91Èȱ¬

Isn't "1 p.m. on Monday morning" an oxymoron?

I read that as the TV Board has dropped in popularity by 18% since Nick initiated his improvements.

The 91Èȱ¬ board is now the refuge for posts that would have gone to the closed boards.. until the off topic policy is clamped down. I am sure the 91Èȱ¬ board increase traffic reflects the high number of protest posts.

Nick is being economical - selectively not showing the recent stats for posts.

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

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

Thanks for posting the figures, Nick.

Not a lot to be said about them. Those in favour of the changes and those opposed can easily explain those figures to suit their arguments.

For once Nick, i will agree with you, the ongoing debate regarding the changes is getting increasingly boring.

We are telling you that you are wrong, and you are telling us that you are right and we keep on going round in circles.

The figures as you said will be interprted differently by people depending on there agenda and you have made clear, you are not going to change your mind.

So there really is no further debate to be had.

The reason we keep argiung is because it seems our views are not being listened to. We're not trying to be difficult or obstinate, but most of us have noticed a geniune decline in our boards. We have been trying to understand why this has happened to the POV boards and not other 91Èȱ¬ boards, if it can be changed back, and why the PtBs think it was all a great idea in the first place.

But seeing as all we're getting is what the Prof said above the debate is truly over. Which is a shame, because it means the POV boards - once so vibrant, witty and fun - are now stagnant, boring and largely irrelevant.

:-(

Thanks Nick, though I'm puzzled why this will be closed Monday. Why not leave it open and state you won't be contributing to this blog after that date?

What happens if someone poses a genuine question to you between now and Monday, and you decide not to answer (which to be fair to us, is your MO from time to time).

Let people with an interest continue the debate, surely bandwidth isn't the problem. Does this demonstrate, again, that blogs are inferior to messageboards as the person who begins a thread on a messageboard can't dictate when the discussion should end? What's the reasoning for stifling debate by offering a tiny window of opportunity to contribute?

I'd also add that surely you can see that any debate about the POV boards generally stimulates more debate than other subjects on your blogs.

Am I missing the point, are blogs only meant for a dedicated few, don't you want to encourage everyone to contribute - and if so do you think the way the blogs have been managed would encourage this?

It's sad to see that the bloggers, who are keen to deride the messageboards and it's users didn't contribute to the blog "Tim Berners-Lee and the Digital Revolution". I would have though that was right up their street, in fact it's gained less response that their nit picking of our (messageboard users) contributions to the blogs.

Cricket i agree our views are not being listened to, its because Nick has got the attitude of i know best.

It is a shame because as you said the PoV boards used to be quite intresting before and they still are to a certain extent but it seems the changes were made, just for the sake of it.

If i was being rather cyncial i would suggest this project was nothing more than something for Nick to put on his C.V.

Finally Nick after all this time of debate with yourself, i dont think we have ever seen a witty,humorous side to yourself. All we have seen is someone who quite CLEARLY didnt enjoy being head of this project.

So i think it would be apt if you would sign of this project by giving us a witty comment to remember you by. (Come on Nick you can do it lol
;-)

"We're not trying to be difficult or obstinate"

Ha!

Which is a shame, because it means the POV boards - once so vibrant, witty and fun - are now stagnant, boring and largely irrelevant.

Double ha!

They were always boring and totally irrelevant. That's why they're a waste of money and should be shut down.

Phazer

The_Phazer,

There's always an argument that messageboards and blogs are boring and urrelevant - made especially by those who don't like and/or use them.

But the 91Èȱ¬ have many messageboards and blogs, and the ultimate frustration for me is why some of the most popular - POV - have been strangulated for no good reason, whilst others remain. And a lot of these others contain just random chat - which I think is fine, but why not extend that policy across ALL 91Èȱ¬ messageboards?

*Irrelevant, not urrelevant.

Could we have an edit function, please?

"And a lot of these others contain just random chat - which I think is fine, but why not extend that policy across ALL 91Èȱ¬ messageboards?"

I certainly agree it's inconsistent (though I also accept with a big organisation that's kinda inevitable) - so don't worry, I absolutely support shutting down all the 91Èȱ¬'s other forums apart from possibly technical support ones too.

