The Choice is Yours  permalink

A new look for the Radio 4 board

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 201 - 250 of 603
  • Message 201

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Nasigoreng .... did you see Dispatches on Channel 4 the other night?

    (....anything happening?)

    Report message1

  • Message 202

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Gaelforce9 (U14468400) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Horrible, horrible, horrible. Difficult to read, unattractive to look at - a ten-year old could have produced something better. The BBC website used to be notable for its graphic design and presentation. Have they never heard about not fixing something that's not broken?

    Report message2

  • Message 203

    , in reply to message 173.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    In reply to Dermod:

    You got italics! I'll have to experiment with that.


    Use 'quote' '/quote' with < and > instead of ' 

    Oh, that's the quote box, or what passes for it?

    I also can't see the link that lets me go to *my* last post, as opposed to the last post on the thread.

    Report message3

  • Message 204

    , in reply to message 188.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Perhaps the Controller of Radio 4 has decreed that the boards will be always winter, never Christmas?

    Report message4

  • Message 205

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by nasigoreng (U14327386) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Caissier..nuffin' yet! I'll continue on your theme.
    Princess Anne - good start! Let's see who picks that up...

    I missed Dispatches on CHANNEL 4, though I am an admirer of the programme. It has taken the lid off a few issues in my own field of work and generally the journalism has been very accurate. No over dramatisation - just good lid-lifting in the public interest.
    Of course Radio 4 used to be complimented on this sort of programme in the good old days when we could record our approval on the MB.

    Report message5

  • Message 206

    , in reply to message 185.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    PetPig:
    It's got to be a conspiracy!
    If we can't start new threads, we're destined to just contribute to this one till we all change our minds and agreewith one voice that the new design is truly wonderful! 

    'There are four lights!!' smiley - sadface

    www.youtube.com/watc...

    Report message6

  • Message 207

    , in reply to message 199.

    Posted by Twirlip of the Mists (U4565027) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    I know how we can stop this and start new posts...would somebody PLEASE... GO OFF TOPIC! That usually works. 
    Oh no, please don't do that! Our message board lives are now almost literally hanging by this one thread. If Anna terminates it, we can't post at all!

    OK, we could keep the old conversations going (until they are deemed OT as well).

    We could even arbitrarily pick some well-and-truly dead, defunct old thread and nominate that as our all-purpose, catch-all 'bucket' for all new topics, until new threads can actually be started again. That might even be a practical suggestion, even if this thread does keep going as well.

    Report message7

  • Message 208

    , in reply to message 207.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    "We could even arbitrarily pick some well-and-truly dead, defunct old thread"

    Indeed, and that is what I am doing in desperation...

    Report message8

  • Message 209

    , in reply to message 198.

    Posted by Twirlip of the Mists (U4565027) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Sorry to annoy you, Angus ......  
    And I'm sorry to be annoyed, but I am annoyed (or at least, I was, but I'm not so much now).
    but it makes sense to me. This relaunch is a cock-up - ok, say so, but anger is not going to do any good. 
    That's what we are fundamentally disagreeing about. I think emotions, including so-called 'negative' emotions, do have a use. In another thread I quoted a slogan from a philosophical book (which I haven't read yet!): "Emotions are judgements." But that's another topic ... What matters is not to let emotion permanently take the place of reason.
    I just think a conciliatory approach is better. Who knows what is said in BBC meetings when they discuss mbs? QQ, Science and Arts boards have gone - protest didn't do any good. D and R has had low traffic lately. Can that last long?

    Many posters above are convinced this board is doomed. It could be if the way it is used by not that many people makes the expense seem a waste of resources. That's all I'm saying..... as a BTW if you like. 

    I'm sorry if this is offensive, but this anti-emotional, conciliatory approach of yours strikes me as being a strange, secular variation of a scene in which some prehistoric tribesman (or Pat Robertson ...) superstitiously [is that spelled right? - I can't read it!] blames his tribe for some catastrophe which has befallen it, and he urges them to try to appease the relevant angry god - in this case, Someone at the BBC. smiley - smiley

    We really, truly are not naughty little children just because we are not pathetically and sheepishly grateful for whatever service the BBC provides us with in exchange for our licence fee.

