RE: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
I've never posted to it - although having a look at posts on there, it does appear to have a rather simplistic moderation system when you compare it to the likes of slashcode. What's your problem with it specifically? J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nic James Ferrier Sent: 18 January 2007 20:49 To: backstage Subject: [backstage] crappy have your say forum I had my say about paying you blokes more money to give my granny a set top box and let gordo sell off the Mhz spectrum. What a rubbishy forum. Couldn't you put on a better one? Come on. For goodness sake. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've never posted to it - although having a look at posts on there, it does appear to have a rather simplistic moderation system when you compare it to the likes of slashcode. What's your problem with it specifically? It's impossible to have a conversation. There are just 5 gazillion posts all at the same level. For the BBC licence fee debate a conversation is necessary. And no one else can really facilitate that discussion (or wants to). Apparently the BBC doesn't either. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. I'm sure there are people from News lurking around here. Failing that then perhaps a FoIA request [2] could be used to find out the criteria used in the purchasing decision [3]? J [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/ [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/ [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/supplying/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nic James Ferrier Sent: 19 January 2007 09:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've never posted to it - although having a look at posts on there, it does appear to have a rather simplistic moderation system when you compare it to the likes of slashcode. What's your problem with it specifically? It's impossible to have a conversation. There are just 5 gazillion posts all at the same level. For the BBC licence fee debate a conversation is necessary. And no one else can really facilitate that discussion (or wants to). Apparently the BBC doesn't either. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
It's impossible to have a conversation. There are just 5 gazillion posts all at the same level. For the BBC licence fee debate a conversation is necessary. And no one else can really facilitate that discussion (or wants to). Apparently the BBC doesn't either. Nic There are numerous discussions about the licence fee and other issues relating the BBC's purpose, activities, and funding on the BBC Points of view message board. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574 There is also a bbc.co.uk section which at the moment has threads about youtube, bbc message boards, big brother and the censorship of the have your say section of BBC news. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F2131439 There are frequent contributions from BBC hosts. thanks Jem Stone
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. I'm sure there are people from News lurking around here. Failing that then perhaps a FoIA request [2] could be used to find out the criteria used in the purchasing decision [3]? Without threads or any sensible view of the posts it's just people shouting in a textbox. I can't see the point. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. That's not the reason at all, the BBC used to have a decent message board system (well an OK one) for it's 6-0-6 message boards, they've replaced it with a blog-like structure against the wishes of most of it's users. In his own blog, the sports editor, Chris Russell was forced to admit it was too popular and was being changed more or less to make it harder for people. A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users, this was also the first step in the destruction of the 6-0-6 message boards. The problem is one of a lack of good hardware, not a software one. Basically the BBC needs to beef up the servers that are hosting the message boards.
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
On 19/01/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are numerous discussions about the licence fee and other issues relating the BBC's purpose, activities, and funding on the BBC Points of view message board. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574 There is also a bbc.co.uk section which at the moment has threads about youtube, bbc message boards, big brother and the censorship of the have your say section of BBC news. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F2131439 There are frequent contributions from BBC hosts. thanks Jem Stone I agree this is the wrong place to debate the ins and outs of subject, however seeing as it has come up I would like to know if there are any plans to FLOSS the beeb's current (or new) message board system, after all I've payed for it, and I want to fork it into something usable, instead of the current mess that's a worse experience than even PHPbb, and a disgrace to our national broadcaster. I'll gladly let the BBC have it back under a BSD style licence.
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are numerous discussions about the licence fee and other issues relating the BBC's purpose, activities, and funding on the BBC Points of view message board. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574 This is a lot better. Why on earth doesn't the have your say stuff just use a view of this? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
You're not dragging me into that whole 606 thing :-) I was referring to threading as seen on www.slashdot.org (via slashcode), where a converation has a (seemingly) unlimited heirarchy of replies, rather than traditional messageboard threading based on user topic (as seen on 606). News' messageboards are from Jivesoft, 606 etc are done internally by DNA. Different systems. One little known requirement of the Have Your Say thing... http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4895 (arabic) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4954 (urdu) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4958 (persian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4959 (russian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4960start=0tstart= 0zh=simp (chinese simplified) etc... http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/ J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 19 January 2007 11:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. That's not the reason at all, the BBC used to have a decent message board system (well an OK one) for it's 6-0-6 message boards, they've replaced it with a blog-like structure against the wishes of most of it's users. In his own blog, the sports editor, Chris Russell was forced to admit it was too popular and was being changed more or less to make it harder for people. A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users, this was also the first step in the destruction of the 6-0-6 message boards. The problem is one of a lack of good hardware, not a software one. Basically the BBC needs to beef up the servers that are hosting the message boards.
