Five Interesting Stories: January 2012
Post categories: ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport
| 10:11 UK time, Friday, 20 January 2012
A screen shot of the new 2012 portal
It's been a dark, dank, cold, grimy, drab and frankly start to the year.
However there have been some interesting stories about ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online. Here are five to tickle your jaded palate.
1. ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport has announced that (If you were lucky enough to be at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online Industry Briefing in November you would have seen a tiny taster).
The new year has brought a new look for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Olympic 2012 site. Roger Mosey has responded to some of the comments raised on his blog post:
@Andrew Yes, this is a portal only. Content is created across bbc.co.uk and manually placed on the portal. Without it, there wouldn't be one single place where you'd see everything we're doing about the Olympics and all things 2012... Where possible, we're inserting text or graphical links back to the portal in every relevant item of content. Providing the user sees the link, they can navigate back in this way.
2. Our very clever colleagues at ´óÏó´«Ã½ Research and Development are investigating
"An Affective Interface for Mood-Based Navigation". Or as Rosie Campbell puts it:
The problem of mood subjectivity will need to be addressed; since something I find humorous may not be so funny to you (this became apparent in our user trials where many people rated a serious documentary on 70s fashion as very humorous...)
3. An article in the Guardian unleased some speculation and chatter including:
...the debate, while in its infancy, is stimulating some fascinating responses. Lifelong freetards who refuse to pay for media content vow to pay for iPlayer shows, because they value the ´óÏó´«Ã½. While ´óÏó´«Ã½ supporters baulk at paying twice...
PC Advisor also
Just to be clear, it's worth quoting the original Guardian article at length:
However, a spokesman for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ said that this is not a "two-tier" licence fee system, but a micropayment to cover costs including payments that would have to be made to programme makers for the rights. "We never stop future-gazing at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and there are always a number of new ideas under discussion", said the spokesman. "Any such ideas would need to be developed in conjunction with the industry and with rights-holders and they would certainly not lead to a two-tier licence fee
4. Back at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ R&D blog Joanne Moore has reviewed research into how users feel about sharing their data:
When interviewing Facebook users, although concerned about the visibility of their personal information, it was identified that adjusting privacy settings is a one-time action, rarely revised.
5. ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer ended the year with a record breaking set of performance figures. The performance packs are no longer published on this blog but you can find them at the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Media Centre.
You can read interesting links about ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online on this blog's . We also gently guide these links into the Twitterverse on the .
Nick Reynolds is Accountability Executive, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online
Comment number 1.
At 20th Jan 2012, Hadden Uff wrote:Please don't do this.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 22nd Jan 2012, Sam wrote:NO! Pleas stop infecting the whole website with tragicitous roundaboutious. First the homepage, now 2012, and what looks like ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 25th Jan 2012, shermolly wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 11th Feb 2012, Franky wrote:You know with all the ´óÏó´«Ã½ cost cutting things going on why are the ´óÏó´«Ã½ paying for (a) revamping a perfectly good website (b) for a blogger who thinks this is the most exiciting stuff since - well the previous month?
Auntie - save a few pennies and ditch (a) and (b)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 11th Feb 2012, Franky wrote:Ohh, likes the new "reactively-moderated" thingy - obviously Aunties kiddies we're getting upset with the ones who actually pay their wages
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th Feb 2012, colinl wrote:I'll try to give you some useful responses to the points raised but i apologise if my tone seems a bit tetchy as i have been on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ sport site for a couple of hours now:
1. As has been covered on the previous blogs (regarding website launch etc) the new website is an unmitigated disaster. One great post called it the "Costa Cordia" of websites "lying smashed on the rocks".....
2. "An interface for mood navigation" you have got to be joking. As any licence fee payer will tell you, that is a complete and utter waste of time and licence fee. Please do not continue with these absurdities and please stop for one day, look yourselves in the mirror, take a deep breathe and then forget this hair-brained idea i beg you.
3. I think the argument about paying for any TV content is now completely out the window. In a couple of years time organisations such as Google, Apple and not forgetting YouView will be charging for some if not all content and that seems to be the way the whole market is headed. Wake up guys, in 2-3 years time, i kid you not, all terrestrial sport could be on Al-Jazeera the way things are going. (Check it out, they already have an enormous budget and screen a host of world-wide sport in America and other countries).
4. I have never spoken to anyone, ever, who wants their data spread online. Anyway what data? The clippet of article is so small it is almost meaningless. Can you not find anything useful to write about Nick?? Why should anyone at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ care about what Facebook users are concerned about. Thats Facebook's job. Concentrate on what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does, not other organisations.
5. Lets hope you don't ruin the Iplayer page as you have done the rest of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ sites.
Thanks for listening!!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 12th Feb 2012, Subtok wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)