    It is not wrong to criticise. (We agree on that.) It is not wrong to be angry. (We disagree on that, and I think we might as well agree to differ ... although you may disagree ... .) smiley - smiley

    These messageboard changes are NOT our punishment for being angry, ungrateful, unappreciative, or even critical. It seems to me that, at some level of your mind, you think that they are. If you do thank that, then you're clearly mistaken.

    Report message9

  • Message 210

    , in reply to message 199.

    Posted by William Stevenson (U14099826) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    I have to declare a lack of interest: I was quite happy for them the leave the mb alone, and quite happy for them to change it- as long as it still worked. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and it has proved to be a duff operation- even after umpteen complaints and 2 days, they haven't bothered to fix it.

    I suppose we have to accept that they are contemptuous of the opinion of a bunch of what they see as disaffected coffin-dodgers. In fact, they may even view the overwhelmingly negative response as a badge of honour and occasion for an orgy of 'high-fiving' or whatever it is they do.

    Report message10

  • Message 211

    , in reply to message 205.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Nasigoreng ..... either they've .... mods, Anna, etc.... all gone home or they are laughing at us. Dispatches was about hacking and had some new stuff, so quite good ..... it was presented by arch-Tory Peter Oborne who neverthelesss is a stern critic of the current Tories. Worth watching on 4 on Demand if available. That's CHANNEL FOUR I'm talking about ..................no, they must have gone home smiley - smiley

    Report message11

  • Message 212

    , in reply to message 211.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    CPA hasn't been around lately ..................That could point to Mossad involvement in this affair ........................

    Report message12

  • Message 213

    , in reply to message 212.

    Posted by Mathos-le-Rhymer (U2504551) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Mathos's text tip: if you select/highlight text using left click/hold you may find reading text in white on mid-blue background easier smiley - smiley

    Report message13

  • Message 214

    , in reply to message 209.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Angus .... you do touch on things which are issues for me and hard to properly discuss here but anger is something I have thought about a lot and talked about in therapy. In the distant past I have had trouble controlling my anger or rather outrage and a therapist said once that I had not internalized my anger .... utilised it to provide motivational energy I suppose........ but my tactic was to shut down to control it - like a nuclear power station - but the anger was still there.

    Now I have an immediate process to think it through and understand what is going on. My basic belief though is that the anger is essentially historic and being given a present pretext for venting it. I have understood the original causes now so am much less interested in it and I do think it is a bit of an indulgence. I mean, is the mucking up of a messageboard something of very great importance in the great scheme?

    I do get angry about certain things but tend to get a bit hot and think hard about what I'm going to do about it ... a sort of cold purpose. I can take a lot of exception to hurtful and bullying behaviour on this mb so I guess I assume BBC powers that be take a poor view as well. I think when one is enraged it is hard to think clearly so waste effort and energy in putting things right AND you up the ante - arouse fierce opposition and then things can escalate into bloodiness. People fight harder against you anyway. It might seem like appeasement but I don't really trust myself if I get angry. ..... but I will say that I do avoid rows sometimes when I should go toe to toe with someone but, thinking about that, I do feel I would go too far. Tricky, Angus, eh? smiley - smiley

    It's a pity there is no PM facility (that would have been refreshing!) to chat about this more but it is always good to know your stalwart presence is around the boards .... best wishes............

    Report message14

  • Message 215

    , in reply to message 213.

    Posted by Frank (U13846478) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010

    Great idea, but then the yellow smiley goes blue too

    Report message15

  • Message 216

    , in reply to message 203.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    I also can't see the link that lets me go to *my* last post, as opposed to the last post on the thread.  Some of these problems have been spotted on other boards, some BBC comment even suggests some of the bugs may get fixed. (www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... )

    It just seem raher odd to me why did the BBC not just say sorry we are changing the boards, you will have to put up with some additional faults but we will fix them next year, if we have any money, at least we would know what was happening.

    And why does the BBC not brief messageboard hosts before making the changes to the boards.

    Report message16

  • Message 217

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by U14576049 (U14576049) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Well they still don't seem to be able to tell the time.
    Its 12.33am now, the Opening Hours to the right of this posting box says Weekdays 9am -midnight

    Unless these boards have been outsourced to somewhere in another timezone......

    And for goodness sake don't drive this thread off topic, there is still no way to start a new discussion.

