Alright then – we have now had seven days pass since the new look design has gone live. I have, of course, followed all your many comments. I thank you all for the feedback and I do value all you have to say, even when it is critical. Here’s a few updates for you;
1. I believe site traffic has risen based on our new stats.
2. More blogs have linked to B-BBC than ever.
3. Headers, colours, links etc have been sorted out as promised.
4. Some trolls have now moved on, which is a plus.
There are a few areas of outstanding business which we will sort our very shortly;
The Comments zone is not right and I want to see the haloscan system reinstated! Yes, I know it is imperfect but on balance, I prefer it. I don’t like all the anon comments we are getting as I think this just confuses. I also like the behind the scenes architectural benefits of the haloscan system. My esteemed tech colleagues are working on this so please be patient until they can resolve all this.
Once sorted, I intend to start getting B-BBC press releases up and going to various media channels, Stateside in particular where people still trust the BBC. I want to have the scale of BBC bias sent global and will seek to link to major US sites which would be sympathetic to the concept of this blog. We do pick up some great stories between us all and I figure it would be good to share these with those who may not quite appreciate the scale of left wing bias that the BBC exudes.
I realise that the blog is not perfect and we can always make it better. This will happen and in the meantime I hope you will all keep visiting, keep commenting, and keep it lively. We are doing our best and as I said this time last week – our aim is true. Stick with it.
David,
Good news re Haloscan. Will all the old comments from the archives back to 2002 come with it, or has this not yet been clarified?
That is my intent – Too True!
DV..
any way to get rid of the blue text?
No way as easy to read as nice bold black.
Also, can you reinstate comments in the archives? (which currently all seem to register as ‘0’)
oops TooTrue beat me to it there, re:comments!
bogus
I’m focused on getting the comments right.
Re the archive, that is truly good news, David Vance.
If we can regain that, any other quibbles, in my view, will fade into insignificance – like those revealing quotes lost right at the bottom of the blog.
DV, Bogus et al- agreed on the comments. Overall I like the new look, though anything to reduce the “shell suit” impact of the red-blue clash would be nice. Though not, of course, a priority 😉
Get rid of the cyan text. And get rid of Keith Vaz.
I like the upgrade…I feel all sophisticated…for a scouser.
DV: 3. Headers, colours, links etc have been sorted out as promised.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Um, ah…erm… Howzat then? As far as I can see, we've still got the intense California-blue & red header with the too-large letters. And a little too much blueness and redness in the body of the page. Subtle it is not.
Keith Vaz – that would be great. The human oil slick is an affront to humanity.
As for the cyan, I’llbe seeing you..
I too don’t like the blue text – not easy on the eye. Would prefer black.
Otherwise, some good improvments here.
Have deepened the text, any better?
yes!! text is just ticketyboo now
having said that though.. i agree with MillieTant.. maybe could still do to just reduce font size a little
d’urrhh
my bad.
i think Millie was just referring to the big page header
Wowee! The text has just turned black on white background. Phew! What a relief. It feels about a million times better. Love it! Fabuuuulous.
PS: Yes, bogus, I was talking about the heading where the letters are too large and in your face.
Step by step. Keep it up. Press releases (but backed by facts please) a wonderful idea.
The big picture?
This is what you could become:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
The MRS’ fact sheets are very useful
and this is how one day you can impact the debate in the UK: Watch this devastating rebuttal of an inane comment made by Jon Stewart on TV. This is what the internet can do against the lies of the BBC and B-BBC can help:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of_the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/
Deborah
Probably being thick and did manage it once – but can only post as anonymous – any other way and it just wont post
Deborah,
Click on comments, type your comments in the text box, type the verification code in the code box, scroll down to near the bottom of the page, select Name/ URL, type your name in the name box, and click on Publish.
keep up the good work David and Co.
Thank you
Thanks for changing the text colour. Black – it’s the new black.
Could you reinstate the picture of yourself David? It brings a nice human touch to this darkest of subjects.
Ignore the troll
Here’s the thing – I have posted here constructively in the past as anonymous, and will never have an account here. I will continue to post anonymously, but I will continue to be constructive etc. and will normally engage with those who reply to me (if I have time/see the replies etc.).
