Round Up Friday 3rd December 2010
Post categories: round up
| 19:27 UK time, Friday, 3 December 2010
The news that 91Èȱ¬ Worldwide plans to launch a version of the iPlayer for iPad in the United States has been recieved with much excitement. "This is huge..." . "Rejoice..." says
reported the Guardian. 91Èȱ¬ Question Time Down The Pub blog
There are many terms about the use of hashtags and Twitter to measure (like "influence" and "amplification" ha ha) - most of them snakeoil and bogus - but the vast majority seem to indicate that The X Factor is significantly more popular than Question Time...
Charles Arthur of the Guardian
If you're of a technical persuasion you'll understand these two:
"More pushing not pulling using XMPP and Strophe.js" from the 91Èȱ¬ Research and Development blog.
from the 91Èȱ¬ Backstage mailing list.
You'll probably also be interested in this FOI request from What Do They Know:
comes from Building an Entertainment Powerhouse.
Finally two things my colleagues have asked me to tell you about;
Growing Knowledge: a project between the 91Èȱ¬ and the British Library with the involvement of Bill Thompson and Aleks Krotoski who presented the 91Èȱ¬ series Virtual Revolution. From the Growing Knowledge website:
The 91Èȱ¬ and the British Library are working together to find out if social media's rise in popularity across all ages and professions has affected research and what this means for libraries... To do so we'd like to . We'll then publish our results with a selection of your comments.
There are data visualisations available online.
And the 91Èȱ¬ Red Button team have
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, 91Èȱ¬ Online
Comment number 1.
At 3rd Dec 2010, Pete Hewitt wrote:No mention of the new style comments on a news article that appeared today? Are they being soft launched for the moment?
/news/magazine-11887115
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 4th Dec 2010, threnodio_II wrote:Comments on Gavin Hewitt's blog have become increasingly unpleasant of late with some very nasty exchanges taking place. Even so, to close threads for comment without posting something new seems a bit extreme. What is going on?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th Dec 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:threnodio_II - strictly speaking you are off topic. However as you rightly point out some comments on Gavin's blog were straying into areas which infringed the house rules. In order to deal with this comments were closed for the weekend. They have now been reopened.
Thanks (and can people stay on topic please).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th Dec 2010, U14179821 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th Dec 2010, Faye Tsar wrote:Nick, in future why not ask people to stay on topic within the text of your article, it would save you a lot of time. I think, however, a request to stay 'on topic' after two posts is a record.
Hmm, if only we had an open post...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 6th Dec 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Faye Tsar - I would have thought it would be fairly obvious what's on topic in a particular post i.e. what's written in the post itself. I've explained elsewhere the reasons why there hasn't been an "open" post for a while.
I don't think it's a record though. I'm sure I've asked people to stay on topic after just one comment...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 7th Dec 2010, U14715245 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 7th Dec 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 8)
Comment number 9.
At 7th Dec 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 9)
Comment number 10.
At 7th Dec 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 10)
Comment number 11.
At 8th Dec 2010, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:What is it with the 91Èȱ¬ - Apple love affair. There are plenty of us using other portable devices that aren't by Apple in the UK. Shouldn't the 91Èȱ¬ prioritise providing iPlayer access to licence payers before wasting time and money providing it to US based iPad users?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 8th Dec 2010, Shemmie wrote:How the heck did the US get an iPad app BEFORE proper app coverage for Android is released to UK viewers?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 8th Dec 2010, Faye Tsar wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 9th Dec 2010, Faye Tsar wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 9th Dec 2010, sjama wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 10th Dec 2010, Anthony Woodburn wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 10th Dec 2010, Alex Cockell wrote:Add my name to the people looking in consternation and annoyance at the Beeb's love affair with Apple... What happened to not favouring one supplier over another? What happened to offering royalty-free open specs so that clients could be built by anyone?
A little trust would go a LONG way, 91Èȱ¬... I reiterate comments about PAL being an EBU/IEEE standard... so how about an IETF RFC for iPlayer clients? Instead of this "buy an iPlayer-certified device" schtick.
This may be off-topic , but is it? I seem to recall episodes of Spooks having to be digitally altered to obscrure the lids of the MacBooks the characters were using.... rather ironic, don't you think?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 11th Dec 2010, gatalin wrote:It's incredible
that an uk company first launches an app in the US and then in their native country. Is that a new rule from the US ?Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 11th Dec 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 12th Dec 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:What's the point of having a round up blog if you can't talk about things happening around the 91Èȱ¬?
Do we have to wait for the blogs to catch up or just cherry pick what they want, please explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 14th Dec 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:20. At 22:00pm on 12th Dec 2010, Egg On A Stilt wrote:
What's the point of having a round up blog if you can't talk about things happening around the 91Èȱ¬?
[end quote]
I to would like to have the rational behind these 'Round Up' blogs explained, if they are indeed intended as some kind of advert for the 91Èȱ¬ then so be but at least please tell us that is the case, otherwise the blogs name suggests that we are free to discuss the previous weeks happenings within the 91Èȱ¬'s internet blogs/web presence.
I've now had three comments removed simply because I wanted to discuss issues about the 91Èȱ¬'s internet blogs, if I can't do so here can someone tell me please of a blog (not message board) were I can - that is both operational and monitored?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 15th Dec 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Comment 21:
I'm bewildered as to how you could infer that the name "round up" suggests "that we are free to discuss the previous weeks happenings within the 91Èȱ¬'s internet blogs/web presence."
A round up is a selection of links about what the 91Èȱ¬ is doing online which I think the audience of this blog will find interesting. It is not an "open post" or an opportunity to talk about anything you wish. As I explained in an earlier comment on this post what's on topic on a round up post are the subjects contained in the round up. Anything else is off topic.
If you wish to appeal a hosting decision, please use the appeals process.
Thanks
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 15th Dec 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 23)
Comment number 24.
At 15th Dec 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 15th Dec 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 16th Dec 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 26)
Comment number 27.
At 16th Dec 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 27)
Comment number 28.
At 16th Dec 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 28)
Comment number 29.
At 17th Dec 2010, ucvhost wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 17th Dec 2010, OfficerDibble wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)