responses answering the same thing over and over again.
     


    Nippie Sweetie,

    I don't think this works.

    I am just about to ask a question....wait for it....wait a mo....it might be similar to one that one or more posters has asked. How do I find out? There are two or three threads going on this topic with a total of what 2000 posts. Have I gvot to read all that.

    And, if I do, how do I know which question is so similar to another similar question that the BBC in its wisdom has seen fit to select it from all the others, and answer it.

    I think I am going to go back to writing letters by snail mail and posting them to the DG. To be honest it would be far less trouble than coming on here and spending all the time marvelling at just how dysfunctional something can become.

    It worked perfectly five years ago. Now it hardly works at all.

    Report message34

  • Message 335

    , in reply to message 325.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Just as Nick thought we were insulting to him, I think its insulting of him to ignore questions put to him and just ignore others (like me). If he doesn't have an answer for one particular question, just say so instead of ignoring the poster and their question.

    I think Mozo has been totally blanked (like me) and Nick wonders why we are getting shirty!  



    Hi Angelicweeyin,

    I think Nick's idea of more or less establishing a One to One on a blog with one of the posters, and assuming that all the other users of the messageboard will fall in line with his editorial judgement on this, is a totally unworkable idea.

    It carries editorial control into the realms of patronage. It is no good.



    Nick.

    I actually do believe that this is fundamentally wrong. I would be grateful if you could respond here on this messageboard, even if my view is passably similar to what someone else has said at some point previously in this discussion.

    Report message35

  • Message 336

    , in reply to message 329.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    z

    smiley - ok

    Nippie

    I think the problem with THAT blog was, YES, perhaps a lot of posters were asking the same questions as me, and I had listed them, BUT a lot of posters were asking questions I had never thought of, which I actually thought were more relevant than a lot of the rather weaker questions in MY list.

    Nick could easily have answered three, four, five of mine (if they were the questions coming up over and over), BUT, there were genuinely questions (and aspects) that I had never thought of, posted by other posters (from their perspective) which Nick should have addressed in THAT blog. I know Geoff wasn't asking about the radio boards at that time, BUT, I am REALLY interested in HIS questions, and they have really made me think differently. Other posters, at the time of THAT blog, were asking questions I had never thought of, BUT, which I felt were FAR MORE important than some of the poorer questions in MY list, which Nick opted to answer. As I, have said before, he chose to answer ALL my questions in that list, when, if he REALLY wanted to address the "DIRECT" questions, he would have bumped some of my weaker ones, and answered more searching questions from other posters.

    It's a wee bit unsettling seeing a blog addressed to yourself too, Nippie.smiley - erm

    Report message36

  • Message 337

    , in reply to message 330.

    Posted by Helen May (U1633128) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    The Radio mesageboard *may* be evicted from the POV messageboard as radio has nothing to do with POV (the programme)
    Quoted from this message





    That's the bit that REALLY bothers me folks  


    Curmy,

    It does me as well!

    I did post to Nick today on his blog that there is a space on the R2 message boards that would solve the problem for that station. They keep putting temporary topics on it and then they are removed.

    I've not had any response from Nick although LoudGeoffW seemed to agree with my proposition.

    H

    Report message37

  • Message 338

    , in reply to message 334.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    I am just about to ask a question....wait for it....wait a mo....it might be similar to one that one or more posters has asked. How do I find out? There are two or three threads going on this topic with a total of what 2000 posts. Have I gvot to read all that. 

    Hi Z

    I would hate for *anyone* to have to read through all the posts/blog messages again and to be honest, I'm getting a bit lost myself with what's already been asked and answered.

    Nick, I tried to recap above as to where we are now. How about you recapping as to why this discussion about the messageboards arose, what ideas are being taken forward, what ideas are not being taken forward (with reasons)etc? This way, it might help posters who have just recently joined in the discussions. smiley - smiley

    Just one request Nick, PLEASE don't be ambiguous with your answers, as this is one of the things that is winding many of us up.

    smiley - peacedove

    Report message38

  • Message 339

    , in reply to message 336.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    z

    I think Nick's idea of more or less establishing a One to One on a blog with one of the posters, and assuming that all the other users of the messageboard will fall in line with his editorial judgement on this, is a totally unworkable idea.

    It carries editorial control into the realms of patronage. It is no good.  


    Absolutely agree with you. Nick just does not seem to be grasping COMMUNITY on messageboards. As I keep telling him, we are all EQUAL. At the time of THAT blog, I said it was a wasted opportunity to respond to the Messageboard community. As I have said before, it felt as if Nick was turning us into a double act. I am part of a messageboarding community, and I did not like the way, Nick wrote a blog around MY questions. I tried to make light of it by asking for co-authorship and modding rights, BUT, I am really resistant to becoming a tag-team with Nick. As I said, I have to access blogs for my work, but I DETEST them with a passion. They are a self-indulgent concept.

    It's the COMMUNITY aspect of messageboarding which I am drawn to.

    Report message39

  • Message 340

    , in reply to message 338.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    Nippie smiley - ok

    I think we are all getting really lost about what has been said, what has not been said, and what may happen.

    I really think Nick has to re-focus this WHOLE experiment, and list what he THINKS we feel are important to US, and what the outcomes of the meeting will mean to THOSE aspects.

