Round up: Monday 18th January 2010
Post categories: round up
| 19:15 UK time, Monday, 18 January 2010
Over at the Radio 4 blog, Controller Mark Damazer is getting quite excited about "A History of the World in 100 objects":
The website was only finished this weekend - truly - but has lots to offer and we really want you to upload your own objects that have global connections. Every object you upload will have a page accompanying it.
Last week's BBC iPlayer figures for November and December went down well with gamers (is this the right word?), including Gamer Syndrome.
The Telegraph tells us: "iPlayer to be reviewed by BBC Trust"
BBC Research and Development blog has another of its videos with Quentin Cooper this time called "Displays and Screens Part 1".
In part one of this film Quentin and Richard Salmon discuss the last of the old Cathode Ray Tube displays, and what the implications of this are in terms of the way that displays show colour.
While over on Web Developer Mat Hampson in a post called "A/B Testing" ruminates:
A little while ago I was talking to our interaction designer Pekka about a link we had in the masthead that was under-performing. We suspected it was the wording that wasn't working, and after thinking up a few possible options Pekka said it would be great to be able to "A-B test" some of them. This led to some blank gawping from me...
The Sunday Express ran a story yesterday with the headline "Is the BBC run by a bunch of Twitters?"
The story has now been removed from the Express' website but Steve Bowbrick took a picture of the paper version:
The Express story included these quotes:
The BBC Radio 2 site, which gathers messages, or "tweets", from presenters such as Chris Evans, Jonathan Ross and Alan Carr, has no followers... The BBC Radio 5 Live site, run by presenter Victoria Derbyshire, has just two.
No Rock n Roll Fun discovered that this (and other things in the story) weren't quite right:
The Radio 2 site actually sends the odd Tweet from staff at Radio 2 about the programmes, but not by or from Chris Evans. Oh, and the "no followers"? 12,470 at time of writing... As this screengrab shows, Victoria is following just two people. But, erm, she's being followed by over three and a half thousand.
Malcolm Coles also had an opinion. Here's some reaction from people on Twitter.
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, BBC Online
Comment number 1.
At 21:08 18th Jan 2010, I-Hate-People wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 23:49 18th Jan 2010, TV Licence fee payer against BBC censorship wrote:"The Telegraph tells us: "iPlayer to be reviewed by BBC Trust"
But what does the BBC say about it, is this correct or is the above news to the BBC website department?...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 10:06 19th Jan 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Boilerplated - here's a link to the BBC Trust's webpage about their consultation on BBC on demand services.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 10:33 19th Jan 2010, Rob Thijssen wrote:In other news, it was also discovered that these same presenters use mobile phones to send new-fangled technomalogical text messages to each other. The practice, known as texting, is known to be dangerous as it causes people to communicate with each other without the sanction of each individual license payer. In anticipation of the rioting in the streets that our late breaking news is sure to cause, we will be heading back to our hermit cabins where we have no means of dialogue with the outside world.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 10:44 22nd Jan 2010, U14308406 wrote:Mr Reynolds would you be so kind as to answer these BBC Internet related questions?
I have a feeling that you (yourself and others in your department) are applying censorship to peoples "BBC registration" outside of the BBC's general "Internet operating" policy.
I will tell you why I think this is and I hope that you can point out where the flaws in my logic are:
1) When you add someone to the "naughty list" that person receives no message to say that their account has been blocked. You are able to sign in and it is only when you try to post a comment that you realise something is amiss. The most stupid message ever appears:"There has been an unexpected problem. Please reload the page and try again." from bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk! As a publicly funded company I would of thought that the BBC would be more sophisticated than to pull a sly stunt like that.
2) If the "naughty list" is official BBC policy, why is it that when one is added to it you are not banned from making comments across the entire BBC network? Radio blogs and have your say work fine which adds weight to the theory that this is a small group of people operating outside of BBC policy.
Hope you can shed some light on this.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 16:02 22nd Jan 2010, I-Still-Hate-People wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 16:38 22nd Jan 2010, TV Licence fee payer against BBC censorship wrote:In reply to comments @ #6:
"Good riddance."
Indeed, especially if that is your last word too!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 17:15 22nd Jan 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Comment 5 - I can assure you that I host this blog using exactly the same tools and processes as everyone else (as far as I know).
Sounds like a bug - I will investigate.
Even though you are off topic. No more on this subject please.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 00:08 25th Jan 2010, malcolmcoles wrote:Nick - thanks for the link ... sort of. Does the BBC have any policy on the use of ow.ly for outbound links?
Its framing of sites' content (ie repeating their content on its own URL) is in violation of many sites' terms and conditions. I was surprised to see you use it as a link ... (I don't have any T&Cs so it's not in violation of mine, although if I had any this would be top of the list - I fundamentally disagree with URL shorteners that frame the destination page).
Anyway, I'm not asking you to change the link, just wondered what you thought. Cheers.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 11:12 25th Jan 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Malcolm - I did this post in a bit of a hurry. I've now put in a direct link to yout post. Apologies.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 13:14 25th Jan 2010, malcolmcoles wrote:Thanks ;)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 03:40 27th Mar 2010, U14390976 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 04:59 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 18:51 20th May 2010, talat wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 15:28 24th May 2010, hd2010 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)