« Previous | Main | Next »

BBC Homepage: your feedback (#2)

Post categories:

James Thornett James Thornett | 18:30 UK time, Friday, 2 December 2011

Thank you for all your feedback on the BBC Homepage redesign. There have been a lot of comments on my blog post from Wednesday and lots of you have also sent emails and completed our survey.

Most of the comments on the Internet Blog have been critical of the new design, with many requests to bring the old homepage back, so I wanted to explain again why we have made these changes.

  • The homepage was too narrow in focus - 79% of referred traffic went to BBC News and BBC Sport during July this year. We want to do much better at highlighting all of the content available from BBC Online
  • Research showed that the BBC Homepage is often confused with the BBC News front page and we want to clearly differentiate between our News site - the place to go for the latest, breaking news from the UK and the World - and the homepage that should represent everything the BBC does online.
  • Detailed customisation of content was used by under 10% of the old homepage audience and many users told us that they would prefer simple filtering rather than wholesale customisation.

Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering but we do want your feedback to help us continue to develop and improve the new homepage.

Comments on this blog are just one of the ways in which we are gathering feedback and we will be assessing over time the response of the millions of users that come to the Homepage each day by monitoring how the page is being used and which items are proving more, or less, popular.

A number of themes have emerged from the blog comments received so far and although I have provided feedback within the comments section I would like to explain again how we are tackling these points.

Messy design: There is too much white space and not enough colour.

There is criticism of the amount of white space being used and the large number of images which make the page appear messy and un-organised.

The previous design of the homepage was often criticised for being too boring and containing too much text so for this version we have deliberately introduced more images and increased the amount of white space on the page to allow these images to really stand out.

We want the content to promote itself with good images, strong headlines and clear labelling that helps our audience know which BBC service that content is from.

There is not enough news and sport on the homepage

We saw this feedback during the beta phase and increased the amount of headlines available in the news and sport module. We have also raised the position of news and sport higher up the page compared to the previous homepage so there is now more news and sport content available at a glance.

However, many users have told us they want more than just the top headlines and that is where the News & Sport filter underneath the carousel can be used to select only news and sport content within this area of the page.

As I have said above, the previous homepage was very good at providing news and sport content but it was less good at showcasing the best content from the rest of the BBC and so this new homepage will inevitably not contain the same level of detailed news and sport coverage as the previous version.

For users that want even more news or sport content then there are links at the very top of the page to our dedicated homepages for BBC News and for BBC Sport.

Customisation: I want the content that only I am interested in.

This seems to be the feature most requested by people commenting on the blog.

However, it was a feature of the old homepage that was not used by the majority of our audience and during research for the new homepage we were told by users that they preferred simple filtering of content.

We are already working on improvements to the location based content on the page so that the page is even more relevant to your chosen location and we have plans to introduce more detailed customisation features in the new year.

We have some ideas for this already - one of those being the opportunity to create your own carousel of content that you prefer - but I would welcome further suggestions on how we can make the page more customisable to your interests.

It doesn't swipe on a tablet/iPad or work on a mobile phone

This homepage is the 'desktop' version which is designed for use on a standard laptop or desktop computer.

There are optimised versions in development for a mobile edition and a tablet edition which will make use of touchscreen interactions, where the device allows, and displays the content appropriately for the screen size being used.

In the meantime, accessing www.bbc.co.uk on your mobile phone will default you to our current mobile optimised homepage, although there is a link to the desktop version if you wish to view this new homepage on a mobile device.

Thank you again for your comments on this blog and all of your feedback by other means. I do try to read every post, tweet and comment and we will be using all of this feedback to continue developing and improving the new BBC Homepage.

James Thornett is Head of Product, BBC Homepage


Page 1 of 15

  • Comment number 1.

    "Most of the comments on the Internet Blog have been critical of the new design, with many requests to bring the old homepage back ... Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering.."

    why not give users a choice? allow access to both the old and the new in parallel and, in a year or two, make a final decision based on actual usage/traffic stats.

  • Comment number 2.

    This attitude reminds me very much of the response we get when BBC execs appear on the Points Of View programme. They listen patiently to the points made and then carry on doing exactly what they want.

    Try listening to your customers for once.

    This is MUCH WORSE than the previous version. No amount of tweaking will fix that. Admit you got it wrong and do something about it.

  • Comment number 3.

    Played with a disappointingly dead bat

  • Comment number 4.

    03700 100 222 bbc complaints department ... I phoned 5 mins ago ...I was the first complainer apparently !!!

  • Comment number 5.

    Is that it, James?

    All you are saying is:

    1) Tough - this is what we are giving you and that's that

    2) Research indicates the exact opposite of what real users think

    So - poor customer service and poor market research.

    This all needs to be escalated above your head. You are not listening. You will lose REAL users. You are a vandal.

  • Comment number 6.

    James, it appears when you say customisation you are really talking about localisation. Is that correct?

    As you know from the feedback, localisation is not the same as customisation. many of the complaints on the 1000+ blog wanted customisation just like they had on the pre-"hollyoaks" Homepage. Adding a carousel that is customised doesn't sound like it will quell the dissent. the carousel was the second most often mentioned "hate" of the new design

  • Comment number 7.

    Rather ironic that one of the stories on the BBC New website at the moment is:

    "Complaints as YouTube rolls out site redesign"


    Strangely, there's no mention of the overwhelmingly negative response to the BBC's very own redesign.

  • Comment number 8.

    James, if what you say above is true then a simple link on the OLD homepage to your NEW BBC CONCEPT page is all that is required.

  • Comment number 9.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 10.

    Your research of focus groups reacting to concepts and ideas says one thing.

    Many 1000's of users of the real thing say the complete opposite.

    Which one is more reliable?

    @4 Madjan122 - first complaint? The phone line was jammed earlier today... so I wonder if all those complaints got written on a post-it note and then tossed in the bin?

    Having said that the info department that handles complaints can rarely find a log summary of a specific issue. Ask them if they have any complaints about camerawork (for example) and they will tell they have none. The system is flawed and does not have the trust of the audiences.

  • Comment number 11.

    James ...please apologize ... admit defeat .... restore the original Homepage ....Oh yes you can ... anda learn from your mistakes .....

    In anticipation of you complying with the wishes of thousands of people ... many thanks!

  • Comment number 12.

    Then all these people saying the same thing is wrong?

    If this was a broadcast programme, this many negative comments all saying the same thing would constitute a major issue.

    Where are the execs?

  • Comment number 13.

