Re: [backstage] built with
At 12:47 +0100 19/9/07, Simon Cobb wrote: I'm liking this site: http://builtwith.com/http://builtwith.com/ Shows you what a site is, er, built with example: http://builtwith.com/default.aspx?backstage.bbc.co.ukhttp://builtwith.com/default.aspx?backstage.bbc.co.uk Most of my sites are built with Emacs... Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] built with
On 26/09/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of my sites are built with Emacs... Gordo We all know you love vi really... ;p Personally I use notepad++ http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm for my web development needs; I've heard it's good with other languages too, but I like a good chunky IDE I'm afraid. Vijay.
[backstage] Voting data ideas
Hi all, I have my BBC hat back on at the moment, and one of the things I am working on is a project to do with online voting and ratings. Part of my brief is to explore how the BBC might utilise and re-use information and data gathered via voting, and hopefully make a business case for releasing it. So, whilst trying to avoid a response along the lines of Can we have all the data, in as many different formats as possible, I wondered what kind of data would you like to play with, what formats would be handy, what time intervals, and what can you imagine doing with it. When talking about voting data I'm thinking of examples like... The Daily Mini-Quiz on the Magazine - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm Votes on local BBC sites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/raw/favourite_childrens_book_east_feature.s html Votes on CBBC Newsround - http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158. stm And also things like the Player Rater http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm (which I can't find an open example of, I think you'll have to have a look for them around 3pm on Saturday) What I'm interested in is hearing any ideas you might have about including that kind of data in prototypes, how you might track it over time or by topic and so on. Just to be clear, this isn't a trawl for your IP so I can go and get stuff built. It is so I can put into a document something along the lines of - And one of the reasons that releasing the data direct to the web is a GOOD THING and the RIGHT THING to do is that it only took n hours for the lovely BBC Backstage community to come up with x fantastic applications for the data Ideas welcome on or off-list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] And please don't mention the Blue Peter cat All the best, martin - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas
Martin, Did you read this? http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html Comment -- If you think the nation decides, think again Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for the silent majority *Carol Sarler Sunday September 23, 2007 The Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/* Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its recent troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter than the naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that the producers asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but when the votes were totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either 'Pussy' or, apparently equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at first deemed inappropriate, so they fibbed and declared victory for 'Socks'. Heaps of shame, tons of opprobrium, inquisition to follow. I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither do they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport. Good money says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the kind of people - indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the unparalleled hilarity of calling themselves Jedi on a census form. But that is why I do blame the BBC for offering the vote in the first place, be it on Blue Peter, on Strictly Come Dancing or on any of the rash of programming stunts that permit the bold declaration: 'You, the nation, decides!' It sounds fearfully modern and embraces buzzwords like 'interactive' and 'inclusive'; in fact, all it is doing is adding to the already alarming degree of power held by meaningless, self-selected samples. The communications media have always been especially susceptible to these groups; broadcasters refer to switchboards being 'jammed with complaints' that actually number perhaps 80 out of the 10 million who watched a show. The 80 will have been agitated by a predictable pushing of buttons - cussing, for instance - that matters greatly to them, but little to the millions. By the same token, the Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells might muster only a dozen letters to the editor on a single subject but, on a national newspaper, that is usually enough to guarantee publication of at least one. So be it; t'was ever thus. These days, however, in what some like to believe is democratisation ably assisted by technology, minority viewpoints are becoming jolly noisy. The advent of phone-in radio has expanded to fill entire networks 24 hours a day, as small numbers of citizens snuggle up together, warmed by the illusion that because their views are shared they are widely shared. Email has allowed for a massive growth in pyramid protest: if somebody is thought to have committed insult, one person emails 10 who each email 10 more, passing on a cut-and-paste letter to the offending person or organisation that then pings in by the hundred, regardless of how many of the protesters ever saw or heard the original 'insult' (transsexuals and Cliff Richard fans, for some reason, are particularly quick off the mark). In print, the web now facilitates and even encourages readers to enjoin in dialogue. Last week, for example, I wrote a defence on these pages of scientists trying to breed pigs which might one day provide hearts for human transplant. Within hours, a reader had posted the warning that, given our souls reside in our hearts, recipients would thus have the souls of pigs. It matters not that you or I or a million other Observer readers would know immediately that this is a chap to avoid at full moon; he selected himself as a contributor to the blog, we did not. And so what? you cry. Shall we deny him his say? What manner of libertarian would disallow a voice? Not this one, certainly: pig-botherers notwithstanding, bring them on - the expansion of communication is one of the attributes of this generation of which we can be properly proud. But, and it is a big but, if self-selected samples of opinion are to continue to expand, so should our caution in estimating their value. Instead, we seem to be more, not less, slipshod in our interpretation to the point where we confuse volume as in noise with volume as in quantity. The eight out of 10 cat-owners who expressed a preference are now just too clumsy to be bothered with. When Ant and Dec, or that breathy girl from The X Factor, announce that 'the nation has chosen', they skip the bit about 'the bunch of sad gits who stay home on Saturdays and waste money on premium-rate telephone calls has chosen' (self included, by the way). We devour survey results, careless of method: last week, a poll 'revealed' that two out of three people are unhappy. Now, leaving aside that I'd give teeth to see how the questions were phrased, what this actually meant was that two out
RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas
No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when the correct reaction is You did *what*? - most of those views are probably more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-) martin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 26 September 2007 17:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas Martin, Did you read this? http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html Comment If you think the nation decides, think again Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for the silent majority Carol Sarler Sunday September 23, 2007 The Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/ Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its recent troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter than the naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that the producers asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but when the votes were totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either 'Pussy' or, apparently equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at first deemed inappropriate, so they fibbed and declared victory for 'Socks'. Heaps of shame, tons of opprobrium, inquisition to follow. I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither do they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport. Good money says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the kind of people - indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the unparalleled hilarity of calling themselves Jedi on a census form. But that is why I do blame the BBC for offering the vote in the first place, be it on Blue Peter, on Strictly Come Dancing or on any of the rash of programming stunts that permit the bold declaration: 'You, the nation, decides!' It sounds fearfully modern and embraces buzzwords like 'interactive' and 'inclusive'; in fact, all it is doing is adding to the already alarming degree of power held by meaningless, self-selected samples. The communications media have always been especially susceptible to these groups; broadcasters refer to switchboards being 'jammed with complaints' that actually number perhaps 80 out of the 10 million who watched a show. The 80 will have been agitated by a predictable pushing of buttons - cussing, for instance - that matters greatly to them, but little to the millions. By the same token, the Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells might muster only a dozen letters to the editor on a single subject but, on a national newspaper, that is usually enough to guarantee publication of at least one. So be it; t'was ever thus. These days, however, in what some like to believe is democratisation ably assisted by technology, minority viewpoints are becoming jolly noisy. The advent of phone-in radio has expanded to fill entire networks 24 hours a day, as small numbers of citizens snuggle up together, warmed by the illusion that because their views are shared they are widely shared. Email has allowed for a massive growth in pyramid protest: if somebody is thought to have committed insult, one person emails 10 who each email 10 more, passing on a cut-and-paste letter to the offending person or organisation that then pings in by the hundred, regardless of how many of the protesters ever saw or heard the original 'insult' (transsexuals and Cliff Richard fans, for some reason, are particularly quick off the mark). In print, the web now facilitates and even encourages readers to enjoin in dialogue. Last week, for example, I wrote a defence on these pages of scientists trying to breed pigs which might one day provide hearts for human transplant. Within hours, a reader had posted the warning that, given our souls reside in our hearts, recipients would thus have the souls of pigs. It matters not that you or I or a million other Observer readers would know immediately that this is a chap to avoid at full moon; he selected himself as a contributor to the blog, we did not. And so what? you cry. Shall we deny him his say? What manner of libertarian would disallow a voice? Not this one, certainly: pig-botherers notwithstanding, bring them on - the expansion of communication is one of the attributes of this generation of which we can be properly proud. But, and it is a big but, if self-selected samples of opinion are to continue to expand, so should our caution in estimating their value. Instead, we seem to be more, not less, slipshod in our interpretation to the point where we confuse volume as in noise with volume as in quantity. The
Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas
Whilst I applaud your effort, I inherently distrust online polls, and cs disclaimed on a site that we're all familiar with: This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane. So the most intrestind data to me would be data that would allow us to see the level of ballot stuffig. Votes by IP would be ideal, but releaseing would those probably against the data protection act, the next best thing would be votes by geographical area and\or ISP regards, Vijay. On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Part of my brief is to explore how the BBC might utilise and re-use information and data gathered via voting, and hopefully make a business case for releasing it. When talking about voting data I'm thinking of examples like... The Daily Mini-Quiz on the Magazine - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm Votes on local BBC sites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/raw/favourite_childrens_book_east_feature.s html Votes on CBBC Newsround - http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158 . stm And also things like the Player Rater http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm (which I can't find an open example of, I think you'll have to have a look for them around 3pm on Saturday) What I'm interested in is hearing any ideas you might have about including that kind of data in prototypes, how you might track it over time or by topic and so on.
RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas
Leaving the last digit from the last octet out would be fine, though? Then you could group by IP addresses for purposes like fraud checking and suchlike. I'm sure the BBC sites always say that standard information such as browser and IP address will be collected whenever you submit information to the server, so that's a fairly standard get-out clause. There's bugger all you can really do with an IP address, even a complete one, unless you're a malicious fellow with a botnet behind you. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 26 September 2007 18:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas Whilst I applaud your effort, I inherently distrust online polls, and cs disclaimed on a site that we're all familiar with: This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane. So the most intrestind data to me would be data that would allow us to see the level of ballot stuffig. Votes by IP would be ideal, but releaseing would those probably against the data protection act, the next best thing would be votes by geographical area and\or ISP regards, Vijay. On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Part of my brief is to explore how the BBC might utilise and re-use information and data gathered via voting, and hopefully make a business case for releasing it. When talking about voting data I'm thinking of examples like... The Daily Mini-Quiz on the Magazine - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm Votes on local BBC sites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/raw/favourite_childrens_book_east_feature.s html Votes on CBBC Newsround - http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158 http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158 . stm And also things like the Player Rater http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm (which I can't find an open example of, I think you'll have to have a look for them around 3pm on Saturday) What I'm interested in is hearing any ideas you might have about including that kind of data in prototypes, how you might track it over time or by topic and so on.
RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas
At 17:40 +0100 26/9/07, Martin Belam wrote: No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when the correct reaction is You did *what*? - most of those views are probably more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-) martin My biggest beef has always been that the BBC show the results of polling long before the voting has stopped! Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas
On 26/09/2007, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Leaving the last digit from the last octet out would be fine, though? Then you could group by IP addresses for purposes like fraud checking and suchlike. I'm sure the BBC sites always say that standard information such as browser and IP address will be collected whenever you submit information to the server, so that's a fairly standard get-out clause. That's actually a really good idea, and to add to my previous email, it would certainly be intresting to see what topics inspire the most vote fraud. Having Geographic and ISP info aswell would be good. Are Northerners or Southerners more honest online? NTL customers or BT customers etc. There's bugger all you can really do with an IP address, even a complete one, unless you're a malicious fellow with a botnet behind you. I know that, you know that and everyone on this list knows that, but it doesn't make as good a headline in the daily mail as BBC giving out information about your computers or BBC helps spammers then going on to detail all the evil things that can be done with a botnet... Or am I being too cynical? Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas
Or, to put it another BBC [1986] way... Humphrey Applebey was most interested in the party opinion poll, which I had seen as an insuperable obstacle to changing the Prime Minister's mind. His solution was simple: have another opinion poll done, one that would show that the voters were *against* bringing back National Services. I was somewhat *naïf* in those days. I did not understand how the voters could be both for it and against it. Dear old Humphreys showed me how it's done. The secret is that when the Man In The Street is approached by a nice attractive young lady with a clipboard he is asked a *series* of questions. Naturally The Man In The Street wants to make a good impression and doesn't want to make a fool of himself. So the market researcher asks questions designed to elicit *consistent* answers. Humphrey demonstrated the system on me. 'Mr Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?' 'Yes,' I said. 'Do you think that is a lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?' 'Yes.' 'Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?' 'Yes.' 'Do they respond to a challenge?' 'Yes.' 'Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?' 'Yes.' Well, naturally I said yes. One could hardly have said anything else without looking inconsistent. Then what happens is that the Opinion Poll publishes only the last question and answer. Of course, the reputable polls didn't conduct themselves like that. But there' weren't too many of those. Humphrey suggested that we commission a new survey, not for the Party but for the Ministry of Defence. We did so. He invented the questions there and then: 'Mr Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?' 'Yes,' I said, quite honestly. 'Are you unhappy about the growth in armaments?' 'Yes.' 'Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them to kill?' 'Yes.' 'Do you think it wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?' 'Yes.' 'Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?' I'd said 'Yes' before I'd even realised it, d'you see? Humphrey was crowing with delight, 'You see, Bernard,' he said to me, 'you're the perfect Balanced Sample'. On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when the correct reaction is You did *what*? - most of those views are probably more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-) martin -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 26 September 2007 17:15 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas Martin, Did you read this? http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html Comment -- If you think the nation decides, think again Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for the silent majority *Carol Sarler Sunday September 23, 2007 The Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/* Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its recent troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter than the naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that the producers asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but when the votes were totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either 'Pussy' or, apparently equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at first deemed inappropriate, so they fibbed and declared victory for 'Socks'. Heaps of shame, tons of opprobrium, inquisition to follow. I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither do they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport. Good money says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the kind of people - indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the unparalleled hilarity of calling themselves Jedi on a census form. But that is why I do blame the BBC for offering the vote in the first place, be it on Blue Peter, on Strictly Come Dancing or on any of the rash of programming stunts that permit the bold declaration: 'You, the nation, decides!' It sounds fearfully modern and embraces buzzwords like 'interactive' and 'inclusive'; in fact, all it is doing is adding to the already alarming degree of power held by meaningless, self-selected samples. The communications media have always been especially susceptible to these groups; broadcasters refer to switchboards being 'jammed with
