BBC Sport: Olympic page launch

How about video on Sport going iPad-compatible, like News did recently?

How about addressing the issues with the Sports website before lauching another site? Just goes to show you don't really care what the public want, just just care about what you want to give them! You seem to believe if you bombard us with posts telling us how the new site is better, in your opinion, we will just accept it.

From Cait's blog post 'As I have said before, we will not be rushing into changes and we will be using several different sources of feedback to help drive our decision making.'

You seem to have rushed into the new design without prper testing and without exstensive feedback!

'We are also preparing a number of blog posts – one on the user testing and approach we took to redesigning the Sport site, another on the User Experience and Design work and an additional one on the technology that is helping us deliver all these improvements to the BBC Sport site'

I look forward to these but your use of the word 'improvements' is a bit rich given the feedback here. But no doubt you will be publishing the voluminous positive feedback you received so that will put the negative comments here into context.

I have no doubt that one of the ways you are saving money is to reduce the amount of real time information you provide and I would accept that given the state of the nation's finances at the moment but you should not dress it up under unnecessary cosmetic changes that quite patently have failed. But I forget, most of this is dictated to you and you have no choice as it has been agreed as the house brand, hence the disastrous changes to the homepage.

"We are also looking making it easier for you to find our great new sports stats. One of the pages we are really proud of is our new football live scores page – we have had really positive feedback about that page, particularly when it comes to life during a busy weekend of football"

What!!!!! Oh come on....It's been panned on Ben's blog.....its probably the worst feature on the website!

I just cannot believe that the old website has been binned for this crock....

Hi Cait,

Whilst it's great to hear that the bug with the global navigation banner is being fixed, this bug wouldn't exist were it not for the bizarre decision to have the banner change colour on mouse over. This behaviour seems unnecessarily distracting and provides little benefit to the user.

I've yet to hear any reasoning behind this decision—can somebody from the design team comment here on the thinking behind it? If not the result of laziness (unwillingness to develop a black version of the active banner) or indecision (an inability to choose between the black or white versions, resulting in a fudge so that both can exist), why take this approach?

Paul

Ben's blog....

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2012/02/changes_to_the_bbc_sport_websi.html

The 'football live scores page' of which you boast you have received positive feedback actually does not provide what it says at all as everything is still split by division. As many complain the Premier League is given undue preference. If the Olympic results follow a similar style we shall have to hop about amongst all sorts of events to get the latest results! It is such an obvious fix that you really should be indicating a timeline rather than hiding behind a glib statement about not rushing into changes and taking into account other feedback. For once consider your licence fee payers rather than in house focus groups.

Cait

Why have you ignored the issues raised by posts on both your previous blog and Ben Gallop's?

And can you show us all the 'really positive feedback' about the football live scores page too?

Far as I can see, of the 1300+ posts, over 90% have been negative.

Please keep your redesigns away from the Rowing pages please.

Thanks.

Comments don't seem to work, perhaps the more direct email approach will:

[Unsuitable URLs removed by Moderator]

Why haven't you had the decency to reply to the 1,300+ people who have commented on Mr Gallop's blog? Hoping we wouldn't find you?

Personally I mainly use the mobile version of the site as I can easily find the headlines and actual news rather than it being obscured by pictures and auto playing videos. It is an awful redesign and not at all user friendly. Please change it so we can actually find headlines.

So for the sake of the Olympics and Para-Olympics that run from late July through to early Sept the BBC had ruined, IMO, the best Sports website. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Good to see a response! Anyway:

"Yellow": Good to see that this is being looked at. It's not as big an issue for me, but I can see how it can cause problems for others. Toning it down (but keeping some of it) sounds good!

"Bug in the banner": Does this mean that the flashing will be got rid of completely? Because that's excellent news if so! I've no idea how/why this awful flashing banner ever managed to be implemented in the first place. If I'm missing the point and it's still going to flash when the cursor is over it, why? I'm still yet to see a single person point out any benefit to this. Hopefully of course, it's the former conclusion and you're scrapping the flashing altogether.

"Auto-playing videos": Excellent!

Hopefully, re-organising the story pages to fix the badly designed flow of them will soon follow. The Beeb's sport page might then be passable!

"One of the pages we are really proud of is our new football live scores page "

Well, you should be thoroughly embarrassed by it. Plenty of comments on the Sports Page blog have told you precisely what is wrong with it and why it's a backward step from what was there before. Positive feedback? None that I can see.

"One of the pages we are really proud of is our new football live scores page – we have had really positive feedback about that page"

.....Really???? I cannot believe you've the temerity to say that.

Just look at the blog Cait....

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2012/02/changes_to_the_bbc_sport_websi.html

Virtually every post that mentions the fooball scores is highly critical of the new website football scores page and functionality.

The usual neigh-sayers, if it's not the tickets procedure it's the logo and if its not the mascots its posters or torch route!! Don't listen to the majority of them, they moan first and find out what the question is later.

I think the new website is a step forward. Not perfect but fresh and easy to view.

One thing I would request when it comes to the Olympic content is more action from previous Games ( the story of each games). This was done very nicely for the FIFA World Cup and i'm sure could be replicated well. It may well already be somewhere on the site but I can't find it easily.

I look forward to see what you have in mind and developments for the future. A lot of the world will be looking at the BBC for their Olympic online coverage so it is important you/ we get it right.

SPECIFIC FAULTS TO FIX:

Football Homepage - League by League - under Premier League, the story is a match report from last Tuesday. There have been a lot of PL matches since then. No one appears to of noticed....

- under Championship: the main story is from 24th Jan. Again no one has changed this since the new look site.

LEAGUE ONE INDEX: Comment and Analysis - there is one story from Oct, one from September, one from August.
LEAGUE TWO INDEX: Comment and analysis - one story from last week (well done!), but three from August, September last year. If i show more C&A it's all from last spring/summer.

This is meant to be a NEW website - so why are your index pages full of totally out of date articles and given far more prominence than the recently updated headlines which are squashed into a tiny column in the middle!

I'm usually so full of praise for everything the BBC does, but this is so sloppy it's embarrassing. I really want to like this site, I use it every bloody day, but this redesign is such an opportunity missed.