    So my earlier post has been thrown out simply because I dared to classify Mr Thornett's reaction to his refusal to listen to his customers in a simple word? I will let others judge what that word may be, although it wasn't abusive in any way.

    When you start refusing to post comments because somebody tells the truth you are on a slippery slope downwards.

    I agree with 19.23 – just so I don't get kicked off again.

  • Comment number 14.

    There is one crumb of comfort from the above blog post

    "Research showed that the BBC Homepage is often confused with the BBC News front page and we want to clearly differentiate between our News site - the place to go for the latest, breaking news from the UK and the World - and the homepage that should represent everything the BBC does online."

    I assume from this that whoever is responsible for this redesign won't be let loose to unleash their mish-mash of focus group orientated ideas on the BBC News website.

    Please please leave the News site alone. I am only an occasional visitor to the main BBC site, so this redesign won't bother me too much - I just won't use it at all, but the News site is the home page of many people, me included, and it's just fine as it is.

  • Comment number 15.

    I completed the survey and was very negative about the new site. It's horrible! I am sorry but I find it hard to be constructive. You seem to just ignore any opinion that contradicts your own.

    I want to customise my view, the way I had it set up before. It's not difficult to read the cookies and set up the new page with the same information. But no, I have to enter my location, 4 times and still counting, before I can find local items that were to hand before.

    BTW. Where is Birmingham on the weather map?

  • Comment number 16.

    So what has happened to the previous 1053 comments? WAKE UP! The new home page is not fit for purpose - not that you're going to take a blind bit of notice of what your once loyal BBC website users have to say.

  • Comment number 17.


    agree that the News site is "just fine as it is" but wish it had content that reflects what's actually happening. frequently the BBC doesn't report certain stories, like this for example, even though they are of vital importance to help contextualize other stories (like this).

  • Comment number 18.

    Really really poor. If nothing else are you at least going to admit that the product was not properly tested? It does not work in Opera (as shown by comment 1047 in the old blog.

    This is a sad day for the BBC.

  • Comment number 19.

    "The homepage was too narrow in focus - 79% of referred traffic went to BBC News and BBC Sport during July this year. We want to do much better at highlighting all of the content available from BBC Online "

    Then why not simply have the A-Z page as the homepage?

  • Comment number 20.

    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Please could you restore access to my old BBC Home Page.
    Thanking you in anticipation.
    Yours faithfully
    Humpty_Numpty (and 9 million other users)

  • Comment number 21.

    Having read the article linked to in Comment number 7 it really is appauling that the BBC has not written an article about it's own heavily disliked new homepage.

    Simple thing that the BBC could do to really guage public opinion if they are still persisting under the view that the only people posting here are whiners who hate change: Put a quick survey box on thier own homepage Question: "Do you like the new BBC homepage?" Options: "Like" and "Dislike" It would now suprise me at all if it turned out to be a much more one sided vote than the Youtube one which the BBC so eagerly has written an article about.

  • Comment number 22.

    Interesting that the old blog has now been closed - was the number of complaints getting too high on that one?

    There really is one very simple solution - the ultimate acid test - give us the choice to use old or new and let the stats speak for themselves - what are you afraid of James?

  • Comment number 23.

    Why change an already established format, maybe just for the sake of change?
    I continue to hold the BBC in high regard, but will be looking for a new home page.

  • Comment number 24.

    Please be transparent and publish the results of the 10,000 people that completed the survey until now. Show us we are wrong and you are right.

  • Comment number 25.

    Given that it is clear that so much work is ongoing you have not explained why the beta homepage was realised now and the old much liked page withdrawn. Also a number of disabled people have commented that it is not fit for purpose and you have chosen to ignore them as well as all your other dissenters.
    I agree with other posters that by now these problems should be escalated to someone much more senior than James as by adopting the attitude you have any remaining confidence in the BBC is rapidly draining away.

  • Comment number 26.

    19.52. Under the Freedom of Information Act you can request the details of the survey. I am currently completing a letter to both the Chairman and Director General expressing my outrage at the attitude towards those who have complained and also for a copy of the survey.

  • Comment number 27.

    You say that less than 10% of your audience used the customisation feature. I suspect that this figure would be way higher for those of us who used the BBC page as our own homepage on the web. I think the casual user probably doesn't care too much about customising or indeed the look of the site. Many of the comments posted over the last few days reflect the frustration of people like me who are now ex-bbc homepage users who can no longer filter out topics in which we have no interest.

  • Comment number 28.

    James, I have just read right through your blog and from my viewpoint and opinion I just don't buy it. The old homepage was if you will, like entering a library, with the various sections highlighted and showing the latest news/stories - what on earth was wrong with that! Easy therefore to follow whatever your interest was.

    I do agree with one point you made, that the page was somewhat boring, but so what - by it's nature it surely had to be. Now it is just a mesh mashed mess.

    I, like many others, have no interest in what 'other people' are reading/watching, I can make my own mind up thank you.

    I can only repeat that the design and look is truly awful, imo it does not purport to do what you seem to think it does, you must have made your mind up and not listening. The new homepage holds no interest to me and I will refrain from any further use.

    One more thing, there is no reason for not having two versions of the page, which can be switched between, the old and the new, with the new in being the default one if you so want. This way you can actually do something many of us want and hopefully stop being so stubborn in sticking to views that we do not agree with.

    Finally, even if we validate all your explanations - which we clearly don't - the design is truly awful and falls way below BBC acceptable standards.

  • Comment number 29.

    Released not realised (must proof read in future!). Still it puts it on the level with a lot of the sloppy BBC journalism lately from what I have seen.

  • Comment number 30.

    So that's 1050 blog comments flushed up against the toilet wall.

    And we start a new clean blog, with James Thornett still entrenched in his untenable position of "it's our home page, we're never going to change it back, no matter how many thousand people complain, so you may as well lump it."

    Reminds me a little of the Battle of the Somme. Splendid stuff. We all love a challenge.

  • Comment number 31.

    The previous blog: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2011/11/bbc_online_homepage_launch.html attracted 1051 comments, some of which are from those who posted several times.

    "Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering" is deeply regrettable and probably ill-advised, and may come to be a resignation statement should the new homepage be considered at a much higher level to be unfit for purpose.

    A major factor is this section's determination to follow GEL (Global Experience Language) guidelines and assumptions, which seem more a corporate sales exercise than anything that has much truth in it. I am disappointed important people in the BBC whom I pay to know better fell for it.

