Open Post, Tuesday 18 May 2010
Post categories: open post
| 10:52 UK time, Tuesday, 18 May 2010
I'd like to invite your comments and questions on the work of the Internet blog and the topics and areas that we cover. We've run Open Posts before and they've always been interesting. They're an opportunity for you to help steer the direction of the blog with your suggestions and ideas.
Nick's answered the question "What is an Open Post?" in a previous post and this is what he said:
This post is for comments and questions about anything to do with 91Èȱ¬ Online, 91Èȱ¬ iPlayer, 91Èȱ¬ HD, and the 91Èȱ¬'s digital and mobile services. But as it's an open post you can leave a comment about whatever you like.I can't guarantee that every single comment or question will get a response. But I'll try.
Paul Murphy is the Editor of the Internet blog.
Comment number 1.
At 18th May 2010, Codingmonkey wrote:Are there any plans to relax the mobile phone restrictions and allow any Windows Mobile 6.5 phone to access the iPlayer on a try it and see basis?
This is as opposed to the current policy of having a blessed set of rather old and out of date phones meaning that newer more capable phones are banned for accessing the iPlayer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 18th May 2010, ae5657 wrote:There are several problems watching iPlayer on Flash, especially on non-Windows machines. This drives people towards bypassing the Flash player, and all the extra hassle that involves.
I realise there are content copyright issues, but I'd still like to hear what your plans are for moving beyond the Flash implementation and allowing easy open access on all platforms.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 18th May 2010, Darren wrote:Can you remove the recently introduced timer on the PS3 iPlayer? its very distracting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th May 2010, Alex wrote:Are there plans to use the new 91Èȱ¬ iD system on all parts of the site, e.g. saving homepage customisations to the user's account, rather than just the computer?
Any news on the 91Èȱ¬ News and Sport Mobile apps, the first of which was due in April, I believe?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 18th May 2010, peter wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 18th May 2010, dukeofearl wrote:Agree with 1. - We shouldn't have to fiddle with settings to get iPlayer working on modern WinMo phones e.g. HTC HD2.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 18th May 2010, Uri B wrote:Could you update readers on the following?
1. Any timing of an iPlayer for android?
2. When will 91Èȱ¬ archive materials become more available, ideally through iPlayer?
3. Downloading radio on the iPlayer into portables?
many thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 18th May 2010, MyVoiceinYrHead wrote:ooo my open comments / questions below:
1. Open posts with 100+ comments are too long to read through to see if your question has already been asked. Why not try user generated, but very moderated forums?
2) When will there be iPlayer for IPad? The iPhone version checks for device compatibility and fails, reverting to the Flash site :(
3) Stephanomics is the best blog on the 91Èȱ¬.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 18th May 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Funny how all but 1 of the comments so far are a consequence of the 91Èȱ¬s' decision to make ..
And note that not 1 of those commentators is from the free software community (though, at least some of the devices mentioned are built on free software).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18th May 2010, Moof wrote:Are there any plans yet to open access to iPlayer to British Citizens living abroad, even if it involves having to pay extra to do so?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 19th May 2010, Mark Sheppard wrote:An issue with watching TV or listening to the Radio that some people find is how to know when a new series of a show is starting. For instance, I enjoy comedy radio shows but don't normally listen to 91Èȱ¬ Radio 4 or 7 so do not hear any adverts for new series.
However, with the 91Èȱ¬'s new standardised programmes sites, surely a simple solution to this problem is to create an RSS feed for each show, similar to that which is currently available for programme catergories on the iPlayer, so people can follow the programmes that they are interested in and find out instantly if they are being shown.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 19th May 2010, Keith wrote:I see that no sooner has the new header across most of the website a newer version appearing to resemble the GVL version has appeared on the Nature UK site /nature/uk/. Whilst as a developer it's nice to see the new header/design in progress I suspect many visitors would prefer to have continuity.
Also is there any news yet with regards to the review of H2G2?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 19th May 2010, Hymagumba wrote:Oh darn you Keith, I was planning to ask about that. I take it that the chunkier version of the new menu bar is sort of the equivalent of the cludge version of the bar seen on old sites such as /cult with new sites moving to the smaller version in time.