I'm sorry, but why so many different blogs, surely it should be all one blog?
Surely these comments about the Sport site redesign from Cait should all be on Ben Gallop's one, placing comments on a new blog here rather than on there is only adding fuel to the fire & I would consider rather disrespectful to posters on there.
The yellow, yes it's a real problem, but not just the header it's all over the page on the numerous (surely too many?) video links etc.
Thank you for listening to at least one criticism & stopping autoplay though.
As for the football changes being well received, it makes one wonder if the main thread has been analysed at all - it's been really panned with few positive comments!
Surely with all the new technology available in the new Content Publishing System it should be really easy to replicate the feel & overall look of the old site whilst incorporating SOME (sorry!) modernisation & not wholesale change, that's all the majority seem to be asking for?
Not too much to ask please?

"One of the pages we are really proud of is our new football live scores page – we have had really positive feedback about that page"

There's none so blind as those who will not see*

*You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice. (Used often to upbraid someone for being unwilling to notice what you are trying call attention to.)

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your post. If you would like an instance of a specific problem, please look at the Sport Home Page now. The "Headline" under the main picture reads

"FA Cup: Middlesbrough v Sunderland"
"LIVE"

i.e. it's spread over 2 lines. However the LIVE on the second line obscures the beginning of the sub-caption, "Middlesbrough host Sunderland in final FA Cup fourth-round replay." , Middlesbr being lost underneath it.

Further, the picture of the car on the F1 page (https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/16910111%29 which has the picture of the Red Bull car as header, is obscured by the Headline, thereby blotting out part of the car (the nose) which some F1 fans would certainly like to see. This doesn't look good and if I'd designed the site, I'd consider this a bug. See https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/16924854 for another example.

These aren't the only places where this occurs; I'm pretty sure I saw it on one of the football pages as well but I can't find the page now.

Many thanks for your attention.

#17
Ian, thanks for your comments. I think much of the annoyance is a lack of response from Ben on his blog. There is not even an acknowledgement from him on any of the issues.
Good that Cait has addressed some of them but some of them are so obvious that I do wonder how they weren't raised by your merry band of 2000 testers/ reviewers.

Lastly:
'We are also looking making it easier for you to find our great new sports stats. One of the pages we are really proud of is our new football live scores page – we have had really positive feedback about that page, particularly when it comes to life during a busy weekend of football.'

Where is all this positive feedback about the football live scores page? It was terrible at the weekend. I can't find 1 positive comment about it in invisible Ben's blog. A backwards step as far as I'm concerned.

The BBC website pages are becoming truly awful.

The YELOW BRANDING for the SPORT is AWFUL

Your resonses to our comments on these blogs and the way you close them are/is patronising.

Why not change what you had by improving it, not ruining it; you have ended up providing us with webpages which would suit children, or are you really that patronising towards the website users.

Yes, we know you wont listen, I just wish there was some way to make someone at the BBC listen and take note.

You've got to love post #17

If the BBC actually responded to our concerns instead of ignoring us people obviously wouldn't feel the need to post such information!

@22

My apologies, some more information. This is Safari 5.1.2 on Mac OS X 10.6.8 (up-to-date and a supported configuration). It doesn't seem to happen on Mozilla Firefox. methinks some testing with more webbrowsers is in order.

(You can't see the item now as it's been replaced with the story about Mr. Capello. The point is still valid though.)

Thank you.

I find the response berating the use of an email address - together with the exhautation to use the blog - highly amusing.

I had a detailed message to post to Caits blog detailing inconsistencies and contradictions. Your poisition is that it should go via the blog. My poistion is that is should go via the blog. Unfortunately your web engine / blog app disagreed as it pointedly refuse to upload it time and time and time and time and time again (actually I tried more times than that)!

Now, as you asked for responses / comments / feedback / input but your systems failed to provide a working mechanism to allow it, should I avoid email and thus deprive you of my valuable input because of the hallowed "house rules" or should I work around the problem?

Maybe if you systems had been tested and worked then this wouldn't have arisen - but one can say the same about 90% of the post that actually loaded - if the "redesign" that resulted in the "improved" site had actually been what people wanted then there wouldn't have been all the posts in the first place!

BTW - is starting yet another blog just a way of avoiding having embarrassingly large numbers of (almost totally negative) responses? Naive, transparent and childish!

Earlier Attempted post (part 1)
======================

This redesign is the first major launch of many this year as we get ready to cover the Olympic Games this summer.”

Please no more Olympics! I’m already dreading the complete overkill on all BBC channels!

“We are working on some really exciting developments, which will be showcased on the new BBC Sport website.”

Glad you’re excited by them – judging by the reaction to you new “exciting” developments the rest of us are dreading them.

“This redesign has concentrated on doing four main things:
• Creating a fresh website that better showcases the range of content we offer
• Prominent promotion of our fantastic live coverage from across the BBC
• Making it easier for our users to talk about our sport coverage
• Making it faster for our users to find our great content”

• Does Fresh = Better?
• I have a TV for live coverage
• My last posting was moderated out of existence because I questioned some people’s motives
• The BBC has put forward (as part justification of the change) that people now arrive at the BBC sport site from a variety of sources and pick the story that interests them externally – then you say you’ve moved the navigation bar to the top as it help people find their way around the site – then you say “when the navigation moves from the left to the top of the page the audience became less reliant on it for all their navigation”. What?!?

======================
Part2 will follow shortly

Earlier Attempted post (part 2)
======================

“We have spent a lot of time talking to our audience to make sure we get this redesign right”

You claim to have polled 2000 people and 80% preferred the new layout. That’s 1,600 people in favour and, apparently, almost that (so far) have taken the trouble to come to you and say they don’t. So you go to 2,000 and get 1,600 in favour (and they’re response is triggered by you) whilst 400 plus approx 1,200 are against (and they take the trouble to contact you). You view this as a success?

“The last time we did a major refresh of the site was back in 2003 – ancient history in internet terms.”

Is that a paraphrase of “change for change’s sake”?

“and more changes are coming soon.”

Please, No!

“We have also made our live coverage more prominent across the site – for example including live football scores on the Sport homepage.”

You don’t seem to differentiate between live TEXT and live VIDEO. Text can be indexed (not surprisingly) with text – you seem to fixate on video in the page rather than via a link.