I don't think the 91Èȱ¬ should host user generated content (or indeed have phone-in programmes). The whole point of the internet is that if people want to publish this stuff for all the world to see they can do it themselves. I see no good reason for why the licence fee payer should fund it in a particularily inefficient way and with all the legal risks being publisher involves.

Phazer

"The definition of an "active user" is someone who has logged into the boards and therefore is more likely to start a thread" Quoted from above.

Since most browsers will automatically log you in when returning, don't see how that is valid for specific board figures. You can be logged into another board which you are active on (or even just posted on once, like iPlayer problem boards) and it transfers across the log in, even if you only go for a look and have never posted or intend to post.

I would say that many of the old ex posters will also have popped in for a look to see how things are since the changes and you will have logged them as active, when clearly they are not.

A more simple indicator to me is the front page of listed thread topics, where now you see many threads that have not been posted on for over an hour, in the past you were lucky to see anything without comment for 15 to 20 minutes.

Are the POV boards better? For you who run them maybe, easier to manage perhaps.
From the point of view of this user who wants a dynamic discussion platform about the 91Èȱ¬ and British broadcasting (which is most definitely relevant), including all programmes available in the UK, it now is a failure.
The POV board goalposts have been moved, it no longer serves my needs the same way, I also refuse to go to external sites advocated by the 91Èȱ¬, as a replacement, full of swearing and name calling.

The reason I am setting a time limit and then closing the post is that the discussion is starting to disrupt both this blog and the boards themselves.

It's only disrupting the blogs because you, Nick closed the POV blog and we did not know how else to contact you other than go ti=o blogs where we knew you'd be!

And I would hardly call three threads disrupting the POV boards.

Phazer, we obviously completely disagree on messageboards! :-D

Spot on Cricket ! Nick's closing the blog on Monday, Sarah's closed the thread, they're just not interested !

"I've explained before that I don't think it's the 91Èȱ¬'s job to provide a general discussion board about all UK television. Even if it were it should not be called Points of View."

On the messageboards I actually agreed that the new POV boards were not suitable for what I want anymore, which is more in line with the old style POV, so rolling back the changes did not seem right.

However with the title British Broadcasting Corporation, how can you say that there should be no board to discuss exactly that, British Broadcasting. It is the business the corporation is part of. Why shouldn't we the sponsors have a place to discuss that business and all it involves which has to include the competition, in all its aspects too.

I think the remarks about meta-discussion on message boards by Jeff Attwood at is very relevant here.

I've explained before that I don't think it's the 91Èȱ¬'s job to provide a general discussion board about all UK television. Even if it were it should not be called Points of View.

I do think the 91Èȱ¬ is obliged to provide a forum to discuss all UK TV because the compulsory licence fee to watch any television goes to the 91Èȱ¬.

But even leaving that aside, there are plenty of messageboards provided by the 91Èȱ¬ where we can discuss all UK television. Why is POV exempt from this?

Most POVers have questioned the notion that the messageboards be aligned to the seasonal frivolous programme of the same name.

"Just because the 91Èȱ¬ is the British Broadcasting Corporation doesn't mean it does all British broadcasting or is responsible for all of it."

But it is the business it is in. 91Èȱ¬ worldwide has a, or is, the commercial arm in that business. The 91Èȱ¬ also has some stake in digital channels too. There's 91Èȱ¬ America. There's radio, that goes worldwide. The 91Èȱ¬ broadcasts terrestrially, by satellite and on the internet. It is market leading in some areas too, e.g.iPlayer

I cannot see why we should not have a discussion board about the business the 91Èȱ¬ is fundamentally a part of and has a massive influence over, especially in this country. It should be broad enough to allow comparisons and cover it's output.

The POV boards we agree are not the right place anymore, they have now been designated for use by a single part time TV programme.

So where is? Blogs are not cutting it, but then their function is to be an announcement and response site. Twitter is a phone toy.

The format of the current boards is like a legacy of the past, no real update for ages except the axe. The 91Èȱ¬ boards as they stand would need an overhaul. Perhaps that is where you should be looking, a roots upwards revamp, restructuring them to suit what you actually do and covering the industry you are a part of. Hosted, as you do very well, without swearing and the other nasties we see on external sites.