    GEL reminds me of the fashion a few years ago for Nouvelle Cuisine, whereby a lot of white space on the plate actually convinced some trendy and gullible diners that it provided a sustaining meal. It fooled some people, but most of us are unimpressed. Large bold headlines in Arial font in amid screen-hogging imagery, twitchy and fancy effects, and a lot of white space may be fashionable, but that doesn't mean it's any good.

    Above all, any system designed for a desktop should scroll vertically, as a system designed for an iPad is better scrolled horizontally. The carousel therefore is only appropriate on the iPad version, not on the desktop version. If a carousel must be imposed on a desktop, it should be accessible via the right and left arrow buttons on the keyboard.

    I have a certain sympathy with the Homepage being more for showcasing primarily the BBC's output, as well as any selected third party websites prepared to offer the BBC a fee for inclusion (which could be a useful and legitimate source of revenue). It makes no sense therefore to limit the clickable links to a handful, when really there should be as many as possible crammed onto the front page without scrolling as can be made readable. You then have the supermarket instinct taking over, drawing people in on the offchance of spotting something attractive. You cannot do this if there are only a dozen items at most (and half of these being about football).

    Again, the fault lies with GEL, which does not allow the use of icons (which is a very screen-efficient use of graphical imagery) and discourages the normal internet convention of clicking on underlined text links.

    Rather than using a small number large images which have to be scrolled to get to them, it is better to provide a large number of enticing well-written and concise link headlines on one page that would encourage clicking on.

    One other function of the Homepage, which seems now to be discouraged, is one which had drawn a large number of folk to use the BBC Homepage as their default when browsing. The loyalty to the BBC Homepage because of this very feature should not be dismissed lightly. There should be enough function as a dashboard to allow this to continue, and space allocated for it, perhaps at the expense of some of the overlarge imagery or headline font size. It is quite unnessary to give such prominence to current location, which could easily be in small type.

    Key things are the clock (because this identifies with the BBC right back to early BBC2 days and people are fond of it), news headlines, a 24 hour / 5 day local weather forecast, and what's on TV. Options should be sport headlines, local news headlines, a daily editorial blog (once provided by the excellent Stephanie Flanders and Robert Peston and others) which could be in the form of 'Thought for the Day', a QI quirky fact of the day, city & business indices including perhaps currency, and a host of other things (such as celebrity and soap gossip) that folk could choose for themselves, but should not occupy too much space and limit the Homepage's scope to be a showcase. The design therefore of these dashboard items should intentionally be somewhat smaller than anything allowed by GEL, but should get the message across well enough.

    The question of cookies has been raised, and the requirement to log on in order to acquire personalised settings. Any homepage could be updated accordingly without major design changes.

    These are my constructive ideas. Yes, it is true that these would have been better achieved by a modification of the previous homepage, and the job is made much harder with the one now introduced. I do believe though that this is what is required to save it and the BBC's reputation as an ongoing net provider.

  • Comment number 32.

    From Ariel: "The new version has received much criticism but James Thornett from BBC Future Media has said that people just need to get used to it."
    It's a mess.
    And the arrogance displayed from you is staggering. So, you've spent cold hard cash on a redesign no-one likes, but rather than put your hands up and say sorry, you are happy to lose users who will go elsewhere. I'll be sticking to BBC News as my homepage for now.

  • Comment number 33.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 34.

    @14 Gary,

    I don't see what the problem is with occasional confusion between home and news. hardly a big issue.

    The global look of all the BBC sites will no doubt mean the news will get the make over eventually... like the Radio i site etc.

    Their boat has sailed, unless it capsizes soon we won't be seeing a U-Turn.

    I do find it farcical that the Hollyoaks Homepage smugly features the news item about YouTube re-launch complaints yet won't even feature a link, let alone an article about the debacle of the botched homepage itself.

    Double standards.

  • Comment number 35.

    James, I will try and answer your points as I see them.

    79% of referred traffic went to BBC News and BBC Sport during July this year. Do you think this could possibly be due to the fact that roughly 85% of people's requirements were for news or sport! This suggests the old page was actually doing quite well in redirecting traffic elswhere. Certainly that is/was the case for me, actually probably more like 90% interest in sport and news of some variety. I did like the fact of the day, weird and interesting, and occasional 'magazine' item. I'm actually surprised the figures weren't more skewed to N&S. Personally, now they will be, because I will go straight to the News front page, and go to sport and business from there. I suspect I will miss the light-hearted bits I got before. Local news it far more tricky from the News front page, so I dare say that will wait until I get home and watch the TV.

    If people wanted more news and sport (as I did) they could modify the old site. That relatively few people did suggests to me that you got the balance about right for the average person. Since lots of different topics where included before, customisation was largely unnecessary beyond setting the location for news and weather. I strongly suspect that now fewer items can be displayed, customisation will be more important!

    Colour and white space are an irrelevance to me personally, unless it actively hurts my eyes.

    I still maintain that finding what you want is far more difficult from the new page, and navigation is a nightmare. It is not fit for (my) purpose, and I suspect it will fail in its business drivers. As a percentage, it may (accidentally?) direct people to more of your offerings, but in absolute numbers I suspect you will have lost across the board.

    Finally, to release a site that does not work for some browsers is extremely poor, may I say amateurish. For it to actively remove functionality from partially sighted and blind customers, I suspect, is contrary to your charter, and something you should address immediately.

    Several people including me have suggested keeping your carousel, once it's development is completed, at the top of page, whilst allowing the shutter area to be replaced with our well-loved info tabs. Until this is possible, and the carousel fixed, you could reinstate the old page, or at least provide a link to it ala the former beta page.

  • Comment number 36.

    Has your boss seen these blogs James??? Will you share them with Evan Davies, Robert Peston, Stephanie Flanders, Martha Kearney, Jeremy Paxman, John Humphreys and other remaining intelligent BBC employees ???

    If we are only 10% of the homepage users (which I doubt) we are still a heck of a lot of customers. The BBC has hundreds of web pages, surely you can keep just one more - the old homepage - live for the 10%. That must represent hundreds of thousands of BBC customers.

    This is my last try. I'm giving up now and going to www.netvibes.com which I recommend to others. I will check www.bbc.co.uk once in a while though but I'm not holding my breath.

  • Comment number 37.

    TwilightSentinel - I understand you have strong feelings about the new homepage but please moderate your tone, which is becoming offensive.


  • Comment number 38.

    Hmmm, they were slow off the mark closing the old blog. I honestly thought they would attempt to brush it under the carpet before the magic 1000 number, maybe they were at tea. I note we still do not have the summary of the beta testing. Would a Freedom Of Information Act Request get it?