“We know that a lot of our audience has an interest in more than one sport but in the past there was no quick way to skip from one sport to another.”

Of course there was. If you really wanted to jump from Golf to Cricket you clicked on your Golf bookmark then you clicked on your Cricket bookmark. One click!

“Moving to a horizontal navigation also gives us a wider page to work with, which means more room for our great content, including larger pictures and bigger video.”

Video again!

“It also brings the site in line with other major sections of bbc.co.uk, which have a horizontal navigation, like BBC News and iPlayer.”

Now you’re saying because the rest is rubbish we have to be as well?

Horizontal navigation is also common across the web with Google, Facebook, and Sky Sports just some of the prominent examples.

You are supposed to be journalists – not posters to a social network!

“The horizontal navigation has less room in it than the old long vertical navigation, which means we have had to make some difficult choices and we didn’t make them lightly.”

So you changed it to a worse design?

“In order to make the navigation easy to use, we wanted to limit the number of items in the primary navigation to less than nine, to help people make quick choices about where they wanted to get to.”

You’ve included so much “noise” that now we just have to scroll … and scroll … and scroll!

“We thought long and hard about the best way to choose which sites to include in the primary navigation, before settling on those that are visited most often over the course of the year and which we cover through the 12 months not just around specific events.
They are: Football, Formula 1, Cricket, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Golf, Tennis and Olympics.”

You criteria (most in 12 months) means you’ll cover F1 in its winter break, Tennis in December and the Olympics (which only come round every 4 years). How is that sensible or based on a 12-month hit-count?

“We’ve just changed the navigation to make it easier to move around the site wherever you are on it.”

So now we can find our way to the page that jars because of the colours and buries text with “Video” and “Pictures” – thanks, helps a lot.

“In the past when a journalist wrote a story they would have to place that story on every relevant section of the website.
A story about Arsenal playing Manchester United, for example, would have to be placed manually on the home page, the Football page, the premier league page, the Arsenal page and the Manchester United page – a very time consuming and labour intensive process.”

Now you’re talking about indexing and page assembly – nothing to do with what the fee-payer sees on the screen. It’s an efficiency change that could be divorced from the look and feel.

“It doesn’t end here”

Oh – shame.

“We will release new features regularly to the site, so the site will continuously evolve and change, hopefully in a way that is less disruptive for our audience.”

Less than this change?

“Other recent high-profile launches of the BBC website have started with a beta version of the site which has allowed people to try out the new sites before they were introduced. For technical and editorial reasons we aren’t able to do this for Sport so, for some, the change may come as more of a shock at first.”

Shame then that, following the overwhelmingly negative response, you now tell us you need to do “testing”.

“We have made some bold design decisions as a result of exhaustive audience research”

2000 people is exhaustive?

“ and we are really proud of the new site.”

Oh dear

#22 If I remember from one of the posts the overlapping image/headline was a design decision. One I guess you either like (there are a few complementary posts) or don't....It certainly isn't a bug.

I fail to see why people find the BBC's replies patronising - they have said they are reading the feedback, looking at options for some of the some and fixing some bugs. Sounds like the sort of response that a complaint should get. Changes on a site accessed by millions of people

Any redesign is going to make some people happier than others, improves some things, breaks others and its worth remembering that until the site is Live its not always possible to know exactly the response it will get.

Base a project on just market research and you could end up with 'New Coke', base it on just internal input and maybe you get google wave (or buzz).

It all reminds me of a new menu at your favourite resturant - the chef listens, sees what doesn't sell and makes changes over time - sometimes its not even the dish that's wrong but the description or position on the menu!

Give them time!

bbc.co.uk/sport right now - no scrolling, front page and SEVEN very similar pictures of Capello of varying sizes. Massive waste of space much?? Poorly designed much?

Compare that to BBC News front page when they have a big breaking story - so much better. The attention to detail on this relaunch is REALLY BAD!

@17 "Firstly, being the host of the BBC Internet Blog, I'm obviously keen that people use this place to engage with BBC staff. Whatever it is you want to say, as long as it's within House Rules (basically, respectful), surely it's better to say it here, in public, read by the relevant team?"

What's the point? BBC staff don't engage with us, their users and providers of their wages; they don't respond to the posts in the existing blogs, they start another one in the hope that it won't get noticed.

@32 "Ben will be posting again soon. As I am sure you can appreciate, the editorial are very busy at the moment"

No, I don't appreciate - what are they doing? If it's adding new content to the web site, it's wasted effort; many people seem unable to find what they want on it.

Please Cait, you really have got the wrong end of the stick as to what most people want from the sports website. I thought I was a bit of an old-fashioned reactionary until I read posts on both BBC and non-BBC blogs and forums. I know now that I'm not alone.
Some of us just want up-to-date accessible text, not video, and may even still use a desktop. Either way, navigation on the new site is clumsy, and to launch with many features (this week's football fixtures, live videprinter etc.) weaker than before is not good.
A earlier poster asked if we could opt for the older format. Would this be possible? When I had navigated the clumsy new cricket first page, eventually found fixtures and returned to an old-style page, I realised how effective the old format was. Left-hand column menu, loads of options, clear presentation... Why have you thrown out such a clear, elegant style? And the cricket fixtures can be seen day by day, all forms of the game together..... What were you thinking making such a mess of football fixtures on the new-look website?
And taking Robin's point, how can you justify seven pictures of Capello on the front page? This is indicative of the whole jazzy, superficial, football-dominated redesign.

34. At 21:51 8th Feb 2012, John Winfield wrote:

This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

All posts are reactively-moderated. What does this mean?

==================

Sorry - are they PRE-moderated (and hence waiting) or reatively moderated (in which case it's either in or out)

More double-speak from the BBC?

"@Bear (8), @BarkingP (15) and BritainHasGoneToTheDogs (16): The blog comments are not our only source of feedback. We also get feedback via surveys that are linked to from the BBC Website."

I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that there has been overwhelmingly positive support for the live football pages from any source which includes normal, regular users of the site. The service at the weekend was so evidently unfit for purpose I cannot believe there has been a significant measure of support at all. I'm depressed beyond measure if you truly believe that those pages were a success.