Nick said:
"The reason I am setting a time limit and then closing the post is that the discussion is starting to disrupt both this blog and the boards themselves. "

Nick, do you know how silly your statement sounds? The people who care most about the message boards are to have the their most popular topic of discussion closed because it might disrupt the minor topics... even though this blog is effectively invisible to other users, and unsearchable. So now you don't want the users setting the agenda.... "we want to hear your Points of View... but not if it is counter to the 91Èȱ¬'s Point of View".

If we discount our contributions, your blogs are effectively empty. Just why are you blogging Nick?

"I've explained before that I don't think it's the 91Èȱ¬'s job to provide a general discussion board about all UK television. Even if it were it should not be called Points of View"

Nick but that isnt the 91Èȱ¬'s official postion is it?

The 91Èȱ¬ provide a general discussion board about all UK television which is called The Bull over on The Archers board,why is this allowed if your opinion above holds any weight?

Its hypocritical and double standards on the 91Èȱ¬'s part

"They were always boring and totally irrelevant. That's why they're a waste of money and should be shut down"

Phazer if that is the case why do you regulary post on the PoV board?

Nick, when it comes to "page impressions" you give the figures up to May '09, when it comes to "Active users" you go as far as June this year. However, when it concerns "posts" you only go as far as April. Any reason for this?

The radio, digital and online boards were closed on April 3rd, but that is not the end of the changes. In some cases the ability to debate non 91Èȱ¬ television programmes ended May 11th, long running non 91Èȱ¬ threads were meant to have been closed on June 8th, infact it took a few more days.

/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6534739&skip=1020&show=20#p79711142

So to get a true overall picture of the effect of the changes, and considering the request for figures was for the figures 'since the changes', can we have the figures for post numbers for May and June and if possible July too.

Nick Reynolds wrote:
I'll see if we have time to dig out post numbers for May and June. But even if there is a fall in them that won't necessarily prove anything.

That's an interesting perspective on statistics, makes you wonder why the 91Èȱ¬ is therefore bothered by ratings and also why it has taken an age (and repeated requests) to release the figures and your reluctance to do so.

You can be certain of one thing, I'm sure it would prove something if May and June's figures went up.

Sarah says (while closing the thread linking POV users to this blog) you will read through the questions over the weekend, I assume we will get a reply Monday morning, leaving a scant few hours up to 1pm to respond. Can you see how ridiculous this is?

Said that I wouldn't post over here, but Sarah is closing threads on OUR messageboards over there, so I have posted a new discussion on 91Èȱ¬'s treatment of it's messageboarders which I expect will also be closed. I decided to post THE FOLLOWING part of one of my postings here, as no doubt Sarah will continue with the scourge of the messageboards.
"For the record, having read his figures, something which is not being addressed is the quick-fire commenting on the Green Room Thread, which by itself, must be contributing quite a lot to Nick's Board "hits". Any "chat" thread will always produce lots of activity, and the Green Room is no exception. By my recollection, there was no Green Room thread, (or anything similar last April!!!!!)
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

I can't find the link to Rowan's previous Green Room thread, but, it was started after November I think, and it too had thousands of hits.
SO, if Nick is choosing to present figures on the basis of April 08 and April 09 (a bit cheeky that), then the two Green Room threads are contributing quite a lot to the ethos of quick-fire (and often) posting which we see (but only really on those sort of threads). Posters can see for themselves that the number of posters/quality of postings/diversity of postings have DECREASED, SINCE NICK'S IMPROVEMENTS.
Also, as a result of Nick's consultation with us, we have been banging in loads of comments (clever that, to use OUR own arguments AGAINST his "improvements" to count in his argument that the PIs have hardly dropped. For the record, Nick, I don't know about the others, but I have never posted as much as I was during your "open dialogue". So, if you level the playing ground, by acknowledging that the 91Èȱ¬ board has been receiving a lot more hits than it usually got, partly due to the volume of comments AGAINST the "improvements", and also, acknowledge that the Green Room Chat threads are receiving well-above normal commenting (due to the chatting aspect and the quick-fire chatty commenting), then Nick's "hits" would not be anything like as acceptable. Funny that we kept being told that we are not a CHAT forum , BUT I bet Nick is VERY thankful for the Green Room.
As I say, cheeky way to present figures (so that you can give the best picture possible of the "improvements")
Suppose I WILL HAVE to copy this comment over to his blog, so that it is kept somewhere as Sarah will no doubt continue with the scourge of Messageboards by CLOSING this thread on 91Èȱ¬'S TREATMENT OF MESSAGEBOARDERS"