    I'm sorry, but I want less sport and I would like it separated from my news and community information. I was able to have that under the old scheme, I can't now. So you've removed functionality from me.

    I also found the "carousel" distracting, and frankly counter-intuitive to use, so to read you do not intend to remove it in favour of a table of links is disappointing to say the least. I remain unconvinced that the carousel scheme will be able to meet my needs.

    I find the needless amount of whitespace makes the page too bright, and makes it hard to read. The text is too large and makes me feel like I am reading an advertising bulletin in a bus station. The concise table, with smaller text, and coloured boxes made it a friendly page to visit.

    The issue of being called boring... Words fail me entirely. it's a website for a large, highly respected and respectable, professional organisation that delivers information on hundreds of thousands of events, datapoints, and news to the entire world. It should not look like a teenage magazine. It should look sober and friendly. The BBC frequently has to bring you news and information about horrendous and dreadful events. This should not be done in a sensational, tabloid-looking manner. It should be somewhat restrained and comforting to look at.

    The way you are handling this matter is not pouring oil on troubled water, it's pouring oil on a fire with intent to make it an inferno. To read you are not even going to consider taking a step back indicates an incredible level of both defensiveness on backing yourselves into a corner, and that you have totally succumbed to the sunk costs fallacy in doing so. In the words of the great Kenny Rogers, "Know when to fold 'em".

  • Comment number 39.

    Maybe most referred traffic in July went to sport and current affairs because... a lot of people are interested in sport and current affairs?

    The feature of the new homepage I dislike most, the Carousel, didn't't feature in the response above. I find it very irritating and I won't use it: I just want all the available content visible at a glance, not to have to slide left and right. I can live without the pretty pictures. I'd therefore welcome a response on the home page "design" - ie the use of this annoying gadget - as well as on "content".

    Failing that, might there be workarounds one can use to reconfigure the home page and make it more usable? Does anyone have any ideas?

  • Comment number 40.

    "I would welcome further suggestions on how we can make the page more customisable to your interests."

    How about this:
    • Have customisable panels (like on the old homepage) in-between the carousel and the 'most Popular/what's on/explore' section

    • Have a 'show/hide' link for the carousel that when clicked slides the carousel to half vertical height

  • Comment number 41.

    @1 Agreed, a point i have made myself
    @2 Yep, just what I thought
    @5 Yep, that's exactly how i read it too
    @7 you beat me to it, i was going to post a similar comment
    @8 Yep, or even the other way round, a link on the new Hollyoaks page to the classic homepage
    @15 yes they do, don't they?

    I notice that the original blog has been closed down now it's past 1000 negative comments, thus making it that little bit more difficult for newcomers to register their disgust.

    James, you say most (don't you mean 99.8%?) of the comments have been critical, does that not tell you something? If I'd had more than 1000 negative comments on my work in the space 2 days I'd be shot at dawn (well maybe not, but I'd most likely be selling the Big Issue by now!), and no, i don't work in a newsagent, I work for an international regulatory body for professionals. I work in business improvement, so I'm all for evolution of products & services, but this is just evil-oution.

    I don't want to be critical of people personally, but the arrogance & ignorance of the replies we get is astounding, but what is more annoying is replies we don't get to the questions we do ask.

    I can't believe how angry this whole business has made me, can the BBC not sense that everybody is ANGRY, not slightly miffed, but really very ANGRY?

    The BBCs attitude on this is very reminiscent of a Bill Hicks stand up routine "Here, watch this, shut up, you are free to do as we tell you"

    I've still not had answers to the questions i posed in the other thread, but I notice James sign off has been changed from "i do" read all comments to "i try to". It still seems that that our concerns are cherry picked out to reply to in corporate waffle speak, whilst the majority that require specific answers are studiously ignored.

    If you're going to persist with the Hollyoaks homepage, is there not any chance of a compromise with a link to a classic style homepage?

    Why is my mind swimming with pictures of Gollum in LOTR with his hands over his ears saying "Not Listening"?

  • Comment number 42.

    You want us to give feedback? Why? What the hell is the point? All of this blog shows that you have totally different goals to all your users.

    79% of traffic goes to the News and Sport. And? What's wrong with that? That's still 21% going to everywhere else. I can tell you one thing - 21% of a lot of people is still a lot of people. See how you're getting on after a few months of belligerent denial.

    "The previous design of the homepage was often criticised for being too boring and containing too much text". By who? This is the main problem. Who the hell did you ask? A focus group of people you wanted to use the site more? You need to realise that not everyone will use your website and there isn't a problem with that! I run several websites and target the people that are interested in them and are most likely to use them. You asked that target audience, then ignored what they said!

    "Detailed customisation of content was used by under 10%"
    I'm sure you guys said it was 1/3rd not long ago. How has it now dropped to 10%? Anyway, I would like to know how you define this percentage because I flat out do not believe it. Even if it's just removing CBeebies, that's customization.

    My fundamental questions at this stage, none of which I expect to be answered.

    1. Who is overseeing this process externally from the design team? I feel that you are completely entrenched and this needs an impartial analysis from outside your team.
    2. Can we see a summary of the beta survey results? If they are overwhelmingly negative, I want to know why this went ahead.
    3. How many complaints have there been in total, to date?
    4. Why was this released when it's not finished and not properly tested on all platforms?
    5. Why did you feel the need to have such a high concept design, rather than evolve the existing website?

  • Comment number 43.

    I am sorry but having read the 1000+ plus comments on the old blog, all saying exactly what i feel and read James response, i think you have to listen and not fob us off.
    This new page does not meet any of the users needs/homepage criteria, is very poorly designed, difficult to use and I have spoken to many over the last few days myself who all said 'yuk' to put it directly. I challenged everyone of them about having the BBC News site as a homepage and none understood that one at all.
    Also, as for the site diverting/working on smartphones, you better test more, as my iphone does not default to mobile and ive asked at least ten other smartphone users ios/android and only one on an old windows os phone did.
    It does not work as the new site on these devices.
    I also today have seen it on two ipads, it looks very bad on there.
    I tried it on Opera too and its not even readable.
    Im feeling I have missed out today, as I have not had my daily dose of sport. news, tv, food, technolgy, weather etc. Ive really found it nigh on impossible really to work it with this new design.
    Im wondering if this focus group had ever used the BBC before they were asked.

  • Comment number 44.

    What was offensive? My comment (33) was published, and 5 minutes later when I refreshed the page, it had disappeared again.
    I don't think there was anything in it that could be deemed remotely offensive.

  • Comment number 45.