Unless you are going to give the rest of us some insight into these secret figures your reassurances will convince nobody.

@KenK234 (33) So Cait's response (32) isn't the BBC engaging with the sites users, informing you of forthcoming changes, acknowledging bugs and explaining feedback?

In my view starting a new blog post is appropriate - its easy to miss important, new information on a busy blog like these ones are.

Noticed another (small) bug tonight - goto the football live scores page - it defaults to English and Premier League (and a blank list). Select, for example, Scottish and then return to English and the list no longer includes Premier League just the FA Cup.

Looks like I'm going to be getting my Olympic rowing gossip from TalkRowing (www.usrowers.com), Martin Gough's Twitter feed, The Telegraph and word of mouth.

My eyes can't take it any more.

@37 No. Waiting a week and approx 1300 posts before responding in not 'engaging'. To then only comment on 3 of the many many points raised is not 'engaging'.

@39 Cait actually posted reponses to blog queries twice on the 1st, once on the second, once on the 3rd and once today (I've not counted her look at my new blog post from today), as well as creating this blog today. I make this 4/5 posts in 6 working days. Each one of these has tackled multiple points.

Thank you to Cait for responding. Quite frankly, no other major media company in the world would publish so many complaints on their website, so well done to the BBC.

Saying that it doesn't make me any happier about the look of my favourite and most used website. Seeing all these thousands of Olympic pages reinforces my opinion that you're going down the quantity route rather than quality. With so many pages you can't keep the attention to detail up, as has already been shown.

Cait, I would love to know the thought process of filling a large chunk of the main left hand column on your football division with 'comment & analysis' articles with the headlines down the narrow second column. For the vast majority of English and Scottish divisions BBC Sport provides no C&A, meaning articles are months old. What was the thinking behind this decision? Or was there no thinking at all and everything was just cut from the old site and pasted on to the new, with no questions about the content asked??

Please note i'm not posting to be aggressive or to moan for the sake of it, i really want a brilliant BBC Sport site..... which this could of been.

I have a brilliant idea for you! Get rid of the overpowering YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW and make the site useable and easy to read - I know, go back to the old style as it worked and was easy to use. Best of all it will not cost anything in these days of financial restraint. Or you could carry on being wasteful and ignorant of the fact that you had a world beating poular Sports site. I will not be usuing the new one as it is unworkable and YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW. This is a crime as I pay a lcence fee for something!

@41 DBOne - Yes, some responses from Cait, but not addressing or responding to the main issues as I & the majority evidently perceive it?
No answers to the most common one, to regress it?
Isn't she the person in charge of Future Media & so shouldn't she (or someone) be monitoring all comments & making specific subjective replies based upon the massively negative comments made thusfar - after all, all these appalling changes were allegedly made based upon negative feedback on the old site?
If she can't give technical reasons why due to lack of knowledge , surely someone involved should have that capability?
Still personally believe we're all going nowhere complaining, as there's no going back as an e-mail response I received from Claire categorically stated 'we won't be reverting to the old design'!!
So much for listening to us & making changes we concerned users seem to think fit - apparently that's already been done based upon some incredulous previous 'market research' results from of as little as 2000 users!
@ 29 Think Tank well encapsulates what most of us are concerned about I must add!

@Ian McDonald

Ian, in reference to your response (#153) to my post (#151) on Cait's earlier blog 'Launching the new BBC Sport website'

Firstly, thanks for the response.

The point I was trying to make in my original post is that I had checked for BOTH Java and Javascript functionality in my browsers just to be sure. Java was installed and up to date (although I do understand that particular content doesn’t require Java to function) and Javascript was enabled and functioning correctly in all three of the browsers I tried to access the ‘video and audio’ with. So if both are installed/endabled correctly there are no excuses for the content not to work properly.

This issue of conent not playing doesn’t happen on all video/audio on the sports site, it only appears to happen on the live football related links I've seen so far. For example tonight (08.02.12) at 9.30pm-ish I gave the new sports site another go and tried to click on the ‘BBC Radio 5 live’ link prominently placed on the sports homepage. The link title was: ‘5 live Sport: Capello reaction, plus FA Cup & SPL updates’

The relevant code for the link was:

href="https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/video_and_audio/help_guide/8078737.stm" onclick="javascript: void window.open('https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live', 'BBC',


This link doesn’t go to 5 Live, it defaults direct to the help page, here: https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/video_and_audio/help_guide/8078737.stm
This page tells me that Javascript isn’t enabled, ‘Welcome to Video and Audio from BBC Sport. If you are encountering problems this could be because you have JavaScript turned off.’ Etc. BUT IT DEFINITELY IS ENABLED!

Other live steaming video and the pre-recorded video works fine. This page for example: https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16953727 (entitled: ‘Reaction to Fabio Capello's resignation LIVE’ and sub-headed with: ‘The latest as Fabio Capello resigns from his position as England manager’). This page, for a period, showed live feed from BBC news 24, I was watching it whilst the live reporting text about Capello was appearing below it. This live stream played just fine.

Here’s an example of the pre-recorded video on the site at the same time which played without trouble:
Link title: Shearer surprised by Capello resignation
Link address: https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16955474

Additionally, If I go direct to the 5 Live website I can watch or listen to 5 live here: https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/5live/webcam/videocam/ or here: https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live without any problem.

So the issue is definitely with the links through from the new sports home page to the 5 Live feed and some other live links that were on during the weekend’s Premier League action. I can’t recall if that was also a link to 5 Live at the weekend or whether it was the 'Final Score' live video feed. Either way there is a big problem there via the new sports site where there was never an issue with the old site.

In reference to the links on the sports homepage about 'LIVE' Premier League or football, I'll have to wait until the weekend to see if the same links appear again during the matches and post links back here.

Cait, thanks for creating a new forum here for people to leave comments, but there really should be an obvious link to get here to comment from the sports homepage. I never knew these various editor blogs existed. I only discovered them by accident when Googling for solutions to the problems I have been having with the new site. I am absolutely positive there are many, many more people out there like me who would like to comment about the new site but have no idea where or how.

So, if you are genuinely interested in licensee fee payer's feedback then place an obvious link to this blog on the sports homepage, entitled something like 'Comment about the new site'. Something as obvious as the over-sized 'GOSSIP' link already there.