If anonymous posting is removed, that contribution will go. Is it not ironic that the feature further up is about protection of sources? That’s effectively anonymous-posting-by-proxy, the journalist states “sources say” but those sources are anonymous.
Summary: I support anonymous posting and would be disappointed to see it go.
I don’t see why there is such resistance to setting up an account. It took me seconds, and they didn’t get one single piece of personal information. Not even an e-mail address as I used a temporary one.
However I will be glad to go back to Haloscan. It has its problems but makes for better instant commenting. Site traffic may have risen but the number of comments most certainly hasn’t.
A small point – the BBC logo hasn’t used those italic letters and sloping surrounding boxes for years, so unfortunately it makes the new site look a little dated straight away! The boxes have been upright for at least five years and the typeface within them is now Gill Sans.
Roland Deschain
I was saying yesterday that the volume of comments seems to have fallen sharply – especially if you exclude the comments on site design as against BBC bias. Maybe when it becomes possible with Haloscan to post both comments and links more easily – or to click on links and actually get there ! – there will be an improvement, or rather a return to former levels.
Site traffic statistics for websites are notoriously unreliable. The true measure of the success of this sort of site is the liveliness and volume of comments.
At least one good thing is that there has been a decrease in the lazy posting of links without any explanation of what the link is about or what the point of the posting is.
Every cloud has a silver lining!
The reason I don’t like ANON contributions has nothing to do with wanting to know anyone’s identity. It’s just that is makes it complicated if I have to refer to good point made by anon at 2.15pm, followed by excellent response from the same/different anon at 2.16pm etc. I only want some sort of reference title – something which i feel is reasonable.
JohnA,
I have said I would like haloscan back. Is there anything about the new site you like?
David Vance
My comment was that there seem to be fewer comments being posted than before. Is one not allowed to say that ?
To be frank – the old site was probably fine except it needed a new banner across the top. It may look good on some browsers, but it does not lay itself out properly on mine.
But then I am getting old and set in my ways. Reminds me of a Marcus Aurelius sage comment about his regiment always being reorganised. Where every time they got things back right again, they were reorganised again.
Anonymous @12:13
Here’s the thing – I have posted here constructively in the past as anonymous, and will never have an account here. I will continue to post anonymously, but I will continue to be constructive etc. and will normally engage with those who reply to me (if I have time/see the replies etc.).
If anonymous posting is removed, that contribution will go.
How do we know it’s been you all along, and not a series of one-offs by various anonymous individuals? If you’re proud enough of your contributions that you feel you can threaten to deprive us of them, why don’t you have the courage to pick an alias? If you want us to believe that you’re one individual, and associate all comments from “Anonymous” with whoever you are, then “Anonymous” isn’t any more anonymous than any other alias.
By demanding to stick with “Anonymous”, you’re basically denying us the ability to distinguish between the contributions of which you’re so proud and anyone else who cares to post as “Anonymous”. So you can’t really come in here and take credit for all intelligent “Anonymous” comments. There’s simply no way to tell which ones were yours.
If the blog goes back to HaloScan, you won’t be forced to register for anything. But I would still vote to block the use of “Anonymous” for the reasons I’ve stated.
NB: I acknowledge that there have been plenty of solid comments from an individual or individuals posting as “Anonymous” (whether I agree with them all or not), but there’s no way you can claim all of them are from you, unless you have some sort of call sign. Since this is a text-based system, we can’t tell if you’re wearing a red carnation and carrying a copy of War and Peace.
I’m sorry to be rude about this, but the “Anonymous” thing just doesn’t hold up.
JohnA,
Few of us are getting younger! I likes your Marcus Aurelius quote.
@David Priese:
You appear to be claiming a lot for me that I never said…
“How do we know it’s been you all along, and not a series of one-offs by various anonymous individuals?”
You don’t, and it hasn’t. For instance I’m the first anon in this thread here, but didn’t post the second anon comment.
“If you’re proud enough of your contributions that you feel you can threaten to deprive us of them, why don’t you have the courage to pick an alias?”
Fightin’ words, but misplaced. Proud? Threaten? Deprive? I post observations, I’ve threatened no-one and have merely stated that if an account is required, I will have to cease to post. It’s not a threat, that’s just the way it is. Why don’t I want an account? Because I try to keep my personal details off as many systems as possible – this blog may not want them, but the hoster of comments certainly might.