    This is the first time in sixty years I have been upset enough to make this kind of comment. The old BBC customisable home page was ideal for busy people. I had my perfect mix of news, local news, business, sport, technology and stats instantly available in one place with no distracting pictures - they can be at the end of the links. It was so good I stopped reading newspapers and listening to Radio4 (is this why it had to go?). I feel bereaved. Please bring the old superb page back.

  • Comment number 46.


    Nick, I feel i must back up TwilightSentinel here, in what way was the post offensive?

    If it's what I think it was, it was not a racist slur, I inferred it related to AOL rather than a place of birth, but i see you've censored/removed his/her comments so I can't double check.

    So you are checking what we're saying, but studiously avoiding reply to valid points, questions & desires.

  • Comment number 47.

    What I find most disingenuous is the three reasons behind the re-design:

    Improving clicks to other content... a corporate ambition to boost ratings. Nothing about benefits for the users.

    Confusion between News and Home... not a big issue, certainly not worth loosing 20% of your loyal customer over.

    It seemed only a few used customisation... again, if they do fine, if they don't hey ho.

    So in summary, all this cost and grief and brand damage was to get a few more click throughs for the corporate marketing to crow how wonderful the BBC is because our shows are seen by (potentially) a few more people.

    In a time when real innovation is happening elsewhere, with context driven, targeted content, with customisation and preferences enhancing the experience and providing valuable feedback the BBC are going the other way - homogenised "one content fits all" pushing "what's popular" and deciding for us what we should see....

    BBC - you don't know us.

  • Comment number 48.

    My comment (33) has been removed "because it broke the house rules" !
    Had to go look up these house rules, and I honestly cannot see how I've broken any of them.

    Unless it's this one...

    We reserve the right to fail comments which...

    * Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others.

    And the only way that could come into play is if Ralph Rivera is the one moderating this thread and he got offended by mention of his name.

    Seriously. Nothing offensive in my earlier post.

  • Comment number 49.

    I don't buy this at all - you are basically saying that other than a minority 10% who customised the old home page everyone else will greet the new dog's breafast with unbridled enthusiasm. Let's test that -why don't you put a publicly visible survey on the new home page so that we can all see how popular or not it is to all users.

  • Comment number 50.

    Ok people it would appear that this has moved exactly 0mm forwards. The blog post here is almost the same as the post that appeared in the last blog, yes the one that had almost 1000 negative comments on it.

    So what would this make us believe.

    a) They will not be changing a thing. You got it, we rushed it out, live with it.

    b) Given the similarities between this and the last blog entry I suspect the motive isn't clarity, rather a way of splitting the outrage as it were. Some there some here, doesn't quite look so bad does it.

    c) Had I messed up like this human nature might make me this defensive, especially if my job might be on the line.

    d) That being said I wouldn't then just repost and hope it went away.

    e) Thing about market surveys is that many of them are tragically flawed. Often rather than producing a genuine and impartial result they can be "tweaked" to produce the result you want, especially if the commissioning team have some input into the questions asked or even the phrasing of the questions. I'm glad that a FOI is being sought to clarify this.

    f) I'm not entirely sure that its sunk in that at the moment the BBC is running a little scared over funding. I think you should sit down, make some tea and reflect on where this is ultimately going. As I pointed out in the last thread the current government of the UK is not sympathetic to the BBC and the current highest management have proven themselves to be compliant.

    Complaints have been sent, I would urge everyone else to do the same, elevate the complaint to the BBC Trust when you get your (predictable) reply.

    I had already changed my home page , I've actually decided now to completely boycott the website. In truth the popularist manifesto that approaches, of which this "redirecting" website is just the start tells me that the days of the BBC have finally ended as a serious program and information provider.

  • Comment number 51.


    to add to your list of (good) questions:

    6. Why have visually impaired people been discriminated against?

  • Comment number 52.

    @46 : wimbledom wrote:

    "racist slur" ????

    What? What in my post could ever be called a "racist slur"? Seriously?

  • Comment number 53.

    Hi James,

    One of the complaints that you haven't addressed is the lack of order to the content which for me at least has the effect of making it difficult to see what I might be interested in. In short, there is too much noise. As I've said before it comes over as a jumble and I just don't have the patience to pick through on the off chance that there might be an occasional nugget hidden away somewhere. If you want to provide a way for people to make serendipitous discoveries I would suggest having a rotating 'pick of the day' slot. I don't think muddle is the way to go.

    You sensibly revised the news and sports headlines during the beta to reduce the number of images which was a move in the right direction. However, I think the current use of images is still misjudged. If the images added something then I wouldn't be so critical. However, for me a picture of Nick Robinson holding a red ministerial box is just a waste of space particularly when the result is that there isn't enough room to display the programme title that goes with the image in full. I happen to know what that programme is about but I can't see how what you are displaying would be helpful to someone who hasn't come across it before. If you want to have images I think you would get more impact from a smaller number of better ones that added to what you are trying to convey. I also think that displaying extra information on mouse over would be helpful.

    I must add that the process of communication with us, your stakeholders, about the radical changes to the BBC homepage could have been handled much more adroitly and I'm pleased that your latest response is a contribution to more honest communication on this issue.

    Best regards,


  • Comment number 54.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 55.

    I loved the old BBC homepage. It gave me information about things that I didn't even know I wanted. I read Robert Peston and Stephanie flanders and I really am not interested in that sort of thing but the little titbit would hook me and take me to their article. I loved the "quote of the day" and learnt lots of fun things. I could cruise the sports headlines and see if there was anything that interested me. I'd sometimes check out the recipe of the day. I loved the choice of headlines - some times serious, some times frivolous. My only complaint about the old homepage was the tv bit was always stuck on Eastenders and as I don't watch much telly it did nothing to inspire me. The new homepage seems to be all tv and huge blocks of info which are a real turn off. I shall certainly be turning off the BBC homepage. If something ain't broke don't try to fix it!

  • Comment number 56.

    James Thornett states above, "Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering".

    This shows total utter disregard to everyone who has taken the time to give feedback. The BBC seem to be a law unto themselves and the rest of us are just a nuisance (I would have liked to have said something stronger here, but it would have been modded).

  • Comment number 57.

    TwilightSentinel and wimbledom - if you wish to appeal hosting decisions on these comments there is an appeals process outlined here.

    I appreciate that people have strong opinions but please obey the house rules and do not abuse BBC staff.

    Further comments which argue with hosting decisions will be removed. Please use the appeals process rather than disrupting this comments thread.


  • Comment number 58.