On a related note, you recently had a page at /sportsummit/ saying that the page had been removed and to check web.archive.org, however its now changed to a 404. I thought you were mothballing old sites? Deleting them outright, especially given your apparently megadeletion plan coming soon seems rather poor as many sites have lots of great informations on them. Any explanation on the reasoning behind this?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 19th May 2010, Hymagumba wrote:Oh dear, that first bit reads even worse than I thought.
What I meant was, the menu seen on www.bbc.co.uk/nature/uk is much smaller and more like the new style. Therefore is the chunky new menu seen around the site in the last week to start the new links appearing but in the old templates.
In that sense, is it a placeholder for consistency like the black bar seen on Barley pages?
Does that make more sense? I hope so.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 19th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:What's the point of these open posts when the 91Èȱ¬ have proved that they just don't bother listening to what their users (and often, paymasters) are telling them.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 19th May 2010, Paul Murphy wrote:Thank you for all your comments and questions so far. I've sent them to the various people that will be providing answers. I'm away Thursday and Friday but should be able to report back on Monday.
Cheers
Paul
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 19th May 2010, Simon Cross wrote:#4 @Alex
Yeah, we plan to roll out 91Èȱ¬ iD across the whole 91Èȱ¬ site over the course of this year. Its actually site-wide now, but not all products use it - only those parts of the site which do use iD currently display the sign in and register links at the top of the page.
The 91Èȱ¬page is a great example of a part of 91Èȱ¬ Online that would really benefit from 91Èȱ¬ iD - but they've been busy porting it to a new platform, and just haven't had the time to integrate 91Èȱ¬ iD. They should be working on this in future releases.
S
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 19th May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Keith - comment 12 - for more news on h2g2 take a look at this announcement from the h2g2 editors. And this one too.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 19th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Re the roll-out of 91Èȱ¬ iD, is someone from the 91Èȱ¬ going to reply to the comments/concerns expressed here or are we just going to be left fobbed off and hanging for a second time (as happened the previous time 91Èȱ¬ iD and C91Èȱ¬ was blogged about).
When is the 91Èȱ¬ going to give their users the tools to combat multiple spam (and other abuse) abuse from single accounts, such as this account, rather than expecting us to waste time filling out multiple complaint forms.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 19th May 2010, lucas42 wrote:#11 @Mark
There are RSS feeds for iplayer programmes by category at /iplayer/feeds/
I haven't come across any at /programmes, but apparently there is a plan to do that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 19th May 2010, Keith wrote:@18: Ah must have missed the topic, still glad to see it's being kept.
On a different subject, regarding the topic tracker on the home page is there any news as to when it will be possible to access all blogs via the tracker. For example at present it's not possible to track the 91Èȱ¬ Internet or The Editors blogs. This has been raised by a number of users in the blog entry regarding the new home page, however there has been no feedback regarding this.
Incidentally I notice since my last post the Nature UK header has reverted from the GVL version to the 'new' header.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 20th May 2010, PRBUK wrote:Please can we have an official iPlayer app for Windows Media Centre?
I asked the question in a previous Internet Blog comment ( /blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/where_next_for_the_bbc_iplayer.html ), but I understand that this request falls between two different departments - hence no response as yet. Hopefully this will find its way to someone who can give us an answer and share the thinking around how such decisions are made?
Thank You!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 20th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Further to comment #19, you can add this new account, to the numerus accounts that are being used abusively, causing the build up of spam that isn't being removed because of the "Aunty knows best" attitude in not allowing users to report at the account level.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 20th May 2010, Christopher James Heyworth wrote:With the planned 91Èȱ¬ move to Salford (Salford, not Manchester) will The Culture Show become less London-centric and less hooked on big international names?
Much Art nowadays is IT-related.
So it seems much more appropriate to pose this question here rather than on a Readers' Letters-type programme, and no links seem to be provided so that I can contact the show and its editor or presenters or producer(s) directly.
We are invited to watch tons of interesting archive stuff, but for God's sake don't think for a moment that we professionals will even notice what you plebs on that side of the screen think.
The regeneration of great swathes of our industrial heritage in The North is taking place daily often linked to all sorts of artistic input, but this transformation of the Britain I grew up in is being hardly noticed, let alone mentioned by high-brow outlets such as The Culture Show.