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users, this was also the first step in the destruction of the 6-0-6 message boards. The problem is one of a lack of good hardware, not a software one. Basically the BBC needs to beef up the servers that are hosting the message boards. Can't they just hire some GPUs from mediatemple? -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Movies Data
Andrew Bowden wrote: Re the Times/Listings - I'm 99% sure that it's PA data and hence not available for redistribution, sorry - but I'll still check the contract position. I can add the extra 1% to the equation - it is data supplied to the BBC by PA. Ah well, fair enough. It's a pity, because I know the cinemas want the data wherever they can! -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
On 19/1/07 12:00, Nic James Ferrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are numerous discussions about the licence fee and other issues relating the BBC's purpose, activities, and funding on the BBC Points of view message board. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574 This is a lot better. Why on earth doesn't the have your say stuff just use a view of this? Because, as I understand it, the idea is to focus on what the BBC does best, rather than trying to do everything. As has been stated, there are other places on the Net to discuss almost any topic. While a more sophisticated forum would facilitate more in-depth discussion, that's not really what the News website is for. But it is recognised that it can be very satisfying to see other people's opinions (i.e. stand-alone comments) about some stories, and that's what Have Your Say is for. Note: This is my personal opinion, not the official view of the BBC. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
Can't they just hire some GPUs from mediatemple? I don't think they have the money, and the budget will probably go down (in real terms) due to the new licence fee settlement.
[backstage] World Serivce Newsletter
In case any of those responsible are paying attention... The new version just plopped into my inbox. Nice and slick, very well done, a great improvement over the previous version. The addition of the audio previews and things like Meet The Presenter are a nice touch, bringing it above just being a detailed list of programs and subjects for the week. Incidentally, there's a bit of a problem on the four Program Listing pages. The text is running over onto the 'More programme info' image in Firefox 2 and Opera 9. IE6 is fine. Hardly a critical issue, but it seems worth pointing out. Great work, really looking forward to future issues. -- Cheers, Keith Living under the Jackboot Australia is merely an island of Antarctica, and of no further significance - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Movies Data
Maybe worth setting up an independent database then in conjunction with the cinemas? I'm willing to set this up if anyone is interested? Rob evilgreenmonkey http://www.evilgreenmonkey.com On 19/01/07, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Bowden wrote: Re the Times/Listings - I'm 99% sure that it's PA data and hence not available for redistribution, sorry - but I'll still check the contract position. I can add the extra 1% to the equation - it is data supplied to the BBC by PA. Ah well, fair enough. It's a pity, because I know the cinemas want the data wherever they can! -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You're not dragging me into that whole 606 thing :-) I was referring to threading as seen on www.slashdot.org (via slashcode), where a converation has a (seemingly) unlimited heirarchy of replies, rather than traditional messageboard threading based on user topic (as seen on 606). News' messageboards are from Jivesoft, 606 etc are done internally by DNA. Different systems. One little known requirement of the Have Your Say thing... http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4895 (arabic) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4954 (urdu) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4958 (persian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4959 (russian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4960start=0tstart= 0zh=simp (chinese simplified) etc... http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/ Thats' really cool! However, I don't see how it makes a difference to things like threads. Clearly you can't have a thread where one person is speaking in persian and another in english. So I'd expect to see whole threads in arabic, or whole threads in urdu, or whole threads in english. Anyway... it made me grumpy. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
I didn't mean to try and drag you into the car crash that was\is 6-0-6 (I already said that this was the wrong place to discuss it), I was just wondering if the messageboard software would be FLOSSed, so it's development was more like that slashcode. I'm a also regular reader of /., and they recently had a trial of the threading in discussion 2.02, indeed, it's ongoing. The firehose also looks interesting: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl Whereas the BBC has just imposed developments from on high, and us users never get to look at the beta stuff to suggest improvements and developments.Sorry to go back to 6-0-6, but I was a so called tester for the new system, I had no way to communicate with the devs of the new system, just a layer of management who mostly ignored what I said anyway. Given that a recent EU study ( http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/0113235 ) has shown the benifits of FLOSS, why can't the BBC monolith move to an open development system? Surely the BBC should lead the way in opening up it's internal proprietary junk, after all as a licence fee payer I've already paid for it, and not only am I willing to test it, I'm willing to submit bugs via an open bug tracking system a la bugzilla, and maybe even develop for it. What with the new licence fee settlement, it's a cheaper and better way to get things done. Personally the engine that's used in sports\celeb daq is something else I'd like to use. On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're