    TwilightSentinel, It looks like I've been censored too now. I didn't think you were being offensive in any way, I was trying to explain how the overly sensitive might have misconstrued one element of your post. I don't know whether you saw my earlier apology, but I'm in 100% agreement with you & i'm sorry if you think i've insulted you, which wasn't my intention.

  • Comment number 59.

    James, the fundamental pont is that the new page looks awful, is not user friendly and is certainly not the user-defined one-stop-shop for ALL my content needs. In the name of sanity, please give users the option of having the old one back. As with many on here, I have never felt the need to register and comment like this before, but such is the depth of feeling on this, I feel compelled to.

  • Comment number 60.

    James ... you got it wrong .... put it back as it was and all will be forgiven!

    p.s. Are you still watching Corry or is it your supper that's delaying your response?

  • Comment number 61.

    Really saddened at this response from Mr Thornett, but not really surprised.

    It takes a man of honour and good old fashioned guts to hold up his hands and admit he got things wrong - and it doesn't look like he's got the integrity to do that. Shame.

    It's a shame too that this debate is moving away from constructive comments to discussion of the hidebound defence by the BBC. If they would actively engage, rather than stonewalling, I am sure this would help us all move towards an equitable solution.

    Please Mr Thornett, admit the strength of feeling out here is justified and that you are seriously considering all the requests for re-instatement of the old system until the new is re-considered. It wouldn't hurt and would go a very long way towards re-building the trust and loyalty you have so patently lost. You would regain our respect if you did.

    Many thanks.

  • Comment number 62.

    May I reitterate that it's in really poor taste and also surely a breach of the BBC impartiality to display a story on YouTube's homepage launch feedback but not on your own.

    I said so in the last blog and will do so again. Search twitter for #youtube and you will see it is mostly positive feedback. I can't fix those numbers. Look for yourself. Then do it for #bbchomepage.

    I'd not even seem that video that people are giving a thumbs down re: youtube and I doubt most other people had either.

    If you read the comments to that video, you'll see things like this "you tube has commited suacide" or "yesterday they say happy aids day than #### us right in the ###..."
    Read the posts you are getting on here are you'll see, as has been pointed out, a very exasperated but reasonable selection of people.

    It's a shame that nobody else will pick up the story. It doesn't make sense for any of the papers to go "nobody likes this new homepage" because that will drive traffic to the homepage... then as we have seen from the "correspondence" here, obviously the BBC isn't in the business of self criticism, so they aren't going to do it unless they absolutely have to.

  • Comment number 63.

    "Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering" - I don't ask that you do this, if you want to have your home page designed for a 12-year-old iPad user (but that doesn't actually work on an iPad) that's between you and your bosses. Personally, if any of my employees had messed up like this, they'd be getting an Xmas card with a P45 inside - but I digress.

    What I want is the old home page back somewhere - I previously suggested www.bbc.co.uk/old - with a link from the new home page. Now, I realise that it isn't compliant with the holy writ of GEL because it's actually user-friendly, but do us all a favour, even if it's just to get several thousand angry users off your back. As ever, if you have been, thanks for reading.

  • Comment number 64.

    Give it up people, the BBC dont give a monkeys what we think, as far as their statasticians are concerned 1000 or so complaints is a very small percentage of the estimated readership of the site therefore it must be true that the majority of the public like and applaude the changes we have made so, pat ourselves on the back, get ready to foul up the rest of the website and maybe pay an end of job bonus while were at it.

    The underlying tone of this blog is simple .... we've changed it, we dont care if you dont like it, lump it or go elsewhere.

    May I point out to the author that the BBC is a public body funded by the public and taxes therefore you belong to us ... how about doing what WE ask for a change not what you want.

    I for one have already changed my home page and added just a link to the main news page, I suspect I am only one of very many.

  • Comment number 65.

    The more I read here the more concerned I become. Not because of the the new page is absolutely terrible - which it is.

    But because of the lack of information & balance that the BBC is showing. I am getting a distinct feeling that the BBC are no longer just reporting the news but are actively seeking to manipulate it to their own advantage.

    Things to me that point in this direction...
    -The continued moving of this feedback/comments page,
    -The removal of links to it from other parts of the website.
    -The COMPLETE lack of any meaningful response from them to the ponits raised
    beyond that is of refering back to their old blogs for answers to questions &
    complaints that the blogs clearly didn't have. (oh lets not forgetbeing told that
    comparison to the recent YouTube launch is not relevant!).
    - The fact that these complaints a not being reported by the BBC, yet they are
    more than happy to give headlines to the fact that YouTube has had complaints
    about its new site (although it has had a MUCH more favourable response than
    the BBC's new homepage has).

    and then there also appears to issue with the complaints mechanism and theapprent confusion of what is a complaint and what is feedback (questionnaires are feedback)

    Is this something that needs to go beyond the BBC - to my MP?

    Any views?

  • Comment number 66.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 67.

    @ Nick, 57.
    Point of order my dear sir. I do not find their discussion of why they were banned disruptive. I find it an illuminating and enlightening insight into the decision making processes of the team behind this sad affair. Please let them continue to have the conversation, and allow us to see it.

    After all, since the redesign this is the only part of the BBC site I'm still reading. I keep it in an open tab.

    Incidentally, can you please tell us the timetable for implementing any restoration of even limited customisation of the Homepage, and any intent of allowing us to reduce the size of text and images?

  • Comment number 68.

    At a football match when the ref keeps making mistakes that are obvious to the thousands and thousands watching, the cry from the crowd goes up -
    “you don’t know what you’re doing! - you don’t know what you’re doing!”
    When the ref see’s a recording of the game, he knows that he has made mistakes but at the end of the game it’s too late to do anything about it – the damage has been done.

    It’s not too late for you BBC – admit you’ve made a mistake and put it right – otherwise it will be nothing but a chorus of “YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING” here in after.

  • Comment number 69.

    You are seriously making me think about stopping paying the bloody TV License because of your absolute ignorance and refusal to pay any attention to what the people that pay your wages think. Absolute disgrace, bbc. Am I supposed to switch to thesun now? I am not using this rubbish on the front page, ever.

  • Comment number 70.

    I believe that what we are seeing is the implementation of ideas generated by Ralph Rivera and maybe others - see the article at the head of the first thread and Google his name as Director of Future Media at the BBC. His concept of the BBC's home page would seem to be a cross platform entrance portal to the BBC web site in general that can provide a digital voyage of discovery and which could lead to areas we may not know exist and which we might be happy to discover and explore. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, in my view. Life itself is a 'serendipitous adventure'. To continue with this analogy, however, I would suggest that we also need in life some 'certainties' for want of a better term or maybe 'reference points'. The old home page was exactly that - We could customise it such that it was simple to use and yet give each of us exactly what we wanted to reference quickly each day (our local weather, our local news, business news etc.. etc.). A little like reaching for a dictionary - we want specific information quickly and are not looking for a continuing journey into semantics just because we consulted a dictionary.

