> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden > Sent: 15 January 2007 14:16 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [backstage] Five Live Partnership - get your > idea commissioned. > > > > That means that a top story is always 103, whilst the fifth most > > > important story is always 107. > > This is not correct. Page 102 lists the stories in 'most > important' > > order, > > viz: > > http://www.ceefax.tv/txtmaster.php?page=101&subpage=0&channel= > > bbc1&search_st > > ring=101&fontsize=2 > > The order shown right now is 107 113 104 108 109 110 116 124 > > Getting my pages mixed up slightly - 101 is the main > headlines - akin I suppose to the main BBC News homepage (and > indeed the ordering is very similar). > > Meanwhile 102 is a mixture of UK and World News - although in > an editorial order. > > Meanwhile, 103 is actually a summary page :) > > However, the stories do still move around ;0)
OK. My proposal is that the stories do not get reallocated and that there is a larger pool of page numbers, which are expired using the "live hit counts" from the BBC news website. Teletext transmission is done as "lines" and any line on a page that is blank is simply not tranmsitted. Any page, therefore, that has dropped out of the "Ceefax" list could comprise of a single line (with the 'double height' character in front of it) with the message "see news.bbc.co.uk/NNN". So even if there was 300 'pages' that hit (for Ceefax and Digital TV red button) users this would take the space of 12 Ceefax pages in terms of bandwidth and a few bytes each for digital TV. Personally I would move the regional news page numbers to 700-799 as these are no longer used, and 800-887, 889-899 are also free. > > > > What's important here is that the definition of what's the > > top story > > > will change during the day - maybe even during the hour. And > > > naturally it's all automated, based on the editorial > priorities the > > > editor of the section decides (and priorities are made cross > > > platform), which can change in a matter of minutes. > > Yes. I proposed that the pool of numbers expands to around 300. > > Which would be fine for digital platforms, although you > couldn't really do it until you get to a point where Ceefax has gone. > > The thing is about page numbers is that they've grown > essentially out of a technical necessisty rather than a > unique identifier. For "analogue" > text services (which are of course digital) the number is an > ID - the only way to navigate. And you can only have so many > numbers. So to increase the pool on Ceefax means losing > other content elsewhere as you'd nick their numbers! > > > > As I understand it, the massive text (I like that term!) > is manually > > > edited into a graphics system - it's quicker and more > flexible that > > > way. > > Again, it's only a question of the person in charge of the MASSIVE > > text (it's about two a half inches high on my TV) just > needs to look > > up the right number. > > Which - it has to be said - is easier said than done, because > the person doing the text is probably doing several other > things at the same time and is unlikely to have time to spend > to match the story on screen with what's going on in the > content systems. > > > > Actually it's also rare that stories break online before TV > > - that's > > > mainly because it takes longer to write out a story than > it does to > > > quickly pick up a microphone and talk. > > I do recall occasions where News 24 has been linked to the "online > > studio" > > and an important news story has been heard over the PA > system. I have > > often seen headlines appear on the news.bbc.co.uk latest > box and not > > appear on News 24 for some time afterwards. > > It does happen - however the converse definitely is true. > The number of times I've seen breaking news on News 24 and > gone to the website and found nothing... Well it's more than > once. And that is the nature of the beast. Online and TV > journalism work in different ways which means it is harder > (not impossible, but harder) to bring them together in a > coherent way - especially when you're up against it time wise > (as people in TV seem to always be!) > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/626 - Release > Date: 14/01/2007 20:29 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/626 - Release Date: 14/01/2007 20:29 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