I think I'll emigrate to another country for ten years or so, then return as a foreigner. Then my new culture might be of interest to 91Èȱ¬ bigwigs.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 20th May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Boilerplated - we are aware of the situation and are taking steps to deal with it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 20th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#25. At 6:34pm on 20 May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:
"Boilerplated - we are aware of the situation and are taking steps to deal with it."
Looks like it, just how long does it take to nuke spammers accounts, considering that nothing more problematic than a slightly off topic comment that criticises certain people within the 91Èȱ¬ can be nuked within the quarter of an hour of appearance on these blogs.
I'm off to watch some paint dry...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 20th May 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:I have an interest in iPlayer coming to the next generation of mobile phones like the HTC touchphones. Particularly on winmobile which seems to be lagging behind in iPlayer's attention.
These are mini computers rather than just phones and surely should be able to handle things like the iPlayer sideloads not just a few selected mobile company streams. (Yes I know they can use wifi if you tweak the browser) Why should I have to do that?
Why are the phone lists so out of date and why are the new phones that have similar formats not tested?
The excuse of not being given one free by the manufacturer to test does not exactly wash.
iPlayer is a brilliant service, don't think I'm being negative about it, I just would like to see even more access to a very popular and useful way of utilising it :)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 21st May 2010, Faye Tsar wrote:I'm so disappointed there is no quote from The Phazer (an independent voice about the 91Èȱ¬) this time, is he on holiday?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 24th May 2010, hd2010 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 24th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Will there be any further follow-up comments, sometime this week?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 24th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Re comments about spam at #19 and #23
When someone from the 91Èȱ¬ Internet Blog department gets around to dealing with the spam build up rather than just make excuses here is yet another account that is being used to post nothing but spam...
Five days and no action, despite being "aware of the situation", how long does it take to nuke spammers accounts, considering that criticism against people who we pay for out of our TVL fee's can be removed within the hour! Somewhere, either the 91Èȱ¬ Internet blogs or the 91Èȱ¬'s IT services, something or someone is not fit for purpose.
It would also be nice, whilst talking about moderation issues, for users who have had comments removed due to falling foul of moderation to be able to edit the comment in question rather than having to submit a reworked new comment further down the discussion - assuming that the blog hasn't been closed for new comments, further it would be nice if on referral (except for spamming perhaps...) the user is emailed was with the reason why the comment has been referred so that they are not left speculating as to what the problem is and might also stop them repeating the problem. This would go somewhere to negate the issues that arise when, for example, an off topic referral is made and the moderation process could be waiting on a reply from elsewhere within the 91Èȱ¬.
/thoughts
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 24th May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Boilerplated - we have taken action. We have changed the moderation model on this blog to post mod as a temporary move to combat spammers.
In previous posts we've explained why allowing commenters to reedit their comments once published would lead us into a world of pain. The preview button on blog comments was introduced (can't remember exactly when off the top of my head) to help people check their comments before publication.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 24th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#32. At 6:59pm on 24 May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:
"Boilerplated - we have taken action. We have changed the moderation model on this blog to post mod as a temporary move to combat spammers."
That's OK then, and the existing spam can remain! I bet if some user kept using four letter words not only would their account be closed pretty dammed quick but their comments removed too, so why can't that happen when people are (in effect) advertising via the 91Èȱ¬, in a clear breach of the 91Èȱ¬ Charter...
As an aside, any account that is posting to multiple blogs within 90 seconds (on average) between comments, as is happening in these mass spam attacks, should be automatically suspended, and flagged up with all comments referred for moderation by the server, no human could post at such a rate.
"In previous posts we've explained why allowing commenters to reedit their comments once published would lead us into a world of pain. The preview button on blog comments was introduced (can't remember exactly when off the top of my head) to help people check their comments before publication.
But that is not what I was suggesting, I was talking about were a comment has been removed due to moderation, what would be the difference between someone resubmitting their comment in a new post and editing their previous comment, I was not suggesting that all comments should be editable, in fact if I remember correctly I supported the rational against such a general privilege when someone else suggested it in the past.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 26th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Gone very quite in here again...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 26th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Seven days on and the spam, as pointed out above, is still present, not a lot of point in securing the stable door after the horse has bolted unless someone bothers to catches the horse and put it back in the stable...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 27th May 2010, Keith wrote:Any news yet? I notice since this open post entry was made there has been a spate of blog entries, which has now resulted in this entry disappearing from the main page.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 27th May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Keith - as you've noticed there's a lot going on at the moment. But I know that Paul is trying to get some answers.