    This really is bizarre, incompetence, arrogance and expensive.

    BBC all over!

    I posted the CRAP message to check whether the formatting in the posting box is retained in the thread. Evidently it is now.
    Which begs the question of why the 'heck' do I get horizontal scroll bars to accomodate JUST TWO MORE CHARACTERS!!!!!

    Report message17

  • Message 218

    , in reply to message 215.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Hi everyone,

    Please excuse me dropping in but I am a refugee from the Food boards which have also gone through changes (and not for the better either) we have the same problems as you with the new board. One of the minor problems being the emoticons.

    We, on the food board discovered that we can use the h2g2 emoticons.

    Here's a link www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2....

    Having butted in I think I had better smiley - run

    Report message18

  • Message 219

    , in reply to message 218.

    Posted by Somali_Bus_Conductor (U14006101) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Very curious.

    The board opens at 10:00 instead of 9:00

    The last message is timed 'ten hours ago' on Oct. 7th, in other words midnight!

    This is written at 10:09 on Oct 7th, it will be interesting to see when it is timed.

    I note that the option to start a new discussion seems to have disappeared completely.

    Report message19

  • Message 220

    , in reply to message 219.

    Posted by Somali_Bus_Conductor (U14006101) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    I see it's appeared now, but still produces a 'boards are closed' message.

    Report message20

  • Message 221

    , in reply to message 218.

    Posted by waiting4atickle (U1982670) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    You might have pointed out, Denadar, that there is one h2g2 emoticon that is particularly appropriate to the new 'design' here -

    smiley - canofworms

    Report message21

  • Message 222

    , in reply to message 218.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Denadar:

    We, on the food board discovered that we can use the h2g2 emoticons.

    Here's a link www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2....

    Having butted in I think I had better smiley - run 


    Cheers smiley - pggb

    Y'know, if the they were going to make any change, you'd think it would be to automatically add the name of the poster being replied to (since they force you to reply to a specific post, and all), so it would be easier to see who's talking to who...

    And yay, we can post again. Did someone change their clock early? Have I forgotten to..?

    Report message22

  • Message 223

    , in reply to message 219.

    Posted by waiting4atickle (U1982670) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    We seem to have been on GMT since the 'relaunch' - so even the clock is wrong.

    Report message23

  • Message 224

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by mombser2 (U13021682) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Anna and the BeeB-

    One thing I can say for this white elephant-

    You have more or less united all the "Posters" on this site, who otherwise would be tormenting each other with their opposing views.

    Report message24

  • Message 225

    , in reply to message 224.

    Posted by Slightly-Foxed_a cat needs rehoming in Droitwich (U9332727) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Christ, this is a mess. PLEASE don't do this to any other boards!

    Report message25

  • Message 226

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by vnicepce (U3842100) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    ..yes, there's nothing like 'NEW', for new's sake, eh? What was wrong with the old MB?

    ..Where are the Emoticons? (DOH)

    Report message26

  • Message 227

    , in reply to message 224.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    I like 'white elephant' smiley - smiley

    I had to go to 'My discussions' and come back here, because the 'Reply to...' had vanished.

    Of course, other boards even let you choose your font and text size, but the Beeb are a little too Spartan for such features. Just not enough to have left something that wasn't broke...

    Report message27

  • Message 228

    , in reply to message 227.

    Posted by U14576049 (U14576049) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    WTF is a 'Permalink'??

    Report message28

  • Message 229

    , in reply to message 174.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    _ Links to other Messageboards _ are they allowed ? _
    In msg#216 { www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... ] I attempted to link to a post in another mb .
    It may of course be another bug, which may be intermitent.
    I will try again to include a link: --> www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...


    IT may of course be an intended feature, at least the info does show up as pastable text, and without any unnecessary tags. But I have not noticed even the new look Food mb preventing links to other mb, just the gobledegook bug problems.

    Report message29

  • Message 230

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Dermod (U14282701) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Frequently the link back to the message to which you are making a response takes you to the first message (OP) instead. This isn't always so but it is rather irritating.

    Report message30

  • Message 231

    , in reply to message 230.

    Posted by Dermod (U14282701) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    And of course the number of the message you wish to respond to is frequently not there either but hen you are not deceived, are you.