“So you can’t really come in here and take credit for all intelligent “Anonymous” comments. There’s simply no way to tell which ones were yours.”
Indeed, which is…err….why I didn’t and have never claimed credit for all intelligent anon comments. To do so would be ludicrous – they’re simply not all me. Not sure where you got the idea that I was doing.
“If the blog goes back to HaloScan, you won’t be forced to register for anything. But I would still vote to block the use of “Anonymous” for the reasons I’ve stated.”
Your choice and opinion. One vote for, one against. All fine.
“I’m sorry to be rude about this, but the “Anonymous” thing just doesn’t hold up.”
A lot of places think that, a lot don’t. As I say, your choice and opinion – I fundamentally disagree and believe anonymous opinions have a place in the world (the ballet box, for instance). I’m not being confrontational about this and have never at any point claimed all anon postings to be me – quite the opposite. It’s just debate, no need to poke names. Perfectly possible for two rational people to hold differing views and if the debate goes against me, I’ll be fine.
Most people who post are anonymous – in the sense that they uses pseudonyms of some sort. But at least the pseudonyms are different, so we can tell people apart.
Posting as “Anonymous” is a copout and causes deliberate confusion – it is very easy to find a pseudonym and stick to it. Also, as some readers skate straight past anything headed “Anonymous” it is a less effective way to post a comment.
Under the Name/URL option, or under haloscan, there is no actual giving away of real anonymity.
yes, pseudonymity rather than anonymity.
@JohnA:
“Posting as “Anonymous” is a copout and causes deliberate confusion – it is very easy to find a pseudonym and stick to it.”
A copout we must agree to differ on. Causes deliberate confusion – well, since I am not posting to cause confusion and yet I am posting anonymously, this statement must be incorrect. Neither of those two are the most interesting point of that sentence though – let’s look at the third point, that of sticking to a pseudonym.
Why would I need to? Note I mean that literally, why would I need to as opposed to why would I want to? Posting as a pseudonym has the advantage you state it does – it makes it easy to identify me as me, and it provides some thread of continuity – you could look at my previous postings and form some opinion of me based on them. I can easily see why many would want to.
Conversely however, why play the man rather than the idea? Is the anonymous opinion any less valid simply because it didn’t come from a known tag? Rubbish anonymous opinions would remain rubbish. Reasoned anonymous opinions would remain reasoned. And mediocre anonymous opinions…well, you get the idea. The idea should stand regardless of source.
Anon
That is a load of long-winded pedantic rubbish, a waste of blogspace.
Perhaps you can call yourself Anon! A mouse!…
…I don’t think it’s a big issue. We can get to differentiate one anonymous from another by the style and content of the anonymous comment.
Though i prefer to know which anonymous I’m talking to, I think it would be a pity to deprive people of the right to be as anonymous as they possibly can and force them to be more visible. Some people work best out of the spotlight.
Anonymous (one of them, anyway)
I post observations, I’ve threatened no-one and have merely stated that if an account is required, I will have to cease to post. It’s not a threat, that’s just the way it is.
You place a condition on your continued presence here, then say if that condition isn’t met, you’ll leave. That’s a threat. If you don’t understand that simple concept, there’s no point in paying attention to you at all.
Anonymous said…
@David Priese:
You appear to be claiming a lot for me that I never said…
5:36 PMThat’s just the point, isn’t it. “Anonymous” has said a hell of a lot on this blog, so we could accuse you of an awful lot on that basis.
Had you chosen a pseudonym, as I do, (sorry folks, Roland Deschain doesn’t exist except in Stephen King’s imagination!) we would know exactly what you said and could argue about it so much better.
I wouldn’t ban anonymous postings but reserve the right to point out the confusion they can cause.
And BUGGER to this comments system which removes my spacing after HTML tags.
Cheers Guys – we tried.
Slight fly. I cannot read this on the bus home from the BlackBerry. I think the new banner graphic is too big. Still – not a major complaint.
Ron said…
Slight fly. I cannot read this on the bus home from the BlackBerry.…
…Must have been a really lousy bus driver.