Boilerplated - I have been removing spam as I come across it. And as I've said before we have put the blog in post moderation to try and catch it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 27th May 2010, Paul Murphy wrote:#12 Keith wrote:
I see that no sooner has the new header across most of the website a newer version appearing to resemble the GVL version has appeared on the Nature UK site /nature/uk/. Whilst as a developer it's nice to see the new header/design in progress I suspect many visitors would prefer to have continuity.
Hi Keith
I spoke to Bronwyn who wrote the original GVL3 post and she said:
"They’re the same nav bar, just one has a black background which pokes out above and makes it look deeper."
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 27th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#37. At 4:38pm on 27 May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:
"Boilerplated - I have been removing spam as I come across it. "
As you come across it?! I gave you three URL's to the user pages, there is shed loads, no need to 'come across it'...
Also, are we really to believe that the head of 91Èȱ¬ Internet blogs can't fire off an email to your opposite number at (if I remember correctly) "CCT" with the relevant account details and ask them to delete, on-block, the accounts and messages in question, words such a mind and boggle come to mind!
As I said, if someone had repeatedly posted profound language or a deformation, someone somehow within the 91Èȱ¬ would have moved a mountain PDQ to take the offending content down so why can't the 91Èȱ¬ do it when someone is obviously attempting to use the 91Èȱ¬ blogs as a links-farm?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 27th May 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Bolierplated - I have already done all the things you have mentioned in your second paragraph. When spammers constantly create new accounts it can be difficult to keep spam under control. Still at the moment the things we have done seem to have worked.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 27th May 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:As I said, if someone had repeatedly posted profound language or a deformation I doubt the offending content would have survived the day never mind a week or more...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 28th May 2010, OfficerDibble wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 28th May 2010, OfficerDibble wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 28th May 2010, lucas42 wrote:It would be great if there was some way of keeping track of any replies to comments I make on the blogs. I have come across RSS feeds for comments somewhere, but it would be nice to have a feed which aggregated these feeds for any posts which I've commented on.
It can be a bit of pain going back over old posts to see if there's been any new comments. Please let me know if there are any plans for anything along these lines (or if something similar already exists); if not, I may have a go trying to hack something together myself.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 29th May 2010, OfficerDibble wrote:The message boards (for all their other faults) have them.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 2nd Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:What is the point in placing anti spam measures on these (91Èȱ¬ Internet) blogs if the 91Èȱ¬ is incapable of removing the spam that has already been posted - and been made aware of - a prime example of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
As I said, words such as parties, breweries and glasses come to mind...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 5th Jun 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:Whilst you've all got yourselves worked up over spam, anyone from the Beeb care to comment on my previous question about winmobile phones and iPlayer?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 9th Jun 2010, PRBUK wrote:And I was REALLY hoping that I might get a response to my post #22, especially as the purpose of this thread set that expectation!!
Please? !!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 10th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:There is something corrupting the HTML on the following webpage;
/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/feedback_on_the_iplayer_beta.html
Almost all the text on the page is in italics, an unclosed <i> tag perhaps, whilst the comment text box doesn't appear to submit the entered text - claiming that that an error has occurred, that the text-box contained no text.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)
Comment number 50.
At 10th Jun 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Thanks for your feedback Bolierplated. We'll look into it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 50)
Comment number 51.
At 11th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 51)
Comment number 52.
At 11th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:The spam previously mentioned still remains. Rather than having on topic but uncomfortable comments removed would it not be better time spent getting the shed loads of spam removed?...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 52)
Comment number 53.
At 11th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:If the Red Button blog can't be discussed in Button blogs perhaps Nick or someone can suggest were it can be discussed?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 53)
Comment number 54.
At 12th Jun 2010, Brekkie wrote:The 91Èȱ¬ red button blogs have no place in the internet blog - they just get lost too quickly and from the censorship I've seen those who run the internet blogs don't seem to understand our concerns in the way they were handled over on the Press Red blog.
