I didn't mean to try and drag you into the car crash that was\is 6-0-6 (I
already said that this was the wrong place to discuss it), I was just
wondering if the messageboard software would be FLOSSed, so it's development
was more like that slashcode. I'm a also regular reader of /., and they
recently had a trial of the threading in "discussion 2.02", indeed, it's
ongoing. The firehose also looks interesting:
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl Whereas the BBC has just imposed
developments from on high, and us users never get to look at the beta stuff
to suggest improvements and developments.Sorry to go back to 6-0-6, but I
was a so called tester for the new system, I had no way to communicate with
the devs of the new system, just a layer of management who mostly ignored
what I said anyway.

Given that a recent EU study (
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/0113235 )  has shown
the  benifits of FLOSS, why can't the BBC monolith move to an open
development system? Surely the BBC should lead the way in opening up it's
internal proprietary junk, after all as a licence fee payer I've already
paid for it, and not only am I willing to test it, I'm willing to submit
bugs via an open bug tracking system a la bugzilla, and maybe even develop
for it. What with the new licence fee settlement, it's a cheaper and better
way to get things done. Personally the engine that's used in sports\celeb
daq is something else I'd like to use.

On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 You're not dragging me into that whole 606 thing :-)

I was referring to threading as seen on www.slashdot.org (via slashcode),
where a converation has a (seemingly) unlimited heirarchy of replies, rather
than traditional messageboard threading based on user topic (as seen on
606).

News' messageboards are from Jivesoft, 606 etc are done internally by DNA.
Different systems.

One little known requirement of the Have Your Say thing...

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4895 (arabic)
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4954 (urdu)
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4958 (persian)
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4959 (russian)

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=4960&start=0&tstart=0&zh=simp
 (chinese
simplified)
etc... http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/

J

 ------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>[mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
*On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
*Sent:* 19 January 2007 11:48
*To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>
*Subject:* Re: [backstage] crappy "have your say" forum



On 19/01/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
>
> I'd imagine threaded conversations (which I think is what you are
> suggesting) are difficult from a usability perspective, as well as
> technically.
>
> Remember this system is probably the first time many users have used a
> messageboard, and this sucker needs to scale like crazy - given the
> large numbers bbc.co.uk pushes (2.5bn pages/month on average [1]),
> particularly when a big news story happens.
>

That's not the reason at all, the BBC used to have a decent message board
system (well an OK one) for it's 6-0-6 message boards, they've replaced it
with a blog-like structure against the wishes of most of it's users. In his
own blog, the sports editor, Chris Russell was forced to admit it was "too
popular" and was being changed more or less to make it harder for people.

A similar thing has happened to the today message boards, now only the
hacks are allowed to post topics, not the users, this was also the first
step in the destruction of the 6-0-6 message boards. The problem is one of a
lack of good hardware, not a software one. Basically the BBC needs to beef
up the servers that are hosting the message boards.

Reply via email to