And, I have to say, Nick DIDN'T close THIS blog for posting IMMEDIATELY (as I said he would). NO, we have until Monday. Whoopdedooooo So full discussion of the statistics. (doh smiley) Or, just what we have become accustomed to.

I'm not entering into THIS discussion with Nick HERE. I am over on the Messageboards where Messageboarders should be allowed to discuss their boards. I am only copying posts on THIS topic from the board over to here, without even bothering to read the comments on THIS blog.
"With regard to this new attitude Nick (and Rowan and Sarah) have developed towards quality and acceptable style of comments, I have been wondering for a wee while WHY they introduced the Green Room, when we have been told consistently SINCE Points Askew closed that there were lots of CHAT forums elsewhere and that 91Èȱ¬ were not going to provide THAT aspect of messageboarding. They used the argument that the Graf Report encouraged them to only do things which could not be found elsewhere on the worldwide web. They wanted us to focus on COMMENTING and not CHATTING. And, then, along comes Nick and Rowan and Sarah, and lo and behold we ARE allowed to chat.
BUT, having seen Nick's skills in fudging the statistics, it now becomes obvious WHY we ARE being allowed a CHAT forum within 91Èȱ¬ POV Messageboards. They keep the PIs up....... for now.
Now, what's the betting that in six months from now, when Nick has distanced himself TOTALLY from the "improvements" debacle, that a directive comes out that we MAY NOT CHAT, and that the Green Room will be closed. "

Are you seriously asking why Nick or just taking the P?

Nick, I sympathise with niclaramartin's point of view.

Surely the place to discuss POV messageboards is on the POV messageboards with POV messageboarders?

I think niclara wanted you to read her posts. And seeing as you nolonger frequent the messageboards of which you speak she had to duplicate them here.

Maybe you would like to respond on the messageboards?

In niclara's defence, I think if the Green Room was removed you would notice a difference in numbers. It is the fastest moving thread on the POV boards.

Also, you started the discussion on "the changes" on the Online Board, and a small percentage of POV posters were in dialogue with you. When Sarah posted the actual changes on the Television Board a lot of posters became aware of the "discussion" for the first time and started to regular contribute to threads about "the changes".

I'm going to post your reply to niclara on the messageboard, Nick, so non-bloggers get both sides of the argument.

Thank you cricket... Just copying my response, from the messageboard thread, here in case Sarah closes the thread over on the messageboard, so that you can still discuss MY thoughts.


"Thanks for posting THAT wee nugget from Nick. I definitely find "interacting" with Nick by NOT speaking to him, much better than actually trying to discuss ANYTHING with him directly on his blogs"
"Coming back to Nick's comment about the flaw in my argument regarding The Green Room and OUR posting hits being higher during the "improvement" discussions, thereby forcing the PIs UP, I disagree with his answer.
He says that he doesn't think that the Green Room has affected the number of hits, but we know that to be untrue. If you give people a thread such as this, where we write quite long and (hopefully) well-thought out postings, you will get FAR fewer postings, than you would if you allow people a CHAT thread. You simply have to look at the speed with which the "regulars" respond to each other, on the Green Room to see the hit rate. A quick "How is the weather near you" is going to be quicker to compose and post than the ones we are writing, (especially if we are looking for links etc to support our arguments). So, NO, Nick I do not support your argument that the Green Room will not have affected the PIs.
I'll discuss the second part in my next posting (so as not to have too long a response)"