Ideally the Press Red blog should be reinstated, but at the very least can it not be redirected to a sub-category of the red button blogs posted here. It's took me two weeks to find a blog I'd been reading regularly for the last year.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 54)
Comment number 55.
At 12th Jun 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Brekkie - we don't "censor" on this blog. We do remove comments that break the House Rules.
Sorry you're having difficulties finding the red button posts. You could try following John Horth's RSS feed as a possible solution.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 55)
Comment number 56.
At 12th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 56)
Comment number 57.
At 12th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:the previously mentioned shed loads of spam remains, funny that how those with in the 91Èȱ¬ manage to get uncomfortable comments removed but can't get 'commercial' advertising removed from their blogs....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 57)
Comment number 58.
At 13th Jun 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Boilerplated - As far as I can see we have now taken measures to deal with the spam you mention. Please moderate your tone and stop disrupting this thread. Thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 58)
Comment number 59.
At 13th Jun 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:58. At 12:00pm on 13 Jun 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:
"Boilerplated - As far as I can see we have now taken measures to deal with the spam you mention. Please moderate your tone and stop disrupting this thread. Thanks."
Oh right, so trying to hold the 91Èȱ¬ to account is being disruptive, but censoring unwelcome comments isn't and are thus censored...
That is my last word on the issue - here at least, were the 91Èȱ¬ can act as judge, jury and executioner...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 59)
Comment number 60.
At 17th Jun 2010, OfficerDibble wrote:Hi Brekkie,
You are not alone in worries about censorship on these blogs.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 60)
Comment number 61.
At 21st Jun 2010, Darren wrote:so amongst the spam from boilerplated, can I have a response to my question post #3?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 61)
Comment number 62.
At 23rd Jun 2010, PRBUK wrote:And #22 / #48..... Please?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 62)
Comment number 63.
At 23rd Jun 2010, PRBUK wrote:In contribution to the theme of this post, a moment to congratulate the 91Èȱ¬ for the outstanding coverage of Formula 1. The creative use of the Red Button, Live streaming of 'on board' cameras on the sports pages, choice of commentary and the excellent "Forum" to round it all off makes us probably the luckiest viewers of this sport. I know we are all, like the 91Èȱ¬, waiting for the move to HD.
Fantastic....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 63)
Comment number 64.
At 29th Jun 2010, lucas42 wrote:I don't really see the point in these open posts. They're great in theory, but the majority of comments never seem to receive a response.
Anyway, as I didn't get a response to comment 44, I just went ahead and hacked something together myself. I've been using it myself for a while, but thought I'd put it up online in case any else found it useful. Its at I don't know how reliable it'll be as it relies on a fair bit of scrapping.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 64)
Comment number 65.
At 30th Jun 2010, lucas42 wrote:I don't really see the point in these open posts. They're great in theory, but the majority of comments never seem to receive a response.
Anyway, as I didn't get a response to comment 44, I just went ahead and hacked something together myself. I've been using it myself for a while, but thought I'd put it up online in case any else found it useful.
However, apparently I'm not allowed to link to it so you'll just have to write your own version. :P
Complain about this comment (Comment number 65)
Comment number 66.
At 30th Jun 2010, Paul Murphy wrote:#42 Hi lucas42
I think an overzealous mod removed your post with the link so I've reinstated it.
I take your point about responding to comments on this Open Post not being as good as it should be. There have been more recent updates on iPlayer, Android and 91Èȱ¬ iD that have answered some of the questions posted here.
Things have been very busy on the blog so apologies,
Paul
Editor, 91Èȱ¬ Internet blog
Complain about this comment (Comment number 66)
Comment number 67.
At 18th Jul 2010, lucas42 wrote:Paul,
Thanks for reinstating my post.
I think the main problem with the open posts is that about a third of the comments are about things that have already been answered many times before. Another third are boilerplated complaining about spam. Which leaves only one third proper comments.
Perhaps it might make things easier if rather than having one big open post, you had a couple of smaller ones about general areas (e.g. an iPlayer open post etc.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 67)
Comment number 68.
At 20th Jul 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:I have a question: I am about to purchase a "Droid" phone from a U.S. Phone carrier {name withheld}, will I be able to access to the 91Èȱ¬ Website and its services?
~Dennis~
Complain about this comment (Comment number 68)