not dragging me into that whole 606 thing :-) I was referring to threading as seen on www.slashdot.org (via slashcode), where a converation has a (seemingly) unlimited heirarchy of replies, rather than traditional messageboard threading based on user topic (as seen on 606). News' messageboards are from Jivesoft, 606 etc are done internally by DNA. Different systems. One little known requirement of the Have Your Say thing... http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4895 (arabic) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4954 (urdu) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4958 (persian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4959 (russian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4960start=0tstart=0zh=simp (chinese simplified) etc... http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/ J -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra *Sent:* 19 January 2007 11:48 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukhttps://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. That's not the reason at all, the BBC used to have a decent message board system (well an OK one) for it's 6-0-6 message boards, they've replaced it with a blog-like structure against the wishes of most of it's users. In his own blog, the sports editor, Chris Russell was forced to admit it was too popular and was being changed more or less to make it harder for people. A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users, this was also the first step in the destruction of the 6-0-6 message boards. The problem is one of a lack of good hardware, not a software one. Basically the BBC needs to beef up the servers that are hosting the message boards.
RE: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
Given that a recent EU study (http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/0113235 ) has shown the benifits of FLOSS, why can't the BBC monolith move to an open development system? Surely the BBC should lead the way in opening up it's internal proprietary junk, after all as a licence fee payer I've already paid for it, and not only am I willing to test it, I'm willing to submit bugs via an open bug tracking system a la bugzilla, and maybe even develop for it. What with the new licence fee settlement, it's a cheaper and better way to get things done. Personally the engine that's used in sports\celeb daq is something else I'd like to use. The BBC has made quiet steps towards open-sourcing things - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/ However one of the problems with open sourcing is that a lot of the BBC's applications are built very specifically for the architecture and infrastructure used by the BBC, which is not your average LAMP setup :) I think the problem is that getting applications into a state where they can be outsourced, is often a major task in itself - I'm sure we wouldn't get much thanks if we did release apps that were a mess and completely awful to install. Hence why what's been opensourced so far, is often the little pieces - easy to prepare. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Movies Data
I'll probably have to start off by crawling cinema websites - then start emailing them and requesting some sort of feed or data source. Would be helpful to start creating a list of cinema sites and cinema contacts. If anyone's interested in this project, please email me off-list and I'll create a discussion group for it. :o) Rob On 19/01/07, Robert Kerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe worth setting up an independent database then in conjunction with the cinemas? I'm willing to set this up if anyone is interested? Rob evilgreenmonkey http://www.evilgreenmonkey.com On 19/01/07, Kirk Northrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Bowden wrote: Re the Times/Listings - I'm 99% sure that it's PA data and hence not available for redistribution, sorry - but I'll still check the contract position. I can add the extra 1% to the equation - it is data supplied to the BBC by PA. Ah well, fair enough. It's a pity, because I know the cinemas want the data wherever they can! -- From the North, this is Kirk - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
The BBC has an opensource site at... http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/ My opinion: Thank you for calling our work junk. I'm not sure that your assumption that the lower licence fee settlement means less money for Future Media (the dept formally known as New Media) will be true, given the corporation-wide push to overhaul its web services. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 19 January 2007 13:36 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum I didn't mean to try and drag you into the car crash that was\is 6-0-6 (I already said that this was the wrong place to discuss it), I was just wondering if the messageboard software would be FLOSSed, so it's development was more like that slashcode. I'm a also regular reader of /., and they recently had a trial of the threading in discussion 2.02, indeed, it's ongoing. The firehose also looks interesting: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl Whereas the BBC has just imposed developments from on high, and us users never get to look at the beta stuff to suggest improvements and developments.Sorry to go back to 6-0-6, but I was a so called tester for the new system, I had no way to communicate with the devs of the new system, just a layer of management who mostly ignored what I said anyway. Given that a recent EU study (http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/0113235 ) has shown the benifits of FLOSS, why can't the BBC monolith move to an open development system? Surely the BBC should lead the way in opening up it's internal proprietary junk, after all as a licence fee payer I've already paid for it, and not only am I willing to test it, I'm willing to submit bugs via an open bug tracking system a la bugzilla, and maybe even develop for it. What with the new licence fee settlement, it's a cheaper and better way to get things done. Personally the engine that's used in sports\celeb daq is something else