    I also think that the posters should clearly define what they ACTUALLY want, and what they FEAR.

    Just one request Nick, PLEASE don't be ambiguous with your answers, as this is one of the things that is winding many of us up. 

    I think that this is why we are all confused. We just don't know what Nick has actually said when he answers us. It may be "non-commital" speak, but it does nothing for clarity.

    Report message40

  • Message 341

    , in reply to message 339.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009

    I think Nick's idea of more or less establishing a One to One on a blog with one of the posters, and assuming that all the other users of the messageboard will fall in line with his editorial judgement on this, is a totally unworkable idea.  


    Judging by all the independant minded and articulate posters on here, I

    think there's nil chance of all the message boarders here falling into line

    with Nick's ed. judgement smiley - yikes

    Report message41

  • Message 342

    , in reply to message 341.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    "How about you recapping as to why this discussion about the messageboards arose, what ideas are being taken forward, what ideas are not being taken forward (with reasons)etc"

    I've already explanied all this is a number of blog posts and in subsequent comments on the blogs and the boards.

    The discussion arose because I started thinking about the POV boards and how to improve them and I thought I would share my thoughts with the community there.

    See this post for more detail:

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

    The very last blog post I wrote explains what ideas are being investigated and why.

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

  • Message 343

    , in reply to message 342.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    But without re-igniting the argument that last blog contained a very specific logic error used as justification for a proposal and a link to a message board that had no bearings on POV (and has still not been removed) or the subject in question.

    Report message43

  • Message 344

    , in reply to message 343.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    As some of us have made it very plain that we do not like blogs, and find them difficult to use and navigate, would it not be polite to have a thread dedicated to this subject where you could reply to messageboarders' queries, Nick? You would get more responses than if you just relied on your blog.

    Report message44

  • Message 345

    , in reply to message 344.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    Yes, and when the very first blog post over there, suspiciously towing the party line, accuses us all of being 'moany' and that we 'outpour nonsense'. Followed up by a suspiciously new blogger, who just happened to stumble across that blog of all the many hundreds on the websites, and then starts accusing me of trolling.

    You just get a better quality of comment over here. We put forward loads of questions, loads of ideas. And they only result we get on the blogs is inexact answers or abuse. Very nice.

    Report message45

  • Message 346

    , in reply to message 342.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:39 GMT, in reply to NickReynolds in message 342

    *deep* *sighs* or *scream*

    I just do not see why I have to go over to a blog to find out about what is happening to these boards. Its not the blog future that we are concerned about its these boards, so what is being discussed on a blog should really be discussed here and not have to go phaffing about looking up a blog. If you don't like my attitude Nick well I am sorry but I am getting thoroughly peeved about this whole saga.

    Report message46

  • Message 347

    , in reply to message 345.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    And does anyone else find this photo a bit distasteful, a bit questionable for a manager working a corporation promoting free speech?

    www.flickr.com/photo...

    Report message47

  • Message 348

    , in reply to message 347.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    It's a bit grubby ... smiley - erm

    Report message48

  • Message 349

    , in reply to message 336.

    Posted by z (U9984902) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    Nippie

    I think the problem with THAT blog was, YES, perhaps a lot of posters were asking the same questions as me, and I had listed them, BUT a lot of posters were asking questions I had never thought of, which I actually thought were more relevant than a lot of the rather weaker questions in MY list.
     
    Hi Nippie,

    Further to whether the same questions are asked over and over - it's something to do with life isn't it.

    If I went into Marks and Spencer and said 'have you got a pair of pants?' I would be rather surprised if they said 'we keep having to answer that darn fool question despite the fact that there are pants hanging up everywhere, clear off!'

    It's like those kids working in the supermarkets who didn't like being asked the same banal questions and told us about it on facebook. They are in the wrong job.

    Actually the BBC are in a better position to handle some of this electronically - they could have a few FAQ links which would deal with some of it.

    The first two above accept the situation because failure affects their profit.

    The matter of whether questions are weak or strong is highly subjective; we are all learning all the time and we are all different ages.

    The answer to a question which may seem utterly ridiculous to one person could prove fascinating to another.

    I'm afraid it is just the job which we pay them to do smiley - sadface

    ....and ....a....nother....thing....!

    Nick mentioned 'off topic'.

    The BBC can't bear this, but again it is just a fact of life. I wonder if at that meeting he shows on the dreaded blog nobody went off topic ?? Hmmm..Eh! Eh!

    I avoid meetings line the plague (although I do concede the one shown didn't have many people in it). The big ones are just about Alpha Males grandstanding, and a huge waste of time and resources for the organisation.

    Anyway re your last comment

    It's a wee bit unsettling seeing a blog addressed to yourself too, Nippie 


    ....ah....some have greatness thrust upon themsmiley - biggrin

    If you carry on like this you could end up in the House of Lords, if you are not there already, of course.

    Report message49

  • Message 350

    , in reply to message 349.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Thursday, 29th January 2009

    Yeah, but it should polish up nicely with a bit of cleaning fluid. smiley - smiley

    Oh, the sticker. Just seems to convey the wrong sort of message. Perhaps it's ironic. Yes, that's it. I mean the BBC would never consider doing things that were ever, ever slightly unethical. Would they? They wouldn't, would they?

    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.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


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

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.