Personally I don't think these multiple blogs are the right, or best, way to allow the public to feedback about the new site but in the lack of anything better this should be at least made easily accessible to people.

#32. Thanks for the timely responses Cait - appreciate Ben may not be responding tonight but he has had since Friday.........

I would really like your thoughts on the 'football live scores page' please. As previously stated I reallly can't find 1 positive response to it. I will give it another go on Saturday as I (& I think most of us) don't want to go elsewhere as we all have some inherent loyalty to the Beeb. However, I will & I'm sure some people already have. Not everyone one will take the time to post & tell you why. They'll just vote with their feet (or mouse).

In this BBC video here: ' Dan Walker's guide to the new BBC Sport website ' Dan is showing us around the new BBC Sports Centre and sports website. 27 seconds in there is a Health and Safety sign which says 'Eye protection must be worn'

How profound in hindsight.

@ 32.At 21:27 8th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:

@Bear (8), @BarkingP (15) and BritainHasGoneToTheDogs (16): The blog comments are not our only source of feedback. We also get feedback via surveys that are linked to from the BBC Website.

How convienent! Amazing that all the 'positive' feedback about the football pages are not visible to the Users who take the time to comment on Ben's and your blog.

Perhaps you could point us to the any such links which show these 'positive' comments?

Come on Cait, provide the evidence.

Please justify your comments because I don't think many believe what your saying about the 'new Football live score pages' getting 'positive' comments.

We take the time and trouble to give feedback because we care about the BBC Sports website and we cannot understand why its being turned into a shambles.

Also, I agree with several posters about just having one blog which has an obvious link on the website itself, still, I suppose having several obscure blogs 'waters down' any negative consensus. We've seen through that one already.

If you really responded to user views, as you claim, you'd give us back the old page. It was far better than this new "improved" version.

@30

#22 If I remember from one of the posts the overlapping image/headline was a design decision. One I guess you either like (there are a few complementary posts) or don't....It certainly isn't a bug.
======

I know it's a design decision and it's a perfectly reasonable one, one I've used myself elsewhere, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. That point is that the result of this decision chops off relatively interesting/important parts of the picture. That's not good and it gives the impression that it's a bug.

On the other hand, if editorial were to jiggle the pictures where possible so that the main subject doesn't get partially cut off, then that would be a lot better and would give editorial the effect they want.

I've no problem with the decision, it's the end result that looks wrong and that's something that can be worked on. Alas it gives a bad impression.

To Ian McDonald,

You've obviously read Ben's and Cait's blogs regarding feedback on the Website changes, particularly the 'Football 'Live Scores' issues....do you think the responses have been 'positive'?

Can you provide links the the 'unseen' positive feedback....or point me to the blogs or forums where I may read the comments for myself?

Many thanks

Cait, thank you for your reply.
52. At 11:34 9th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:
@John Winfield (34) The old website was published on a different publishing system and it is not possible for us to run both the old and new sites in parallel.

Two things if I may. I'm no techie but the 'new' site seems to contain elements of the old. For example, when I've navigated through to cricket results, they are presented as before, good and clear, day by day, cricket menu on the left. If the whole new website is on a 'different publishing system' why can't the football elements revert to the previous clear, functional presentation?
Secondly, you don't respond to my and many others' principal concern that, on balance, this new creation is worse than what we had. On reflection, do you agree? Do you think it might be best to reinstall the old and research a wider spread of site user opinion before relaunching an improved version of the new?

See that some changes have gone live today.

The page looks a lot better without the colour-changing header and I see that the yellow header also now only occupies the page content width.

Both of these definately improve the look of the pages.

Any chance of moving the 'SPORT' logo a bit to the left so it lines up with the BBC logo. I seem to recall the news website having the same logo problem when it relaunched.

Got to add my 2p and say that all 3 changes so far are positive steps. I like the shorter banner, I like the none-changing top banner, and I see that videos have stopped auto-playing as well.

Well done so far BBC for listening!

Now, any chance of you re-arranging the story pages to fix those? I refer of course to the right-aligned story text, the white border down the left, then those awful "info" boxes which jut in from the left and destroy the flow of the text. Look at the main BBC News site and copy that please! There, the text runs down the left (no left-hand white border, but social network buttons are still available) and info boxes stick in from the right.

Crucially, this no longer changes the start point of sentences and so you have a consistent flow of text down the left hand start - which makes for a MUCH easier and more pleasant reading experience! You still get all the same stuff there, just in a better (and more consistent) way.

Other than that, pleased with the tweaks so far!

I see that Ben Gallop has started yet another blog to extol the virtues of the new site without having addressed the majority of the concerns and criticisms of what can only be described as a disastrous launch. One would assume you have backups and disaster recovery processes that could be used to run the new and old site in parallel. But I doubt anyone is brave enough to admit the new site is a disaster and give the public back the top quality site expected of the best public service broadcaster on the world. At least is is a good exercise in how not to do something well thought through.

59.
At 15:30 9th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:

'Ben Gallop has also posted a new blog about the changes. The reason why Ben and I post separately is that Ben concentrates more on the editorial changes to the site while I talk about the technical developments on the site. I don't respond to people on Ben's blog as that is handled by Claire and others in the editorial team.'

Nobody responds on Ben's blog Cait - that's the problem but its not yours!

I would still love some response to the 'football live scores' issue. You are adddressing many of the issues raised (thank you) but not this one. Pretty please

The design looked far better with the yellow stretching the full width of the page. Without it this whole design looks old fashioned and frankly yuck.

I LOVE THE YELLOW!

52. At 11:34 9th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:

"... The reason why we have the headlines in the second column is to get more news content higher up the page - with the more considered Comment and Analysis pieces further down the page. ..."

Well Cait - as you obviously do read this blog, reply and even make changes based on the feedback (unlike Ben who seems to do none of the above), may I suggest a way to get the news conent even higher?

Simply move the main menu from the top to ... say ... the left hand side.

What do you think?

Hi Cait,

Thanks for responding to my question. I'm glad to see that a fix has been rolled out so that the banner no longer flashes. Can I just clarify this point:

We have changed the main BBC header from white to black and it no longer flashes when you move between sections of the site. The header stays black on the Formula 1 index.

