Reshaping BBC Online

Close 606?please tell me this is a sick joke.

There seem to be two conflicting statements with regard to sports coverage.

Firstly, you compare the changes to the "early days of TV, when we simply filmed radio programmes". Yet you also you you won't "Invest in exclusive online sports rights".

If the website solely includes coverage of sports already featured on TV and radio then this would be a great loss. The use of the internet to cover sports or events which would not make it to TV or radio provides much needed publicity and is good public service. If left to commercial operators then much of this coverage simply wouldn't happen. Perhaps a reduction in coverage of sports already well served by commercial providers would be more appropriate.

Presumably the fact that you've spent a while sorting out H2G2 is because the decision to do that was taken before the decision to "dispose" of it?

Could you dispose of it by giving it to another organisation?

Other than the Today programme on Radio 4, almost all my radio listening is (and has been for years) through the Listen Again/iPlayer features - mainly from Radio 3, 4 and (mostly) BBC Radio 7.

With all the emphasis on 'live' radio, will I still be able to listen to programmes in 'catch-up' mode via the internet?

You mention that iPlayer will now not include radio programmes (having laboured long and hard to get them on there!), but radio will get its own product - how soon will we know about how that will work?

How does this impact on existing programme sites such as Doctor Who. Will it be downsized? What does this mean for exclusive online content such as the Doctor Who Adventure Games released last year?

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

Instead of cutting things like BBC iPlayer messageboard and reduce the salaries of big earners like Brucie?

I am fed up with the usual drivel such as Strictly and other reality TV shows, when is the BBC going start putting on more live snooker or football? For example why isn't the Welsh open available to all BBC regions and not just Wales?

I also hope that there will be a better way to report problems with BBC iPlayer as the 6 page comtact form is a joke.

Can somebody please comment on the "National" Political Blogs - Blether with Brian, Betsan's Blog, Blog Vaugh Roderick, Niall O'Gallacher's Blog Poileataigeach and Mark Devenport's Northern Irish Political Blog.

Some readers may be aware of a degree of controversy over the moderation of these blogs and we would all be keen to know if the BBC is simply "getting rid of some Elephants in the Room" by shutting these forums down.

This could be an opportunity for improvements to online radio output. Bringing it into the iPlayer fold broke a whole slew of methods of consuming radio, hopefully this new product will work better for listening online.

If the expected quality of the new direction can be seen in your article graphics then we are in big trouble.

They look like mumbo jumbo PR nonsense that shows nothing of meaning but could perhaps amuse someone in primary school for a few minutes (while they designed them).

Putting Quality First my a***!

BBC Online will not:
...
Offer specialist news content for specialist audiences

What does this mean ? No sports, no politics, no science ?

You say "Doing Fewer Things, Better ...and BBC iPlayer are two of our most popular websites, and it’s no coincidence that they are run as products already" only then to announce The closure of the ... BBC iPlayer message board

The BBC history of software releases including the many problems with iPlayer Desktop does not seem to be what would be expected from a BBC flagship product. The support for users of iPlayer is not good, and surely will only deteriorate once the messageboard is closed down.

RADIO we’ll develop a new stand-alone product. How long is that going to take, and will it work properly. You seem to have ongoing problems with Radio on iPlayer and the other stream types at present, especially for overseas users. How are the users going to get support? By using the Contact form no doubt? I am sure you have read users opinion of how well the Contact Forms do or do NOT work, even BBC management agrees there are problems with that method of user support.

So these sites are being shut down completely? Since these websites were create with the tax payers money via the TV licensing and BBC trust funds could some of these sites not live on in the hands of the community? Could the concept or site itself be gradually handed over to the public to manage? They could be taken over in responsibility by a 3rd party company or volunteer group similar to how open source projects work...... adoption of these sites it better then their abortion...

@Erik, re: "we are only just beginning to understand the huge potential of the internet, not just as a platform, but its creative potential."

If you're shedding h2g2, that's a clear sign that you don't. Instead of nurturing "creative potential" you are just aggregating and rebranding Twitter feeds, RSS and other "outside" sources with no real creativity from your end at all.

A separate standalone product for radio? Please say you are going to offer Listen again services... and how is this going to work in a cross-platform manner?

