h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

it has turned up in blogs that these desicions to close certain sites on the BBC were taken around a year ago.

as a Licence Fee Payer (BBC Tax) what i would like to know is how much of OUR money£££££ the BBC wasted on the MOT and all the associated processes for the new revamp of H2G2, just in time to dump it???????

and if it had not wasted it, how long that ammount of money could have kept hootoo running in its old form?????

Could you point to those sites?

Not that I doubt you, Taff. It's just that some people can read "the BBC is looking for a buyer" and interpret it as "the BBC is driving a knife into the heart of h2g2" or something similar. Not all blog writers are entirely faithful reporters of fact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2011/01/delivering-quality-first.shtml

This underpins our approach to BBC Online in Putting Quality First, a wide-ranging review of the BBC’s strategy, announced last March. It was approved by the BBC Trust in December. Today, the Trust have announced their approval of our plans for BBC Online, and we’ve been talking to staff about what this is going to mean for them, as well as explaining to the press what this means for the public.

The closure of half of the 400 Top Level Domains (with 180 closing ahead of schedule later this year)
The replacement of the majority of programme websites with automated content
The automation of bespoke digital radio sites 1Xtra, 5 live sports extra, 6 Music and Radio 7
The closure of RAW, Blast, Switch, Video Nation and the disposal of h2g2
The removal of non-News features content from Local sites
A substantial reduction in showbusiness news on the News website
Fewer News blogs, with more focus on the updates from leading editors and correspondents
A reduction in the overall amount of Sports news and live sport
Standalone forums, communities, message-boards and blogs to be reduced and replaced with integrated social tools
The closure of the 606 community site and the closure of the BBC iPlayer message board

>>it has turned up in blogs that these desicions to close certain sites on the BBC were taken around a year ago.

The date on your link is from this month not a year ago

I think Taff means the "wide-ranging review of the BBC ’s strategy, announced last March." bit. But I also think he's wrong. Just because a review is announced doesn't mean the results of that review are already known.


Geggs

Strictly speaking, geggs, that's true.

In this case, however, there's much room for suspicion.

As Taff has speculated, it could just be that it was seen as a reassuring part of the search for a buyer - or a necessary part of satisfying a bidder.

Whatever the truth, the news wrenched a gut or two - and I thought I was a pretty hardened sceptic.

Taff's post talks about bits of BBC Online that didn't even exist last year, like the iPlayer messageboard.

The upgrade was planned ages ago and should have gone ahead back in September/October but got delayed. I really don't think this was an attempt to deceive us - after all, why would they bother?

I do hope you're right, HonestIago, but we'll never know for sure.

Why would they bother? Probably wouldn't - just a part of the politics.

Hi - just to reassure you that we are not trying to decieve you, the decision to try and find a new home for H2G2 was taken well after the redesign started and also well after the initial approval by the BBC Trust for BBC Online's strategy.

Once we knew what the new shape of BBC Online was to be we then tried to see whether H2G2 would fit. Sadly we concluded that it didn't. But this work was done after the work for the refresh started. We could I suppose have stopped the work but ever since the MOT my view was "whatever is decided, we can't leave H2G2 looking like it is".

I hope this helps.

That is good to hear, and confirms what I assumed had happened (yay! I get to be right about something! *dances*).

I know you guys worked for a long time to get the refresh underway, and the announcement seemed to be far newer. I think the refresh will help with finding a new owner too, so thanks for pressing on with it desite the news.

How doesn't it fit?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/07/mediatop100200361

"Appointed general manager of the BBC in 1922, Lord Reith declared the BBC's mission must be to:

"inform, education and entertain... [and] bring the best of everything to the greatest number of homes".

Everything h2g2 does and does well...however one presumes that the BBC can't 'control' the content enough and the people who use it aren't exactly shrinking violets...and it can't be turned into a controllable blog based 'product'.

It seems the BBC are happy to show 'viewer-interaction' when it means getting them to ring telephone lines to vote off celebrities from shows but not when the 'viewers', themselves, are informing, educating and entertaining.



If we knew in what way h2g2 did not fit into the BBC then quite possibly we might find a place where it does fit in.

One presumes that it will be documented what the reasons were that h2g2 does not fit.

I can not see that being confidential in any way. So, could we please see why the decision was made.

Thank you.

Hi 3dots.

Try reading this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2011/01/delivering-quality-first.shtml

The bit that's most important for us is towards the bottom, where it states:

Where BBC Online will not go
Equally, there are areas which we will not cover, and have no intention of going into. BBC Online will not:

Launch its own social network
Offer specialist news content for specialist audiences
Publish local listings
Develop encyclopaedic propositions in Knowledge
Provide continuing professional development materials for teachers or a managed learning environment for schools
[...]