"We are also looking making it easier for you to find our great new sports stats. One of the pages we are really proud of is our new football live scores page – we have had really positive feedback about that page, particularly when it comes to life during a busy weekend of football"

Have any of us seen this "really positive feedback"? Perhaps this has come from the 2,000 who gave positive feedback on the site before it was rolled out. Obviously, those who gave adverse comment at that stage have been ignored.

Personally, I am always suspicious when people use "real" or "really". In this case "really positive" as opposed to what? Presumably, bogus or made up positive feedback. So, where does this positive feedback come from?

I think the root of the problem is that Cait is within the department titled "BBC Future Media". Unfortunately, we would like a site which is useable in the present; not one under development for the future.

Cait,

I've already referenced the comment "The last time we did a major refresh of the site was back in 2003 – ancient history in internet terms" but now there's breaking news ... I've found a BBC page that throws more detail on the accuracy of this statement:

Ben's blog from 28th March 2008: https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2008/03/this_website_is_changing.html

If I may quote:

"Over the course of the next week you will notice some changes to the BBC Sport website.

I won’t go into too much detail about exactly what this will involve right now – there will be more to follow on that in the coming days. But I just wanted to flag up the fact that we are about to begin a long process of transformation of the site.

So why are we doing this? Well, it certainly feels like an appropriate time of year to be refreshing what we do – but just to be clear, this is about much more than a simple spring clean. Sure, we’ll be brushing away any cobwebs that we find around the site and tidying up the clutter. But we want to embark on something more significant than that and ensure we have a website that can better showcase the fantastic sporting content BBC Sport has to offer."

and

"we are about to embark on a long-term project, where we will make changes in an ‘iterative’ fashion, introducing individual improvements at a sensible rate, rather than in one big hit".

So the last change was in 2008 - not 2003.

And then you didn't do it in "one big hit"!

How times change eh? Ever have second thoughts?

@66 Cait "But I don't have any quick answers about how we are going to do implement this - these changes will take a bit longer to make than the tweaks we made today." It was working on the old site. Why not just copy it?

@48 Cait 'We also get feedback via surveys that are linked to from the BBC Website.'
@65 christom 'Have any of us seen this "really positive feedback"?'

I think the positive feedback is that in a survey of people who used the website, 100% said they liked the website in some way. It's not a significant statistic, really, but as the old saying has it, "there are lies, ..."

The old BBC sports website was perhaps the best website I have ever used, but it has been butchered beyond belief. However, the BBC have allowed me to experience what many other websites have to offer in my search for somewhere to find my sports news and for that I have Cait O'Riordan and her team to thank.

Once upon a time there were just 'threads', now there are so many 'blogs' about one thing, a new website that the poor users of which, in massive numbers, well kinda really don't like??
Ben/Cait - why keep moving around to new 'blogs' is this only an attempt to diffuse all the criticism & so new readers of a 'blog' see only a few highly critical posts?
Surely, particularly given, all the criticism I would sincerely hope you are conferring on issues & you could issue 'joint statements' or at least post replies simultaneously on both 'blogs' so as to make it easy for all to follow?
I understand you are commenting on both technical & editorial issues so only comment on your own areas, but the problems with the new design overarch both areas.
All that really seems to be happening is that Cait's responses address issues that the BBC's own web pulishers should be seeing when previewing both the site as a whole & individual pages before uploading?
Given you're having to amend things based upon feedback on a blog (the only things you seem to be listening/replying to for some reason??) I would have thought this would have prompted your having to reconsider any confidence you had in your vaunted research prompting the changes & testers of the beta site.
What scares me that neither of you seems to be really addressing in your replies the main concerns we are raising which are that the 'relaunch' appears to actually be about how the BBC are able to manage the site & not what is seen by the users, also it really is a 'fait-a-complit' as, no matter how many complaints/negative comments are made, there is no possibility of regression to the users' preferred old version of the site?
Surely given your new 'all singing, all dancing' CPS, the viewer should not be the one who have to tell you links etc are wrong - is there a preview function?
Please both listen, make some concessions/amendments for the blog/Twitter/i-Player generation, but don't presume all your users want to suffer it?
Finally, yes, there was the use of the 'corporate' yellow on the previous sadly lamented version of the site, but the superior graphic design allowed that to be 'seen but not (visually) 'heard'.

69. At 22:38 9th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:

You are right we did change the site in 2008. We widened the site and added embedded video, but it was not a major refresh of site like the one we carried out last week and in 2003.

---------------------------

If 2008 you had a positive reaction to the "not major" refresh, in 2011 you did do a Major refresh and look at the reaction you've had. Do you think there might be a lesson in this that you could learn from? Maybe smaller steps, definitely with more consultation?

---------------------------

71. At 23:22 9th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:

One more thing tonight. Just curious to know what you think of the football league tables, e.g Premier League and Championship. Click on the chevrons (>) for more statistics.

---------------------------

One thing that's becoming more obvious is that when you do respond to the points raised it is either to seek clarification about the imperfect behaviour of the FOOTBALL page(s) or to reassure everyone that the FOOTBALL page(s) have been fixed.

Doesn't seem to gel with the "eight sports in the main menu"; "we still cover all sports" & "the new olympic feature7s / functions are wonderful (gush gush)". You are talking about the BBC Sports website not BBC Football website?

Just checking .....

Cait, it would seem virtually everyone who has posted thought the old site football pages were excellent compared to the so called 'major refresh'.....why can't the old functionality be kept in place???

And why can't the Vidiprinter be installed straight away? If it existed in the old version surely the coding can be included in the new pages?

Or even better, why not listen to the feedback and roll back to the old website that was a pleasure to use?

Why is the consistant negative issues around the football scores and pages being ignored??

@majorrich (60): We are looking at making it possible for you to look at football fixtures/results by day and to see goals go in across various leagues (aka the 'videprinter'). But I don't have any quick answers about how we are going to do implement this - these changes will take a bit longer to make than the tweaks we made today.

Good grief, is this at last an acknowledgement that the pages you were so proud of at the start of this blog might not be quite so wonderful after all?

Why will it take a long time to change them? They were fine in the previous incarnation of the site.