Coming to his second argument, regarding the fact that WE were discussing the changes PRIOR to the changes and that THOSE postings would have pushed the hits up BEFORE his changes (and the figures he published), I think he forgets that there were probably only about a dozen of us, really "discussing" HIS "improvements" with him, (and that quite a lot of THAT discussion took place on his 6 or 7 Blogs - at HIS insistence). So, although it looked as if we were swamping the boards to discuss the changes (thereby giving a high PI), THAT was NOT the case. The discussion was SPLIT between the two places (messageboards AND blogs), and so, yes, I was typing a LOT of comments, but, by no stretch of the imagination were they confined to the message boards. WE discussed the "improvements" with Nick in both spheres (messageboards AND blogs).
However, once the facts were disclosed on the POV Television Board, THOSE posters (and there were a lot - some of whom have now left), did not go onto Nick's blog. THEY complained ON the Television threads regarding the "improvements".
SO, the situation is that Nick says OUR discussions forced the PI numbers UP prior to the changes, when in fact WE split our discussion (and PIs BETWEEN the message boards AND the blogs). BUT, AFTER the changes, the huge bulk of Posters to the Television board, ONLY posted on the messageboards (most saying that they didn't even know that there HAD BEEN a "discussion" PRIOR to the changes). THEIR comments would affect the PIs AFTER the changes, and were not split between the messageboards AND the blogs.

Forgot to put the quotation marks around my second comment above, to indicate that I COPIED it from the message board.

In just over 24 hours this blog will be closed, so get in your questions while you can as we can't guarantee that any threads on the POV boards won't be closed too, in effect shutting down all debate on the subject.

Look forward to the answers to questions to and hope they don't arrive 5 minutes before the blog is closed, so interested parties are able to respond.

Copied from the messageboard.....
"An example of the hit rate of the Green Room.
At this time (Sunday lunchtime) the posting rate on the LAST page of The Green Room thread is..
31 minutes ago
27 minutes ago
27 minutes ago
26 minutes ago
23 minutes ago
19 minutes ago
18 minutes ago
11 minutes ago
7 minutes ago
4 minutes ago
Just now
Just now

Now, let's look at the hit rate of another thread on Television Board...
Have picked the Dimbleby Thread as it has quite a few hits (others above it had NIL or very few postings, so I am trying to be fair here)
Last page of THAT thread, for IT'S hit rate...
Yesterday
Yesterday
Yesterday
Yesterday
23 Hours ago
23 hours ago
22 hours ago
21 hours ago
20 hours ago
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
11 minutes ago
2 minutes ago
So, I think that shows conclusively that a CHAT thread such as the Green Room (even on a Sunday at lunchtime) is getting far quicker hits than a thread which is receiving quite a good hit rate. (On the front page the Dimbleby thread was receiving the fifth highest number of comments, so WELL above average post rate)
I discounted the thread complaining about the state of the messageboards, (which *surprisingly* has received quite a lot of hits, but is not about TELEVISION), and chose the third highest thread relating to television, which I felt was being fair to the argument - by choosing a thread WELL ABOVE the average hit rate. EVEN choosing the Dimbleby thread you can see the complete difference in posting style/rate of a "normal" POV Television thread, and a CHAT thread."

No comment to make ON THIS blog.

So losing nearly a third of posters isn't destroying it.

And you're happy with that?
Unbelievable arrogance.

Problem is Nick, you've gone on about not being the place to discuss ALL British Television, but you HAVE removed the only place to discuss changes at 91Èȱ¬ Radio.

Where can I discuss the changes to the Radio 1 DJ line up, as if you read the house rules there, its for discussion about the music and not the DJ's.

If you can point me in the right direction to discuss the ludicrous decision to remove a DJ that knows music, I'd be much obliged.

Nick Reynolds wrote:

"I'll see if we have time to dig out post numbers for May and June. But even if there is a fall in them that won't necessarily prove anything."

I look forward to the figures for May and June in terms of post numbers (as well as answers to everyone's questions and my message 28), but seeing as this blog will be unnecessarily closed at 1pm tomorrow I do hope you can make the time - or if not don't impose a artificial timeframe on this blog.

This pointless attempt at manipulation just gives those of a cynical persuasion the impression that this is an attempt for closure while avoiding the issue having lost the debate (such as debate can be held on 91Èȱ¬ blogs).

"Have the boards been "destroyed"? No. Two boards are still open and they're are getting healthy traffic."