Frontier Silicon to my Roberts unit... or will it be a simple matter of offering a choice of streams off a website to my N900? Or would I see the content become visible in Totem on my Ubuntu kit?

iPlayer 2 was wonderful by comparison. We wouldn't even mind if it was all fed through iPlayer if the Beeb offered source-code so that distribution devs could deal with downstream compiling and testing...

What a cack-handed decision by the Trust...

Well as Julian #12 above mentioned it's not for us. The BBC is supposed to be for all the people who are in the UK (you don't have to live in the UK just be around. This implies is offerings have to be for a longtailed audience distibution, with may be some black swans as well.

So "Radio will focus on live output, and the discovery of new music as played and recommended by BBC DJs and iconic musicians" so no LISTEN AGAIN to talk (eg In Our Time) or File on 4, no jazz or art music, brass bands or folk (they don't have DJ's but maybe Dylan will get a look in) and especially one suspects no ethics or religion ... not even the 'humanists' no drama either. And nothing special from Manchester, or Newcastle or even Birmingham on the web. Maybe a tweet from Salford. (Media City whose live radio output perhaps will disappear as well.)

No don't just forget it... just fondly remember when the BBC was not governed by products.. (called programmes but not one is mentioned) and the need to make offer a clear field to the commercial interests (the new 'local' TV network for example (that why no 'what's on' local websites).

I take it the Trust has approved all this (without counsultation?)

Closing 606 is a utterly foolish. How many users per day?

We provide feedback on sporting subjects for your shows and primarily your BBC Sport website.

You will no doubt significantly increase the advertising revenue on the Sky Sports News website due to this as that is where a large chunk of the 606 community is going to head.

606 was about the sports fan having a say on what was going on in the world of sport via various forms of your media. A say that you are removing from the licence fee payer.

This decision is an absolute disgrace and a decision that has obviously made by someone who is no fan of sport and is concerned for their own personal welfare.

There is nothing wrong with seeking efficiencies in online content and 'retiring' older sites. There's also nothing wrong with focusing on core business. However, there are serious issues that need to be addressed for this rationalisation to take place, and which are not adequately covered in the above article.

1. When retiring older sites, content MUST be allowed to be reposted elsewhere, or retained in an archive. The public may be interested in assisting with this process.

2. It is noted that search has an important role, but there is no mention of the use of indexes and cross-referencing of content pages. At present, navigation to BBC built content is a matter of learning the links, and search results (in spite of improvements) are still less than ideal. It speaks volumes that the manner in which one can access this very blog is through a tiny link in the footer of the BBC homepage and then a second link from the About the BBC page. We need less focus on look and feel and more focus on functionality. Why do you think Wikipedia is so popular, despite looking desperately old-fashioned?

3. It's fine not to offer specialist information, but it is *essential* to link to that 3rd party material from relevant BBC sites. If the BBC is to "do less, better" and still live up to its strategy to "do more to serve all audiences", then it needs to acknowledge its curatorial role in providing access to additional information services and sites.

4. Given the published objective of cutting the BBC Online budget by £34m, and in line with the Trust strategy to set new standards in openness and transparency, it would be advisable for the BBC to publish precise numbers of costs of bandwidth, hosting, and development and maintenance of BBC websites, and to identify where savings will be occurring. Not only would this identify key business opportunities for commercial content creators (particularly for content BBC no longer wishes to supply), it may well provide the opportunity for the community to recommend additional cost-savings to the BBC.

5. BBC should be clear about who will be driving these changes, deadlines for delivery and how the savings made will be redeployed through the business. Erik Huggers has already announced he is leaving BBC for Intel at the end of February, and the BBC Online division is being broken up into Future Media and Technology departments. How are the budget cuts being deployed in each of these departments? While it may *appear* that Future Media is mostly affected by the content cuts, indexing, search and navigation is the focus of the Technology division. Who will be driving these cuts in departments and what areas will benefit?

As I say, I have no problem with seeking efficiencies in publication of online content, and I am glad Huggers has posted this manifesto. However, I think there is now a distinct need for a more transparent and consultative approach to the reshaping of BBC content online if the institution is to achieve both the recognition and the value it seeks.

