´óÏó´«Ã½ Strategy Review: a brief round up
Post categories: accountability,Ìýround up
| 11:48 UK time, Tuesday, 2 March 2010
As a follow up to yesterday's round up ("Corporation's web pages are to be halved") you might be interested in a few things that have been published this morning.
Mark Thompson has blogged on the About the ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog about the Strategy Review:
"The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has one mission: to inform, educate and entertain audiences with programmes and services of high quality, originality and value. That is not up for debate. What today is about is how we are going to deliver that mission."
You can download the Strategy Review from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust website and read all 70 odd pages for yourself. This is one section (on page 36) that caught my attention and perhaps explains the cutting the number of webpages in half confusion.
"The number of sections on the site (its 'top-level directories', which the public find through addresses in the form: bbc.co.uk/sitename) will be halved by 2012, with many sites closed and others consolidated, so that the sharpened focus of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online will be visible in the structure of the service..."
There's now a 12 week public consultation during which before the Trust publishes its final conclusions.
The Guardian this morning. There's also the hastag if you'd like to follow the action there.
Paul Murphy is still the Editor of of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Internet blog (as far as he knows).
Comment number 1.
At 2nd Mar 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:Question:
If C´óÏó´«Ã½ is to be extended to 9pm does that mean that ´óÏó´«Ã½3 or 4 will start later - this is unacceptable!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 2nd Mar 2010, Blind Alley wrote:@ 1
It would certainly be unacceptable if ´óÏó´«Ã½ 4 started later....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th Mar 2010, Trev wrote:I am not happy about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ doing this review. I think a review is badly need but it should be independent and outside the ´óÏó´«Ã½. The big questions are what do we want from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and should it be continued to be financed by the licence fee?.
The licence fee made sense in the early days of radio and television but that is not so clear in the multi channel enviroment. My view is that the licence fee should be scrapped or only used for a genuine public service. For me this has been the big failure of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in that its public service broadcasting has become minimal.
As for the stratery review there is almost no mention of HDTV which causes one to conclude that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ do not have a stratergy for HD or they don't want anyone to know about it. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ HD channel with 9 hours of low quality mish mash of other channels is pathetic.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th Mar 2010, Russ wrote:Paul, could you please publish the list of the current four hundred top-level domains. (Should be a simple copy and paste job from your server.)
Russ
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th Mar 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:4. At 10:50am on 09 Mar 2010, Russ wrote:
"Paul, could you please publish the list of the current four hundred top-level domains."
What am I missing here, surely the is the country, area or type domain (.uk .com .gov .eu .biz and so on), as defined by ICANN!
I think Russ meant the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s top level directory's... :)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 9th Mar 2010, Russ wrote:Correct, Boilerplated. I was merely using the term 'domains' as is being banded around elsewhere in the media, and since it is the term being used by Erik Huggers, Head of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online, I thought I would stick to it.
You and I of course know them more accurately as 'directories'.
Russ
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 20th May 2010, talat wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 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 10)