Perhaps you mean 'Have ALL the boards been "destroyed"?' Clearly some of the boards have been.

Perhaps we should say that the three boards were 'improved out of existence', rather than 'destroyed'?

Since I only speak English, I've no clue what the term 'Page Impressions' actually means - is it a new way of saying 'hits', or something else entirely?

"You can see that these figures for active users have stayed at roughly the same level since the start of the year."

Actually, on those numbers, from a start of 900 it rockets up by over 50% to 1400, then drops by about 30% to 1000. That's in no way 'staying at roughly the same level', unless you consider that given the time before you are born and the time after you are dead means roughly, on average, you don't exist....

I don't see post after post of users saying how much they appreciate any of the changes Nick has initiated.

I do see thread after thread of disgruntled users trying to push a rock up a hill and getting nowhere with intransigence from Nick.

I also see loads of former users migrating away.

I see traffic down 18%.

I see a part time host having less impact than previous hosts.

By any terms that is an unsuccessful improvement.

The Bill Dibble makes some very good points!

Have they been "improved"? In my opinion, yes. There's less off topic material and the boards are much closer to the POV programme - and they are after all, called "Points of View".

There is not less off topic material. Thus is simply untrue. Threads wander into slanging matches that have nothing to do with television, let alone the 91Èȱ¬, on a regular basis. Maybe if the boards had a full-time Host this could be sorted.

How is being "much closer" to the POV programme an improvement?

Nick Reynolds wrote:
I don't know if I'll be able to get hold of numbers about posts.

Well I hope you can get the numbers for May and June, if you are going to close discussions at 1pm today.

From your own blog "Points of View Message Board 2: Off Topic and Off Site":

/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/points_of_view_message_board_2.html

You said:
The Internet blog was precisely set up to talk about what the 91Èȱ¬ does online.

Comment and I will engage.

If you still believe that, we should be able to debate this properly here, to describe discussion as 'disruptive' is insulting.

Nick Reynolds wrote:
But as for "losing the debate", that depends on what you think the debate is.

What debate do you think you've lost then Nick and what ones do you think you have won?

Nick Reynolds wrote:

Have they been "improved"? In my opinion, yes. There's less off topic material and the boards are much closer to the POV programme - and they are after all, called "Points of View".

What's the point of being aligned to a seasonal entertainment show, where during transmission the producers barely engage with it's own messageboard's users?

Better Hosting? Exactly what was wrong with the Hosting before the alignment? And how does having a part-time Host improve Hosting?

Why is difficult to justify a Television Board, from which numerous programmes could utilise viewers' opinions, when there are numerous 91Èȱ¬ messageboards that cover topics completely unconnected to anything to do with the 91Èȱ¬ - Food, a couple of the Archers ones, the Music boards etc?

Exactly Cricket. A great deal has been sacrificed in the name of 'better hosting', when the hosting was fine (moderation is and was an issue, but it is a seperate issue) in the first place.

Nick.

Your figures.
From a peak of 1400 (rounded up) to 1000 (rounded up).
That's nearly a third in my book.

As for radio, why shut something when there's nothing to replace it.

Bring it back until your other arrangements are in place.

Come on Nick,admit it hosting has NOT IMPROVED since the changes were implemented.

Indeed having a part time host,has added nothing to the boards at all.I dont mean to be rude to Sarah, she is a fine host when she is hosting but having a part time host is not good enough especially because of the fact that BEFORE the changes the previous hosts were alot more active.

As for you saying "There's less off topic material and the boards are much closer to the POV programme" well that blatantly is not the case,there are MANY of topic threads especially at the weekends. We also have quite a few radio threads ( i thought they were of topic?)

Ah, that is as close to an honest reply as I think we have had.

Due to internal staffing issues the boards had to be downgraded. Disappointing, but understandable, and justifiable. A much more convincing case than banging on about how you are 'improving' things, in the face of the evidence.

It seems to me you came at this back to front. Rather than look at the content of the boards, how they were being used, how they were useful to both posters and the 91Èȱ¬, you just looked at the name and altered the boards to fit in with what they were called rather than what they actually are.