    I think James Thornett has made an interesting start towards implementing the type of home page that is envisioned by Raph Rivera. It is obviously not finished and has more work needed in its format and also. it appears. on its implementation across platforms. That's an ongoing process and I have neither the wish nor the knowledge to comment further on it. However, that still leaves us without what I think many of us are requesting in these threads.

    I would suggest that we should not be asking for the old home page back again, replacing the new one. If we do that, then I believe our chance of getting it at present is zero. To replace the new home page with the old one or even allow the new one to be customisable in the same way as before would cut across the whole new vision of the BBC site whether that vision is right or wrong (but that's another matter). What we want is a new page - call it what you want (other than the BBC home page) - maybe a Personal Page which you get when you register if that's what it takes. This would be a page where we could put together all the bits from the BBC site that we wish to refer to quickly each day. It could be 'our home page' but not the 'BBC home page'. It could look and act exactly like the old BBC home page but is in fact just one page we could access when we wanted among all the others on the BBC site. I would like to ask James (or Ralph if he is following this thread) if it would be possible to implement this (the old home page is virtually this already) and would it really be a threat to the vision of the new BBC home page and site in general, particularly if, as has been said about the old home page, that not a large proportion of people used the customisation. It does not seem to me to be asking too much to have this one piece of simple, customisable certainty available within the 'serendipitous adventure'. After all, each separate part of the BBC site is, in its own fashion, a 'point of certainty'.

    So that's my request and I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible - could we please have just one page in the whole site we can access where we can gather together just the bits we want to reference quickly each day from all the other pages? We could then make that 'our home page'. Is that really asking too much?

  • Comment number 71.

    As a user who has set the BBC site as my homepage since before the last revamp (of which I approved, so this is not just complaining about 'change for the sake of it'), I've given the new homepage a chance but I have to broadly agree with what most posters are saying above.

    The new homepage looks as though it was designed to appeal to 'yoof' who find reading a challenge whilst appeasing the BBC bean-counters by denying users the ability to customise, (for instance, to set anything other than football as their sport of choice or the old Science and Nature heading instead of "entertainment" / celebrity culture) and to highlight the 'lowest common denominator' of BBC output (ie, Eastenders) in case anyone was unaware it existed.

    Maybe you could run an experiment for a week. Offer both formats and invite your users to 'vote with your mouse'.

  • Comment number 72.

    thanks to whoever gave the tip for netvibes, that site is groundbreaking, works on all my devices, bbc should have a look at that now thats a way to cutomize and work easily across all platforms. Ive got a new homepage, happy, sorry bbc will come back when the old site is back

    One last thing for now i did notice today that i hadnt noticed before down below was the most popular section, what is the point of that, it is a bit jumbled, is this still in beta, it shows tv progs in the read section, not sure thats correct, most popular what? and what do i care, i want to see what i want, you have not understood that

  • Comment number 73.

    Hey, if anything I was trying to deflect somewhat the constant criticism of James Thornett. I'm sure he's stuck between a rock and a hard place, and has been given a brief to follow through from the powers above.

    For the record, I'm not arguing with any "hosting decisions" in this post.

  • Comment number 74.

    I feel somewhat perturbed that after James asked for specific and constructive criticism (of which I penned almost 1,500 words in the last blog — thanks to those people who did acknowledge my input) 99% of it has been left unaddressed in this response.

    To my mind, there are two things that should be done from here:

    First — publish the results of the BETA test surveys. If you can prove that those of us posting here are in the minority then I will cede to collective opinion.

    Second — run both the new site and the old site in an A/B split test, giving users the choice of which home page they want to use and then publish the results after a month or two. Most chosen homepage wins. Again, I will accept the judgement of my peers if the majority vote for the new design.

    I can't agree more with Mike's comments — YouTube have done a fantastic job of a redesign and a relaunch, and the BBC would have done well to watch and learn from them. Instead they have posted an article highlighting the 'disastrous launch' of the new YouTube whilst keeping curiously mum about their own launch. The irony is almost unbearable.

    Interestingly, independent of Mike's recent comment (#62), I have just sent an email to all of the major news broadcasters and publications drawing their attention to this issue — complete with links to the original BETA blog articles, the launch article and this article.

    While I share his scepticism that the other news outlets will 'promote' a competitor, I live in hope that at least one will pick up the story and put the BBC in a position where they HAVE to address the issue, rather than hiding from it.

  • Comment number 75.

    @ James Thornett wrote
    "The homepage was too narrow in focus - 79% of referred traffic went to BBC News and BBC Sport during July this year. We want to do much better at highlighting all of the content available from BBC Online"

    With this new homepage been so awful. I have now bookmarked the News homepage directly, so bypassing the hideous home page.

    I only hope that the design team don't get their hands on the News or Sport pages. As i fear that will drive me away from the BBC entirely.

  • Comment number 76.

    a number of comments have mentioned GEL ("a Global Experience Language for the BBC"), a term I had not been familiar with, so I searched for it and found that, outside of the BBC, it appears totally unknown (no Wikipedia entry, for example).

    and this brings me to my question: why does the BBC need to evolve its own 'standard' for presenting and disseminating information, when there are perfectly good guidelines in existence? (like those promoted by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C))

    isn't the current Opera browser incompatibility a good example for the need to adhere to established standards? aren't the many voices of the disenchanted BBC users a sure sign that this 'exercise' in corporate vanity is entirely counterproductive?

    I, too, would like to hear Mr Thornett respond to the substantive points made by so many.

  • Comment number 77.

    This is a depressingly familiar process, similar to what happened when the News pages were revamped some little time ago.

    People in their droves make comments (some very detailed, specific and constructive) as to why the changes make the site less usable for them. The PTB (Powers That Be) periodically thank them for their comments and patiently explain to the 4-year-olds yet again why the changes are good for them. Most things that are functionally broken get fixed eventually, but otherwise nothing in terms of layout, content or function is changed in response to the comments received. The PTB tick the box that say Public Consultation Done (PCD) and carry on as they had always intended.

    We are mugs for allowing ourselves to be railroaded into playing the game. If everybody refused to respond to the charade at least the PTB wouldn't be able to claim PCD.

  • Comment number 78.