It may take a long time to change the web pages as Cait and her team have to have time to think of ways to justify messing them up even further. The sports website is truly disgusting now, and is no longer the shining example of web design that it once was. I used to rave about how well organised the BBC Sports website was, it is truly awful now and I use the Eurosport for sports news now. It is much easier to navigate and it is not yellow, thank God

"@majorrich (60): We are looking at making it possible for you to look at football fixtures/results by day and to see goals go in across various leagues (aka the 'videprinter'). But I don't have any quick answers about how we are going to do implement this - these changes will take a bit longer to make than the tweaks we made today."

This statement only goes to show that your design team doesn't seem to know what it is doing and makes it look very amateur, in design terms. Firstly the pages should not have gone live before thorough testing in all major browsers and a wide range of system setups, to ensure proper functionality. Secondly, if they know anything about coding surely they should know how to fix what they have now broken pretty sharpish? After all, the previous coding worked, the new coding doesn't. I only now visit the news pages (which are not the best in design terms but generally work) and thankfully the sport items on there warn you that the article is from BBC sport enabling you to avoid clicking on the link and exposing yourself to garish, headache inducing design. I also notice that on the BBC weather forecast and sport programmes on TV they are heavily promoting the web sites. Could this be because the number of people using them has declined massively since they were 'butchered'?

One last thing, really bad timing to 'screw up' your web design with the Olyimpics just around the corner and the possibility of a huge amount of new visitors coming to the BBC sport pages. Not a good advert for the quality, reliability and high standards which are expected from the BBC.

In the Football Tables the previous 10 games are colour-coded. I (and 5% - 8% of all males) suffer from normal colour-blindness which means I can't easily distinguish the colours. Is there any chance you could change this to W D L? and while you're at it, perhaps indicate which end of the 10 games is the most recent. Many thanks.

not related to olympics, but on the football pages when you view the league tables it shows the last 10 results as a series of coloured dashes.

Being colour blind i struggle to tell the difference between these.

I haven't had the patience to check the rest of the site due to it giving me a sore head just navigating round it, but thought i would mention this issue incase others have same problem.

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

66.At 22:12 9th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:
@majorrich (60): We are looking at making it possible for you to look at football fixtures/results by day and to see goals go in across various leagues (aka the 'videprinter'). But I don't have any quick answers about how we are going to do implement this - these changes will take a bit longer to make than the tweaks we made today.

Hi Cait
Thanks for your response.
Its as shame that it will take a while to fix. I'm still at a loss to understand how all of the research missed that this was such a popular tool & anyone thought it was a good idea to remove it.

As per #79 I am also one of the 5-8% of colour blind males (specifically red/green/brown) so this colour coding is also useless for me. W/ D/ L has worked for years. Why change it?

Thanks

@79 haha, the time it took me to read, go away and register and come back and post, i never checked if new posts so you got there first lol

i noticed on the fixtures bit there is a dropdown that shows the last 5 results of each team playing. there they use W/D/L so not sure why the decision to be inconsistent elsewhere on the site..

As per #82, I'm mildly colour-blind and would prefer past results in W/D/L form rather than your little coloured dashes.

More importantly, again as #82 asks, how could you go live not having realised how popular and useful the 'daily fixtures' and 'videprinter' features were? Please answer this question and explain why they can't be easily re-instated?

@Cait "We are also preparing a number of blog posts – one on the user testing and approach we took to redesigning the Sport site, another on the User Experience and Design work and an additional one on the technology that is helping us deliver all these improvements to the BBC Sport site."

How long do such posts take to write? You say were already working on it on Wed. morning, it's now Fri. night.

Not that I'm expecting them to be anything more that corporate-speak, but I could do with a good laugh. I wouldn't worry too much about the technology one; I'm mainly interested in the (lack of) usability of the site, not how it happens - although it would be good to know how much tax-payers money has been squandered on it.

Cait. Face it, admit it, the new Website has become the Costa Concordia of Sports Websites.

Based upon nearly 1500 posts across your two blogs the new website is a disaster, it's hit the rocks, people have abandoned her and she lies on her side with people watching from the shore awaiting her scrapping.

I am so pleased (not) Cait that you are proud of the Live Football Scores Page; are you similarly proud of the rest of the site.

A few people have already pointed this out too but we are not all obsessed by football. I have very little interest in the game and personally do not want to have it rammed down my throat at every single opportunity you have.

Your home page should be a general sports news page, with no specific lead other than the true lead of the day and yes that could be bl**dy football (if in the unlikley event there is anything remotely interesting in football going on), or it could be the tiddlywinks world championships. The actual sports coverage of individual sports should then be held on separate pages, for those of us who might have an interest in, let's be radical here, (in alphabetical order!) cricket, cycling, golf, rugby, tiddlywinks.

The BBC appears to think that it knows best and those of us with valid concerns about sports covereage are merely whinging unnecessarily but it really is about time you started to take people's concerns more seriously.

Ok, so i'm not really sure where to start. The website re-design is truly a massive failure on the part of the designers, the content editors and BBC management. I can only agree with what has been said thus far. The BBC sport website has been, for a few years to me at least, my first port of call for sports news and reaction. Now i actively avoid using the site. Everything is worse including, but not exclusive to, the colour schemes (even after re-yellowing and banner width adjustments), the usability and ease of navigation, the prioritising of certain sports and content on the homepage (always football) and the apparent loss of a huge amount of content on some pages (eg, formula 1 page).
By far the single worst problem, it would seem, is that there does not seem to be as many, or as regular, updates to the site including up to date stories and in depth articles. It feels as though the site design has a lot more to do with making it seem like there is more content where in actual fact there is less. i can only imagine this is, in real terms, what we should come to expect over the coming years as Auntie Beeb faces up to the licence fee freeze until 2017.

Listening to the late evening Radio Five Live programme that followed SPOTY last year, I was amazed at hearing cycling being called a minority sport.

I guess that is BBC Parlance for any sport that is not football, horse racing, cricket, motor racing, either code of rugby or tennis or gold, that is any sport that is in the catch all of Other Sport on BBC Red Button Digital Text and BBC Ceefax.


I realise the BBC is not the Paralympic broadcaster for the UK this year.

