BBC BLOGS - Gavin Hewitt's Europe
« Previous | Main

A new home

Gavin Hewitt | 10:57 UK time, Thursday, 5 May 2011

Thank you for reading this blog over the past 20 months. As of today the Europe editor's blog is moving to a new home, with a fresh format. Visit my new page to see all of my expert analysis in one place - including my video, audio, news stories and [soon] my tweets. You can follow me here.


  • Comment number 1.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est le même Gavin!

    Looking forward to visiting the new site.

  • Comment number 2.


    I just had a look at your new blog site. The “LINK TO THIS” anchor is a welcome addition; from my perspective, however, it is the only positive change in the comments section. In the new blog, it looks as though only the five most recent posts are displayed at a time; I view this as a negative, as I strongly prefer the oldest-to-newest ordering of the old blog, and my guess is that the limited view of past posts will tend to squelch discussion. Also, posts in the new blog appear to be limited to 400 characters each; this will either limit detailed explanation of an idea, or lead to people making several posts to fully explain a single idea; with only five posts being visible, I expect that this will often lead to a single poster occupying the visible area through several consecutive posts. Sadly, the “Show More” link seems to depend on JavaScript being active in the browser; the old blog was functional without requiring JavaScript.

    Although I am not a particularly active poster, I expect to cease posting completely if the changes outlined above remain permanent features of the new blog. I shall check back on occasion to see how things progress, and I wish you good luck with the new blog.

  • Comment number 3.


    Two more negatives in the new blog: its use of relative timestamps rather than absolute timestamps (e.g. “45 MINUTES AGO” rather than “20:11pm 5th May 2011”), and removal of the ability to put clickable links in a comment.

    In my opinion, the new blog has taken one step forward and five steps backward (that I’ve counted so far).

  • Comment number 4.

    Ah, in the new blog, a link must be entered as a plain-text URL, and the blog software converts it to a HTML anchor element.

    The tally is now one step forward, four and a half steps backward. (The old blog software allowed HTML anchor elements to be entered directly; this is no longer supported in the new blog software.)

  • Comment number 5.

    Also removed from the new blog is the ability to directly enter either italic text or bold text (or their semantic equivalents, “emphasised” text or “strong” text).

    One step forward, six and a half steps backward.

    Au revoir.

  • Comment number 6.

    ---at least the massive unjustified ´referrals´are no longer a problem -- good luck, if he/she is willing to do the extra work --long after blogs are closed.

    --and Gavin, try to cool your British Nationalism --it only incited the British flag wavers and demised you journalism !

  • Comment number 7.

    5. At 22:10pm 5th May 2011, Jan_Keeskop,

    Amen to that, they seem to have reverted to a low cost blog engine such as I see in the Yahoo comments attached to articles. The character limit is a joke in this day and age.

  • Comment number 8.


    (a) Only the 5 most recent posts are dispalyed at one time,
    (b) We are limited to 400 characters
    (c) We can no longer used italic script or paste in links

    then this new blog is a MASSIVE step backwards.

    Why not incorporate all the other changes (ie all the video, audio, news stories and tweets in one place) and keep the comment section on your blog exactly the same????

  • Comment number 9.

    I open a blog to see what people say on the issue at hand which the editor had brought forward to attention.

    In the new format they
    1. don't have a space to say anything, issue curt shrieks :o)))
    2. the page lay-out doesn't allow to see how the argument developed.
    2.1 Just 5 squeaks are seen at once on a page.
    2.2 These squeaks are seen in reverse order.

    Conclusion: I don't see opinions expressed by people in the easy-to-use format.

    On the plus side, we were promised to be able to see more of what the editor says. Before, the Editor was only writing, now he will be dancing and singing :o))))) I mean will become available in the video and audio formats, and in the condensed Tweet form as well.

    Having analysed the changes, I have arrived to the following conclusion:

    Far more is expected of the Editor in future, to work as audience attractant, and far less of the congregation of the Editor, his parish :o))))) I would say, - within the new platform.

    Open questions are:
    1. Will an Editor be able to pull the weight alone, even armed with full multi-media gadgetry?
    2. Will an audience wish to follow the Page? It has to be noted the "audience" will consist of two distinct categories - those who know how it was "before" (and reacted thumbs down unanimously so far - as the interactivity level fell - we can't interact, only listen to what an Editor says (tweets, dances :o). And the new customers, sub-divided, in their turn, into admirers of Print editions-on-line blogs (Economist, Guardian, etc.) and the ones who'll be evaluating this BBC platform versus Twitter and Facebook. In which category BBC now wishes to compete.
    My estimate is that, sadly, witin the new platform BBC will lose loyal customers, won't attract Print media sites' followers, - and how will it succeed in competing for the market in the Twitter/FaceBook categories is an open question.

  • Comment number 10.

    #104 Kane from the last previous subject .
    Re Huaimek not getting a word in for several hours . Do you mean I will fall asleep ?
    You don't know Huaimek , I as often as not I dominate a discussion of this nature .
    Nobody need quote religion to me . Unless Gadfly55 agreed with me as she has done with Buzet23 , I am not sure we should find too much to agree on .


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.