We clearly fall into several of those categories. They also mention that:

"Standalone forums, communities, message-boards and blogs to be reduced and replaced with integrated social tools "

Quite what an integrated social tool is, we don't know, but we've never really been integrated into the BBC and we're not really a social tool either. Still, we have forums, community and are sort of a message board and have our own journals so again it's clear that all the sorts of things that we do are the things the BBC is moving away from.

I hope that helps.

Thanks Vip.

Smavks very much of people having sat down with a list of BBC website areas they don't want anymoer and writing the criteria from what they do...and then going through the criteria and..shock horror...look that h2g2 site which has been here for over a decade and as far as we can see is a social networking site and a sort of an encyclopedia doesn't really fit into what we want.

Meh, whatever.

That could also be true, of course. But then, if they wanted rid of us anyway, there could have been worse ways of going about it.

It does look like a large culure shift in what the BBC want with their Online stuff. There was quite an explosion of user interaction a few years ago, what with the message boards and blogs and so on. It looks like they don't want that sort of involvement anymore, which is a fundamental part of what we do.

As you say, meh.

Hi - just to reassure you that we are not trying to decieve you, the decision to try and find a new home for H2G2 was taken well after the redesign started and also well after the initial approval by the BBC Trust for BBC Online's strategy.
Once we knew what the new shape of BBC Online was to be we then tried to see whether H2G2 would fit.
Sadly we concluded that it didn't. But this work was done after the work for the refresh started. We could I suppose have stopped the work but ever since the MOT my view was "whatever is decided, we can't leave H2G2 looking like it is".

I hope this helps.

----------------------------------------------------


Nick, there's an old saying, 'when in a hole, stop digging' also there's the one that starts, 'if at first we practice to deceive....'

We were told, categorically after the MOT that we had passed with flying colours and that we met ALL the criteria set out by the BBC trustee's, BBC Online and how BBC online would look.
We were told as a RESULT of that MOT the revamp would go ahead in order to make H2G2 fit the corprations image/look across their blog/msg/board systems and overall online appearance. Hence the 'new skin' introduction of BBC ID and other changes (some quirky to H2G2).

At NO TIME in the months since then were we told this was in preparation to dump and/or close us. You have the nerve to tell us to keep sorting the bugs and glitches on the new site knowing full well prior to launch we were'nt being kept by the BBC. In effect, you're asking us to tie the noose around our own necks.

The decision to dump or close H2G2 wasn't taken at the w/e or last week, it was taken months ago and you know it.

You removed posts from people who saw you and the BBC for what you are, well tough, truth hurts and the truth is the BBC lied to us, conned us and deceived us. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves and if you remove this post I'll just re-post eleswhere and keep on posting as what I've said is nothing but the truth.
I defy you to show me what I've said isn't true.

BMT.

"We were told, categorically after the MOT that we had passed with flying colours and that we met ALL the criteria set out by the BBC trustee's, BBC Online and how BBC online would look."

So, that was the MOT that took place BEFORE the government (well, Rupert Murdoch) decided that the BBC needed to be gutted?

Get a grip man. This isn't an anti-h2g2 conspiracy. There's not enough of us for there to be a conspiracy. h2g2 ISN'T IMPORTANT TO THE BBC.

Poor Nick's trying his best to explain to us what's going on, and people are giving him nothing but abuse.

Would you rather the BBC had just turned the site off? With no message boards or way of contacting each other, the h2g2 community would've been right up a certain creek.

Taff and BMT, please look into facts before you post in anger.

Taff, there was a decision made to close down some websites a year ago. Those other websites were closed. This new Online policy is completely seperate and not related to that round of cuts.

BMT, yes we passed the MOT, we fitted all the criteria at that time. The freezing of the license fee (over six months later) now means that those criteria have changed.
I don't like it and I bet you those people at BBC Online who will lose their jobs don't like it either. They have even more to lose from this than you do so they will have fought like demons to keep it going.

This outburst has made me rather cross so I shall unsub now. If you wish to keep on in this vein, your journals would be the most appropriate outlet.

Does that mean that we'll have a Rupert/ng2g scenario?
Also I cannot find my personal space in this new setup.
Researcher U199261 (aka Spike)

Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/user/U199261


Geggs

I'm glad we did the revamp, I hope that we get it working competely. We would have no chance of the old h2g2 finding a buyer. It looked dated! We are getting huge amounts of people checking us out online etc, and we need to put our best foot forwar