Joanne Jacobs
Technology Consultant

A couple of points of clarification on the Trust's report if I may:

Trust: "Following a pan BBC review of Reach, Quality, Impact and Value ("RQIV") metrics, BBC Online will adopt AI as its lead quality metric."

- What is 'AI'?

Trust: "Net Promoter will now become the lead audience-facing measure of impact"

- Who is 'Net Promoter'?

(I could not find these terms explained in the Trust Report.)

Russ

Ridicolous decision regarding 606.

I am deeply disappointed and angered by the decision to close 606, but I am also deeply perturbed by this:

•A reduction in the overall amount of Sports news and live sport

How can you justify this? What will not be covered that is currently covered? You have a duty to support live sport and sports news given the number of sports fans in this country. Not to mention the Olympics on the horizon.

Having seen 2 uses of Rio Ferdinands Twitter feed on BBC News and Sport today alone, this is the beginning of the end of the BBC.

RIP BBC, it was good while it lasted.

I do hope that all radio programmes will still be available to listen to for 7 days as now. Surely anything else would be a huge back-ward step.

If you expect to rely increasingly on external networks and applications to deliver content in place of in-house solutions, what are the implications of this for the BBC's non-commercial remit? And what happens when those services go bust? The disbanding of FM&T seems more than a little short-sighted. Not only will the BBC and its audience become dependent on foreign corporations, but also subject to the whims of foreign governments - as the recent wikileaks episode demonstrated.

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

The bbc is the victim of it,s own success and when it starts to hurt commercial sites and their money streams the bbc gets leaned on from high

If they shut the messageboard how do we report problems? Granted I doubt anybody from the BBC actually visit the messageboard.

People only go on BBC website to go on 606, shocking, you should be ashamed BBC...

spot on closing 606 - they got moderation completely wrong which made it unusable anyway, and its not the BBC's job to sustain it. The BBC's job is to produce content, not manage user-generated forums. that task belongs to the internet at large, and commercial/hobbyist concerns.

I wrote to the BBC with a long explanation of 606's shortcomings after I had an article removed, which ended up with me explaining why I wouldn't be using it any more and what they needed to do to stop it becoming increasingly irrelevant. They clearly thought, hmm he's right but the other option would be just to close it. bravo. *deluded*

The BBC still controls all of the data that has passed through the likes of 606, such as user accounts, posts, etc.

Why can't the BBC make this all freely available, so that someone can host the 606 forum elsewhere? In the few months until 606 is closed I bet the web guys at the BBC could sanitise the database and provide the user accounts on request to people looking to revive the website under different forums.

In the same vein, why not sell 606 to the highest bidder? I bet that Sky would be more than willing to take that many visitors off of the BBC.

I think we need more clarification as to if we will be able to 'Listen Again' to radio programmes. I'm sure I won't be the only listener to be appalled to hear that it is going to be discontinued. I use it several times a day as most of the good shows are on at the most unearthly hours for many listeners.
I have noticed the lack of reminders to 'listen again' via the iPlayer over the last few weeks though. Maybe they think we will soon forget about it and therefore not want to use it?
Very bad news for listeners to a service which pre dates the TV service that allows you to 'listen again'.

@Mike I agree. the software structure of 606 is fantastic. I might write in, see if they'd be willing to give it away.

Why does every top bod in the BBC talk about halving the number of top level domain in use? There are a number of sub directories eg /news /sport etc but only 1 tld (that is the bit that comeas after bbc ie .co.uk

It would be very helpful if senior figures involved in BBC Online could actually get their terminology correct......

Like many other listeners, I listen to BBC Radio programmes on a Reciva-enabled internet radio device, both live and using the extremely useful 'On Demand' feature.

1. Will BBC Radio still be available, as it is now, on Reciva-enabled internet radios?

2. Will the 'On Demand' feature still be available, as it is now, on Reciva-enabled internet radios?

Is there any news regarding closure of excellent resources, linked to BBC popular TV shows such as "Who do you think are"? I have found the the likes of https://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbhistory/F2233810 to be not only a wonderful resource, but a great social community of like minded people.

I'm starting question what the BBC stands for. My loyalty is getting brought into question. I am sure there a far better ways to save money than closing messageboards, blogs and discussion mediums which keeps people coming back to the BBC.

I reiterate Dogmatix's comments. Will I be able to listen again to radio content on-demand?