    Oh you may not know it but the link to smileys in 'FAQ' is (currently?) missing.

    The count down for the 'posting delay' doesn't 'count down' anymore.

    Report message31

  • Message 232

    , in reply to message 231.

    Posted by madfor4 (U6248038) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Anna is usually so, so, quick to leap in.

    The sound of her absence, on this subject, is deafening!

    Report message32

  • Message 233

    , in reply to message 229.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    the link worked, so just a temporary glitch I guess.

    Report message33

  • Message 234

    , in reply to message 232.

    Posted by U14576049 (U14576049) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Yes the countdown stops when you start typing, its still counting but doesn't tell you.

    Also in case it hasn't been mentioned there is no longer any difference in the appearance of threads with new posts and those with none when viewing 'My Discussions'
    So its not easy to notice what threads have posts that you haven't read yet.
    And of course the post counter doesn't work either.

    For Gods sake are heads going to roll on this?

    Report message34

  • Message 235

    , in reply to message 234.

    Posted by Twirlip of the Mists (U4565027) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Although I'm straining to believe any 'conspiracy theory' explanation, I'm also straining to believe a 'cock-up theory' explanation.

    Can anyone explain, at all plausibly, how on Earth 'They' could have /accidentally/ messed this up so /very/ badly? It's a serious question; no irony is intended. A cock-up of this magnitude literally defies belief.

    The only idea I have is that the department concerned was starved of resources, to the point where there was literally no skilled manpower whatsoever available to get this system working, and so they were forced to release code which they knew perfectly well was absolutely full of serious bugs.

    But then why didn't they just leave the existing, more-or-less functional system in place? (It's still in place on the Radio 7 boards.)

    Even given the premise (which itself already smacks of a conspiracy to destroy the message boards), such a bad decision still smacks of conspiracy rather than cock-up. It doesn't make sense.

    Report message35

  • Message 236

    , in reply to message 235.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    I notice they daren't touch the Archers boards...

    At least they are clear and you can see borders around the various posts.

    What's contained in the posts isn't always clear though.

    Report message36

  • Message 237

    , in reply to message 232.

    Posted by Twirlip of the Mists (U4565027) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Anna is usually so, so, quick to leap in.

    The sound of her absence, on this subject, is deafening! 

    She did say she was forwarding all these responses to the technical people. There's probably not much more she can say. For once, she definitely has my sympathy.

    Report message37

  • Message 238

    , in reply to message 237.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    No sure why Anna would need sympathy.

    She is obviously doing the other, major, part of her job which doesn't involve looking at the boards to find off-topic threads.

    As she had nothing to do with the revamp and is not in control of the glitches, she's having a nice break from us, I would imagine.

    Report message38

  • Message 239

    , in reply to message 236.

    Posted by Somali_Bus_Conductor (U14006101) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    I hate to say it but it does look like the Archers Boards are due for the same treatment.

    The host is maintaining a loud silence on the question of the type font and size.

    A fair number of contributors to that board have commented (adversely) on this board's makeover.

    Oh, and I note that you STILL can't start a new topic. Also, you don't reliably get the option to reply to a post, sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't.

    Report message39

  • Message 240

    , in reply to message 216.

    Posted by John99 (U13871221) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    .
    ."I also can't see the link that lets me go to *my* last post, as opposed to the last post on the thread." <== it is ON THE FIX LIST  
    (see lower down in this post)

    _ Lock Down_

    Is our Host Anna having a nervous breakdown after seeing all these responses to the unannounced changes to the messageboard. ?

    Maybe locking the board to prevent new posts is a necessary evil to keep comments contained within existing threads whilst extra staff are hired and meetings are held to try to sort out a response.

    _ Changes & Bugs _

    Meanwhile some of these questions have been asked elsewhere, and to some extent are getting answered. Thankfully the Archers Host is attempting to answer questions, even though her own board has not yet been improved.