We now have the ludicrous situation of threads about television being closed on the Television Board and posters being directed to The Bull to discuss said programmes! The Bull, by the way, being an Archers messageboard - which is a radio programme .

I really and truly do not understand why the POV boards have been so drastically restricted when other 91Èȱ¬ boards are much more free-ranging. Yes, I know, you have no say in how other boards are run. But did you not look at other 91Èȱ¬ messageboards to get an idea of how to run a happy, healthy messageboard? None of the more liberal boards have imploded because they have freer speech.

And it's not even like we're asking to talk about absolutely anything on POV - just what we had before: Television, Radio, technical/admin issues (the Online board), and Digital.

An hour and a quarter to go before the artificial closure of this blog, read through the questions and statements and read the responses.

This is an interesting statement from a member of the blogging community:

So to be more open, you need the diplomatic skills of a civil servant, the killer instinct of a spin doctor, the editorial integrity of a crusading journalist, the honesty of a priest and the commitment to openness of well... a blogger.

Because bloggers know that if you don't ask questions and you don't talk you don't get traffic. Once you start blogging you have to be open to be successful.



"the killer instinct of a spin doctor' implies however that the person tries to 'news manage' information that is favourable to the organisation they are representing, while avoiding points made against said organisation.

"Once you start blogging you have to be open to be successful." - I agree and a blogger who avoids answers, moderates (hides) replies, dictates a small window of opportunity to reply clearly can't claim to be 'open'.

Seeing as this will be my last post on this topic, i would like to sum up:

-This project led by Nick Reynolds has beena complete and utter failure
-The PoV boards are in a worse state than before
-The quality of postings have gone down imo, there is more tension bewteen the 91Èȱ¬(Sarah) and the PoV community, which is down to Nick Reynolds

It was intresting shall we say debating with you Nick, lets hope you have learnt a few valuable lessons when communicating with Messageboard folk, and if you are head of a similar project again, you do not make the same glaring mistakes as you have done-which has lead to this mess.

Regards
Techno

Nick stated: "Hosting was an issue. Before Rowan stepped in temporarily at one point the boards had no host at all. I had to find a host."


Hosting was not an issue. You are mistaken. Does it look like everyone is eternally grateful for you finding a host for us? We have less hosting presence now than we have ever had.... and that loss makes no difference anyway.

It is unfortunate if some posters have overstepped the mark, but many aren't and have merely consistently pointed out the problems in your arguments (and occasionally the problems with your behaviour) in a civil manner.

You should not use the poor behaviour of the few as an excuse to avoid dealing with the rest.

#61: "As for radio, why shut something when there's nothing to replace it."
...I think Nick answered this in his previous post...
#59: "If someone closer to the programme hosts the board then it's not a good use of their time to host boards on radio, online and digital and it doesn't fit with what the programme does. So the consequences of finding a host were the closure of three boards."

Personally I think it may help if they PoV boards were converted to use the new message board system/layout featured, as since the forum closures the main page looks a bit of a mess.

Well, let's see. I have written 8 blog posts, a similar number of threads on the POV boards, given you some data, added hundreds of comments on both, and tried to answer your questions as best I can.

And even after 8 blog posts, you still can't see that the customer is not happy, and you having adopted a I'm right, and you're all wrong attitude throughout, it gets peoples backs up.

And we thought that Blogging made you happy.

Nick Reynolds wrote:

Well, let's see. I have written 8 blog posts, a similar number of threads on the POV boards, given you some data, added hundreds of comments on both, and tried to answer your questions as best I can.

The reason there is a small window of opportunity is that some commenters who disagree with the decisions taken are now abusing both myself and Sarah and disrupting both this blog and the board. For the same reason some comments have been removed - because they break the House Rules.

That's a weak answer. If people were genuinely disrupting the blogs they would be on pre-mod or worse and as is said above that is no reason to punish other interested parties.

Doesn't matter how many blogs you start, if the users come away feeling their questions remain unanswered or that the questions were avoided by spin they will return to nail down an answer, in effect you've been your own worst enemy in this regard.

Well put, Faye.

We're not out to get you, Nick (honest!), but some of us do feel that our questions have not been answered satisfactorily.