    I wonder how long it will be before the DM picks up on this?

  • Comment number 79.

    #4 - you weren't the first person to complain on the telephone hotline - I did so this morning, and so have others. Even the BBC Complaints line won't listen to complaints, it seems. I urge more people to do so. Maybe someone above these clowns will then take notice and order changes to be made.

    I'm sorry, the responses given to the barrage of complaints by the development team are laughable. For example, I was amazed to read that this atrocious new homepage, which looks like it was designed (I use the word loosely) for iPad etc, was actually supposed to be for PC/laptop. That makes it even worse. Admit it, guys, you got it badly wrong, so put it right and listen to your customers for once.

  • Comment number 80.

    James says that ......... 'The previous design of the homepage was often criticised for being too boring and containing too much text so for this version we have deliberately introduced more images and increased the amount of white space on the page to allow these images to really stand out.'

    Who were these people who were complaining about 'too much text'?

    Text = content!

    Pictures = mostly unnecessary padding
    White space = more pointless padding

    What is the problem with a page that actually has CONTENT?

    James blithely says that if you want news - go to the news page. If you want sport - go to the sports pages. Presumably if you fancy looking at a few recipes - go to the cookery page. A bit of science - go the science page for the headlines. QI fact of the day - tough luck you can't have that any more. Quick overview of BBC1 - BBC4 for the evening - nope can't have that either.

    So around 20 clicks later I might manage to see all that I could see before all on one page - a page that had some content not just a lot of meaningless eye candy.

    I was annoyed before James posted his latest 'tough luck but we think it's great' blog, I'm even more annoyed now.

    I never post on these sort of feedback threads so well done on making me irate enough to take the time.

  • Comment number 81.

    "Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering." YET!

  • Comment number 82.

    Irishtom and colin bgood make a very valid suggestion of running the 2 sites back to back for a period of time and letting the users pick their preferred option. And, sorry, but if Ralph Rivera believes serendipitous discovery is what the BBC homepage should be, he is seriously away with the fairies...!

  • Comment number 83.

    Cluttered, messy and no means of customising.
    Absolute waste of time and money.
    Nothing wrong with old homepage.
    I used it as my default homepage for years - not anymore!

  • Comment number 84.

    The reason for the BBC's intransigence on this issue lies in the fact that the old homepage encouraged 80 per cent of its users into a relatively small part of BBC Online content. Or, in other words, they are spending a lot of money on creating content which few people are accessing and, in these days of austerity and budget reductions, that is not a good place in which to be.

    The managers of BBC Online do not wish to see their empire suffer a considerable reduction in size - not least because big empires mean big salaries - so they are trying to force more traffic towards the less popular parts of the site. They are banking on the new homepage to do that - but at the risk that the redesign might simply turn people away from BBC Online completely and that, I suspect, is how things are turning out.

  • Comment number 85.


    ...... now this is an excellent example of how a website should be!

  • Comment number 86.

    @67 Skeerbs, Thank You.

    @70 Apergeter "What we want is a new page - call it what you want (other than the BBC home page) - maybe a Personal Page which you get when you register if that's what it takes. This would be a page where we could put together all the bits from the BBC site that we wish to refer to quickly each day."

    Well said that poster, I seem to remember the term for such a facility being a "Sandbox" to play in, let's see if the arrogance of TPB allow us a compromise, if they're obviously ignoring our request for the classic (old) homepage to be reinstated in place of the Hollyoaks homepage.

  • Comment number 87.

    Wait till this blog reaches 1000 comments which do not agree with James and we'll start on blog number 3

  • Comment number 88.

    @85 MADJAN122. Priceless. I love the bit about "What I want not what the BBC wants". Presumably it was this ability to choose that made them change it. Can't let the plebs choose for themselves after all. They might just ignore things they weren't interested in, that can't be allowed surely.

  • Comment number 89.

    My previous feedback has been ignored along with many others who have spent time contacting you and again we have been swept aside. Presumably this is because our comments are unrepresentative (so you say) and confirmation bias for the new design overrides any open mindedness on your part.

    Here however is a change you (the BBC) need to address to avoid running foul of the law (Equality Act 2010) https://www.out-law.com/page-330

    Jim wrote in your previous blog: “1010 I'm blind. My software package which enables me to access the existing site (Dolphin Guide) is excellent - but cannot use the beta site.”

    This whole homepage fiasco and your response to it have dented the Excellence of BBC brand.

  • Comment number 90.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 91.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 92.

    Agree with 85 completely. Worth a watch to remember the good old days.
    Bring it back, this new version is the pants!


  • Comment number 93.

    I started reading James' comments in reply to our posts, after reading about half of of his reply, I thought, he's not listening, he want what he wants, not what we want. Am I surprised, no, goodbye BBC, hello Guardian :). To all the others who have posted their comments, good luck in your quest, however, you've no chance. James should now be known as The Iron Lady II.

  • Comment number 94.

    @92 - IanS - Makes me instantly nostalgic for the good old days. The old site was excellent, my first port of call every day. It wasn't broken, now it's completely wrecked. As they used to say in the RAF (I think) FUBARed i.e. Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

  • Comment number 95.

    Why are you not considering moving back to the old design? Have another look at the comments on your previous post, perhaps you missed the predominance of the "give us back the old page" theme that was emerging.

    Disregarding the fact that it seems to be largely disliked, I cannot understand how you can have gone live with a page that needs so many "developments and improvements". Development and improvement is something that should be done in the testing phase of a project.

    If you were to undertake a post-implementation review, given the number of adverse reactions you have generated, I cannot see how you can avoid the conclusion that the previous version should be reinstated. The new version should be withdrawn immediately and "developments and improvements" be done in a testing environment.

    If you are going to foist an unpopular upgrade on us, at least do us the courtesy of finishing the development process before going live.

  • Comment number 96.

    Surely the fact that this blog has received a comment (on average) every two and a half minutes since it was posted... at 18:30... on a friday night... after more than 1,000 have already commented... suggests this isn't just going to go away and the BBC might actually have to do something about it.

  • Comment number 97.

    There's always a resistance to change - but it seems virtually everybody strongly dislikes these changes.




    Surely this amount of negativity suggests that something is wrong?

  • Comment number 98.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 99.

    It was designed to attract more C2DE people, so Sport & Celebrity is what we can expect.

  • Comment number 100.

    As we seem to be stuck with this rubbish I'm going to use https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ as my own new BBC portal as I can find most of what I want from there. There's no point using the official new homepage as it's a waste of time.


Page 1 of 15

More from this blog...

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.