I'd like to use. On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're not dragging me into that whole 606 thing :-) I was referring to threading as seen on www.slashdot.org (via slashcode), where a converation has a (seemingly) unlimited heirarchy of replies, rather than traditional messageboard threading based on user topic (as seen on 606). News' messageboards are from Jivesoft, 606 etc are done internally by DNA. Different systems. One little known requirement of the Have Your Say thing... http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4895 (arabic) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4954 (urdu) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4958 (persian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4959 (russian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4960start=0tstart= 0zh=simp (chinese simplified) etc... http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/ J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] co.uk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] co.uk ] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 19 January 2007 11:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. That's not the reason at all, the BBC used to have a decent message board system (well an OK one) for it's 6-0-6 message boards, they've replaced it with a blog-like structure against the wishes of most of it's users. In his own blog, the sports editor, Chris Russell was forced to admit it was too popular and was being changed more or less to make it harder for people. A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users, this was also the first step in the destruction of the 6-0-6 message boards. The problem is one of a lack of good hardware, not a software one. Basically the BBC needs to beef up the servers that are hosting the message boards.
Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum
I apologise if I called your work junk, I was trying to imply that it's proprietary status was junk, not the work itself, although the issue that started this off, the forums, probably could be branded as so. 99% of the BBC's online setup is first class though especially the resources that are made available through backstage. As for the licence fee issue, your online work has already been squeezed (see previous e-mail re:606), I see no reason why it will be better funded given a lower (in real terms) budget. On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BBC has an opensource site at... http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/ My opinion: Thank you for calling our work junk. I'm not sure that your assumption that the lower licence fee settlement means less money for Future Media (the dept formally known as New Media) will be true, given the corporation-wide push to overhaul its web services. J -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra *Sent:* 19 January 2007 13:36 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum I didn't mean to try and drag you into the car crash that was\is 6-0-6 (I already said that this was the wrong place to discuss it), I was just wondering if the messageboard software would be FLOSSed, so it's development was more like that slashcode. I'm a also regular reader of /., and they recently had a trial of the threading in discussion 2.02, indeed, it's ongoing. The firehose also looks interesting: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl Whereas the BBC has just imposed developments from on high, and us users never get to look at the beta stuff to suggest improvements and developments.Sorry to go back to 6-0-6, but I was a so called tester for the new system, I had no way to communicate with the devs of the new system, just a layer of management who mostly ignored what I said anyway. Given that a recent EU study ( http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/0113235 ) has shown the benifits of FLOSS, why can't the BBC monolith move to an open development system? Surely the BBC should lead the way in opening up it's internal proprietary junk, after all as a licence fee payer I've already paid for it, and not only am I willing to test it, I'm willing to submit bugs via an open bug tracking system a la bugzilla, and maybe even develop for it. What with the new licence fee settlement, it's a cheaper and better way to get things done. Personally the engine that's used in sports\celeb daq is something else I'd like to use. On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're not dragging me into that whole 606 thing :-) I was referring to threading as seen on www.slashdot.org (via slashcode), where a converation has a (seemingly) unlimited heirarchy of replies, rather than traditional messageboard threading based on user topic (as seen on 606). News' messageboards are from Jivesoft, 606 etc are done internally by DNA. Different systems. One little known requirement of the Have Your Say thing... http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4895 (arabic) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4954 (urdu) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4958 (persian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4959 (russian) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4960start=0tstart=0zh=simp (chinese simplified) etc... http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/ J -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra *Sent:* 19 January 2007 11:48 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukhttps://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Re: [backstage] crappy have your say forum On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as technically. Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]), particularly when a big news story happens. That's not the reason at all, the BBC used to have a decent message board system (well an OK one) for it's 6-0-6 message boards, they've replaced it with a blog-like structure against the wishes of most of it's users. In his own blog, the sports editor, Chris Russell was forced to admit it was too popular and was being changed more or less to make it harder for people. A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users,