Will the new Radioplayer offer these as naked streams accessible directly by any device? And easily searchable as they are now? What about series-linking etc as they are now under iPlayer?

Considering that at the moment I no longer have a tape deck or audio recorder rigged up in the way i had to back in the day...

Short-sighted view by the Beeb if this isn't offered... Yes - I know most of radio listening may be live... but I DO listen on-demand... mostly on my Roberts radio.. but if I was on holiday somewhere - I would be using my N900... or my netbook... or my lappie...

@bridget, he doesn't answer our points: namely, that the 606 software structure is excellent. Would the BBC consider handing it to an independent concern to continue?

If the online budget is being scaled back, will the overall wages bill of those in FM&T be also be scaled back accordingly?

If you've less to look after, you'll be paid less, no?

This is a sad day indeed for the BBC, bot only for those who will be losing their jobs, but also the loss of an excellent, trusted on-line presence which has given so many people so much pleasure over the years.

The ability to send feedback, ask questions and discuss topics in on-line forums has been invaluable and I sincerely hope that the BBC will not totally remove the ability to communicate through messageboards.

I fear in this move the BBC will be losing the baby with the bathwater :-(

I live in the USA and am a regular poster on 606. Like many I have no other interest in BBC services.

Luckily as running a furum is so incredibly cheap, plenty of relacements have appeared already.

I expect cutting the 606 budget won't even fund the fancy artwork on this report to announce it is cut.

How long have we got before the iPlayer boards close down?

Ben Gallop states 606 contributors will still be encouraged to comment, & then promptly tells us...

'This entry is closed for comment.' A sign of things to come?

There's a link to this blog, so I'll have my say on here before Mr Huggers decides to close this one too.

""Standalone forums, communities, message-boards and blogs to be reduced and replaced with integrated social tools"" what the hell is a integrated social tool??????

@ 46

I'd put my money on the overuse of Twits, and "Look-at-Me" book.

43. At 8:14pm on 25 Jan 2011, Simon-in-Oklahoma 0 wrote:
I expect cutting the 606 budget won't even fund the fancy artwork on this report to announce it is cut.
---------------------------------------------------

My comment at 11 is awaiting moderation probably as I put my view on the artwork a little stronger!

In moderation for almost two days!

Closing down 606 would be the single most stupid thing BBC has ever done and it will definitely come back to bite them where it hurts. I'd like to know the cost and strategic benefits of this decision. Why is Erik Huggers being given a say in this BBC re-org anyway when he's jumping to Intel as corporate vice president? This is the same chap who spent £639 on one single taxi fair and claimed it back on expenses. Who makes him so important that he can waste away tax payer's money in this manner and then proceed to ruin one of the major attractions of the BBC website.

I'm another happy contributor to the BBC 606 forums who cannot believe this excellent service is being axed. The timing of this beggars belief. Probably the best sports forum on the net will be closing one year ahead of the largest and greatest sporting event ever to be hosted on British soil, the 2012 London Olympics.

No doubt the BBC intend to cover this event extensively. So why remove a live and vital forum that could contribute to BBC journalist's work free of charge!

The other thing I notice is the forum is being closed. Not sold. I am sure the BBC Bean-Counters could be made very happy if they kept the site open and used some of the white-space available for advertising. Maybe there is too much effort for the BBC in finding advertisers. OK, so sell it! It can't be much good because your planning on closing it. I'm sure nobody would have the business accumen to get 606 forums into a position to compete with your "integrated social tools".

Hmmmm we're not exactly grasping a nettle there, are we Auntie Beeb? Methinks there is considerable doubt in the ability to adequately replace this excellent service. Otherwise you would do exactly that. Sell 606 and cash in before destrying it with a superior service! Thats what businessmen would do!

I'm sorry, hold your horses there!
Lovely diagrams, really they are.

But the money shamelessly wasted (not least on this analysis of your current online service) on quite dreadful BBC programming, would pay for BBC 606 hundreds of times over... and you know it!