    See these posts for more information:
    (I have attempted some sort of synopsis)

    ImCh#101 (www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... )
    - accessability - will be much as Food mb
    - minus millions - this has been noted as a bug on the food mb
    (& Note customisable text options exist - John99 <-- I mentioned elsewhere. the full post mentions a dozen subjects)

    ImCh#135 (www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... )
    Aware of some problems with links and truncated thread titles

    ImCh#154 (www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... )
    Aware of problems with updates and links in "My discussions"

    ImCh#1(www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... )
    - smilies probably here to stay
    - font style & size being standardised across BBC as in new look R4 mb
    - truncated thread titles also standard
    - last contribution link "This is definitely on the fix list smiley - smiley Tayler"

    Many of these problems will have been known about for months and must have been predictable, or at least that is my opinion, as expressed in my other posts on this subject. as for instance in the currently short thread: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    There also appears to be a slight fault in the wysiwyg re quotations

    Report message40

  • Message 241

    , in reply to message 240.

    Posted by Somali_Bus_Conductor (U14006101) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Thanks John, you have been busy!

    All this rather begs the question why, if these bugs were known about, it was decided to extend the format from the Food Board to the Radio 4 boards. I'd have thought any reasonably rational organisation would have decided to correct the faults before extending them to other boards.

    I am increasingly coming to the view that this has been coded by somebody's sixth form son or daughter!

    Report message41

  • Message 242

    , in reply to message 234.

    Posted by nasigoreng (U14327386) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    My 'My Discussions' is wrong. It says my last contribution was 2 minutes ago when I was just reading; my last contribution was yesterday.

    Report message42

  • Message 243

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by hamakavula (U10736687) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    this is really badly designed from a typographical point of view. The type's too small, the leading's too tight and there's no delineation to break up the sea of white space.

    i presume it's got a 'minimalist' look to it but in this case it doesn't work. A site needs to be a pleasing thing to peruse. and it just isn't.

    it should be easy on the eye, allowing you to scan round and clearly find areas. especially when you're looking at a screen which is bad enough on the eye sight as it is.

    Is this an attempt to force people to post shorter messages?

    Report message43

  • Message 244

    , in reply to message 240.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    The people in charge must have hoped we'd be as apathetic/resigned as the 'flip siders' of R2 were to their boards closure. Not exactly raging against the dying of the light...

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

    Even some denizens of Mustard Land don't seem too fussed, but maybe that's because a few of them appear to know a bit about coding, and might think they can push for 'tweeks' if necessary.

    Report message44

  • Message 245

    , in reply to message 243.

    Posted by Margaret Eccles (U2068114) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Just to keep it succinct but add my fourpenn'orth - I HATE this new look!!

    Report message45

  • Message 246

    , in reply to message 240.

    Posted by Twirlip of the Mists (U4565027) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    Maybe locking the board to prevent new posts is a necessary evil 
    In that case, was locking the message board down /without telling us/ also a "necessary evil"?

    Report message46

  • Message 247

    , in reply to message 199.

    Posted by Joe K (U5367586) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    'Catpeeing' also works. Where's a good troll when you need one..?

    And to the PTB, I'm sure we're all familiar with redesigns that were greeted with initial hostility, but accepted and ultimately embraced when all the fuss died down. Just because we're still posting here with our grumbles, I wouldn't assume that's going to be case on this occasion.

    Report message47

  • Message 248

    , in reply to message 243.

    Posted by handsomefortune (U2927651) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    HOW ABOUT WE ALL RESORT TO POSTS IN CAPS,

    SO THAT WHAT WE POST, LOOKS LIKE IT''S WRITTEN BY AN ANGRY,

    SHOUTING CYBER WUM; ...OR A CHILD?


    IT IS EASIER TO READ, BUT LOOKS MORONIC ...


    BESIDES, WHAT DO WE FALL BACK ON, IN EMRGENCIES, WHEN

    TRYING TO EMPHASIS SOMETHING IN OUR POSTS? may be this?

    HOW LONG TILL THIS PROBLEM OF NON READABILTIY IS FIXED ????

    - IT'S ALREADY WEARING THIN. ;@.

    Report message48

  • Message 249

    , in reply to message 248.

    Posted by hamakavula (U10736687) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    actually a double line space does make it easier to read. i would stick with

    upper and lower case though!


    i wonder what would happen if everyone used double line spacing? does

    this use more space on the interweb? would this force a change to the

    typography?

    Report message49

  • Message 250

    , in reply to message 249.

    Posted by handsomefortune (U2927651) on Thursday, 7th October 2010

    space on the internet smiley - ufo

    i think there's plenty, infinite space, it's readability that's the issue? ;@.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

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.