Forty six sports in total feature in the 2012 Summer Olympic and Parlaympic Games and, whilst I appreciate the BBC having a dedicated Olympic page, I would like to see the BBC and C4 come to an agreement on how Paralympic sport is to be reported on both BBC Online and Channel 4's website to raise the profile of Paralympians from home and abroad.

Try reading the as little as just the first paragraph of this article:
https://www.active-domain.com/resources/webdesign101.htm.
I think it says it all and it's one of hundreds of resources saying the same about web site design and presentation.

Just tried to use the new site for footie scores and it's not working properly "Our engineers are aware", so that's OK then.

Who on earth chose the bright yellow blue and green colour scheme for the latest scores page? It is actually hard to look at without squinting to darken it down a bit.

It's a real shame, as the content, as usual, is excellent, but the presentation is a complete mess. I'll pop back from time to time to see if it's improved, but for now, I'm off to find a decent alternative. Any suggestions?

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

Cait's previous blog entitled "Launching the new BBC Sport website" was launched at 07:05 UK time, Wednesday, 1 February.

On that blog page it stated "Staff from the BBC's online and technology teams talk about BBC Online, BBC iPlayer, and the BBC's digital and mobile services. The blog is reactively moderated. Posts are normally closed for comment after three months. Your host is Ian McDonald (IM).".

The last post is "164. At 16:38 8th Feb 2012, Cait ORiordan wrote:

I have written a new blog post discussing the launch of Olympics pages within the Sport site. I also discuss how we are addressing the feedback we have had on the new BBC Sport website so far. I talk about the yellow colour, video autoplaying and the bug in the navigation that makes it flash when you move between sections. This blog will soon be closed to new comments."

and - sure enough - it was.

Why oh why would a blog that would normally be open for 3 months be closed after just 7 days? Could be it the negative reaction? Clean slate etc?

The question is: how long will this blog last Cait? It's no more positve than the last one - are you going to close this one down early too? How long do we have left?

Are you going to be brave enough to leave this one open for 3 months?

Maybe Ian McDonald (IM) (as host) would care to explain the early closure of the previous blog?

Or is this one of those questions the BBC will not "chose to answer" (i.e. ignore)?

A question relating to the "wonderful" "fresh" "positively received regurgitated BBC Sport website. This relates to the Olympics sub-site.

Under the main menu "Olympic Sports" a drop-down menu lists:

1. Archery
2. Athletics
3. Badminton
4. Basketball
5. Beach Volleyball
6. Boxing
7. Canoe - Slalom
8. Canoe - Sprint
9. Cycling BMX
10. Cycling Mountain Bike
11. Cycling Road
12. Cycling Track
13. Diving
14. Equestrian
15. Fencing
16. Football
17. Gymnastics - Artistic
18. Gymnastics - Rhythmic
19. Gymnastics - Trampoline
20. Handball
21. Hockey
22. Judo
23. Modern Pentathlon
24. Rowing
25. Sailing
26. Shooting
27. Swimming
28. Synchronised Swimming
29. Table Tennis
30. Taekwondo
31. Tennis
32. Triathlon
33. Volleyball
34. Water Polo
35. Weightlifting
36. Wrestling

(I've added the numbers)

Now, on the Official site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (https://www.london2012.com/sport%29 there is a list of Olympic sports:

1. Archery
2. Athletics
3. Badminton
4. Basketball
5. Beach Volleyball
6. Boxing
7. Canoe Slalom
8. Canoe Sprint
9. Cycling – BMX
10. Cycling – Mountain Bike
11. Cycling – Road
12. Cycling – Track
13. Diving
14. Equestrian – Dressage
15. Equestrian – Eventing
16. Equestrian – Jumping
17. Fencing
18. Football
19. Gymnastics – Artistic
20. Gymnastics – Rhythmic
21. Gymnastics – Trampoline
22. Handball
23. Hockey
24. Judo
25. Modern Pentathlon
26. Rowing
27. Sailing
28. Shooting
29. Swimming
30. Synchronised Swimming
31. Table Tennis
32. Taekwondo
33. Tennis
34. Triathlon
35. Volleyball
36. Water Polo
37. Weightlifting
38. Wrestling

(Again I've added the numbers)

So - why the difference? Simple analysis will show that whilst LOCOG (The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) list 3 Equestrian sports the BBC lists them as one.

Part of the justification for the BBC Sport website redesign (a.k.a. trash the working system and replace it with one overwhelmingly criticised in the blogs) was that it would allow for and support coverage of the (all hallowed) Olympics.

What a shame the BBC cannot even get the list of sports correct in the quite lead-up to what undountedly will be a very hectic time during the games.

What chance that the BBC will get it right when the pressure is really on?

Does this conform to the editorial requirements for accuracy?

Should a lot of people at the BBC be fired as incompetent?

Why is this debacle being allowed to continue?

Why is no-one at the BBC responding to this mess?

Is anyone listening? Does anyone care? Why Not?

It looks like the BBC has just covered its ears and taken the opinion they are right and the sport loving public are wrong. They are yet to respond to formal complaints from myself and others with regards to this fiasco and to FOI requests with regard to the time and money wasted in producing such a poor product. Action is needed now and not after weeks and weeks and undoubtedly numerous new blogs telling us how good the site is and that we are all wrong as per the norm.

Just admit failure and give us a quality sports website.... which you used to have.

Cait,
Have you seen all the latest posts on Ben's (as ever unanswered) blog? Or have you actually tried to use the live update service yourself this weekend? Utterly useless.

You are losing people hand over fist with all these alternatives that are being recommended & nobody at the BBC seems to care. ..........

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

Utter rubbish, I have begun to get my football news from Yahoo Eurosport as that site does not make me spew, unlike the new BBC sports website. The old BBC sports website was a model of excellent web design and was extremely to use and navigate. The new is terrible, it is hard to navigate, hard to use and hard on the eyes. There has been many complaints and nobody likes it. Unless the old website is brought back people will go elsewhere for their sports news, as they are doing so already. Wake up andface the facts, the new website is unliked and you are getting less and less complaints, because your users are going elsewhere. I only return here to see if you have changed the website back and to induce some vomitting

Yours, a very annoyed ex-BBC website user

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.