Spurious diagrams supposedly simulating a diffused output are shameful. 606 is a well organised, successful and extremely popular online service. Compare that to:
Your Saturday evening TV schedule, which has an emetic effect at best.
Your ridiculous presentation of the weather on TV, which stops at a random minute of the next day's forecast to include all areas of the UK in microscopic detail, yet speeds through the rest as if it were using amphetamines opening out onto a wide shot that includes most of Benelux and Scandinavia!!! Bring back Michael Fish and his velcro stickers. He never used to spend hours saying what the weather in Peru had been yesterday.
Radio 5. Or Radio Smug as a friend of mine accurately dubs it.
I'm too old to appreciate Radio 1. I did hear Fern Cotton spending a morning discussing the shaving of her armpits but maybe it was just as anodyne years ago, I can't remember.
Radio 4 and BBC 606 are the only things about the BBC I wholly respect, and NOW YOU'RE GETTING RID OF ONE OF THEM!!
[doh]
Good job you're not the same organisation that paid Jonathan Woss £18m a year - oh no, that WAS you wasn't it?

Sort it out. Why continue to buy a license if all you serve up on your simply massive budget, is pure unadulterated pap?

Lose the dross, but keep the quality - surely not too difficult a concept?

BBC, please read the following 2007 document from the BBC Trust. The first paragraph is very relevant to the existence and future of 606:
"BBC Public Purpose Remit"
"Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities".
"You can rely on the BBC to reflect the many communities that exist in the UK. These communities may be based on geography, on faith, on language, or on a shared interest such as sport. You can expect the BBC to stimulate debate within and between the communities of the UK, and to encourage people to get involved with their local communities".
I cannot think of a more eloquent statement as to why 606 should be maintained! Isn't this what the BBC should be all about?????
The link to the document is here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/purpose_remits/nations.pdf

As others have said: BBC bloggers continue to refer to top level domains and TLDs, whereas in fact they seem to mean directories.

It's important to get this right: the BBC is proposing major changes, and senior staff should express this in a way that's clear and accurate, and shows an understanding of what is planned.

In my view the BBC could reduce expenses by reducing the number of overpaid so called "celebrities" on their books. Why cut services when the answer to planning for a reduced budget is so simple? Cut out the dead wood - mainly on TV. I mean, for instance, just how many Chefs do you need for crying out loud???

Finally, what criteria is used to determine what stays and what goes anyway? Are we, the users,the public (the licence payers), consulted, or are we looking at a dictatorship here?

Good wishes for California, Eric!

You are right to identify main product areas for BBC Online.
This is not simple: there are eleven (11) tabs listed towards the bottom of the "All Blogs" webpage:

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs

including TV, Radio, Music Art & Culture, Language etc.
It will require very clear signposting to organise these Blogs under the 5 headings you have stated in your article

good wishes
nikki

'Doing Fewer Things, Better'

Well, in some sectors, bonusses kick in when you meet 50% of target, so kudos.

Still grappling with how spreading the existing barely credible content even more thinly across ever more super-sexy media avenues qualifies on the first count either.

At least I may have swung in under 400 chars. You could even tweet most. Then it can get picked up as 'news'.

was the h2g2 MOT an exercise in market testing with a view to disposing of the site, or just a waste of licence fee payers(of which i am one) money???

@Sir_Luther_Blissett_SAVE_606, #51

"Radio 4 and BBC 606 are the only things about the BBC I wholly respect, and NOW YOU'RE GETTING RID OF ONE OF THEM!!"

In Scotland, Freeview users have had Radio 4 taken away during peak times. And the World Service. :-(

The BBC's online "policies" are a sort of rolling worst-case scenario; just when you think it can't get any worse, it does. (I'm thinking at the moment about the closure of the "Ouch!" boards, but by the time you read this I'm sure another dizzyingly stupid example will have come along to dwarf that...)

Remember, the budget for *all* the IT services and positions the BBC got rid of, for a *year*, could be paid by missing out on one *hour* of prime-time BBC1. That's one *hour* of a dark screen to fund Online for one *year*. But BBC Management like to think in percentages, not absolute amounts, so they set out to cut 25% across the board, ignoring the fact that this huge disruption to any number of stable communities and message boards is saving them *nothing* in the grand overall scheme of things.

And BBC Online is a mess now. Every software "fix" seems to add two more bugs, one of which was "fixed" before.

Job well done, Erik.

Well, i'm new to bbc online so I guess I would notice any changes. I watch it all the time at though.