Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I was a poster to BBC's user-generated Points of View Messageboards. There was practically NIL interaction with BBC staff on those boards, although they were VERY popular with the general public. Slowly over the years BBC closed a lot of boards, without discussion. Then in October 2008 Nick Reynolds appeared to involve us in "open dialogue" about "improvements" to the POV boards. The outcome was that after six months (which Nick insisted should take place on his blogs,an alien area to most messageboarders, albeit with a few POV threads thrown in), Nick decided to close THREE of the boards (Radio!!!!, Digital - in the run-up to Digital switchover!!!, and bbc.co.uk) Radio is one of the core products of BBC but Nick closed it (because the 14 minute seasonal Points of View PROGRAMME does not do Radio). The Digital and bbc.co.uk boards were closed because of low traffic. bbc.co.uk was the messageboard which Nick WOULD post comments on - so he chose to post on a board he knew was receiving very few "hits" rather than hold discussion about the POV boards on the biggest board Television. The outcome of this "open dialogue" with Nick was that THREE boards were closed, posters who had previously never even been in moderation were banned (I was one), and NOT ONE of the many many suggestions made by posters was implimented. Nick said that better hosting more closely aligned to POV programme was the most important thing in his view. In the past six months there have been five changes of Host, and POV production team have been noticeable by their absence. So, effectively Nick came onto popular messageboards (admitting that he knew practically nothing about messageboards), CLOSED three boards, alienated the posters, insisted on Draconian House rules where you can NEVER be "ON" his "ON" topic, honed the permissable topics to such a narrow remit that posters spend half their time asking "am I on topic", and the other half saying "I thought I was on topic". It has been an unmitigated disaster (especially for those of us who had unblemished records prior to Nick's "open dialogue"), who now find ourselves banned from BBC "FOR LIFE". I am a 55 year old housewife who never ever used a swear word, or was offensive. I received no email to tell me I would be banned, and my failing would appear to be that I QUESTIONED what Nick was doing, and pointed out that he was making staying on ON topic too difficult. This is still the argument which seems to be ongoing, now on the BBC Internet BLOGS. Nick is now winding-up his blogging community, by using ON topic as a way of fielding difficult questions to BBC. Nick "personalises" his appearances, by trying to handle ALL aspects by himself, and then complains when posters take him to task "personally". In his defense he has always put his head above the parapet and taken the flak, unlike too many BBC staff who hide when the going gets tough. BBC blogs are abysmally hosted, and the blog authors have such little input that they are virtually a waste of space. If Nick would back off, at least the posters would be able to "talk amongst themselves". As it is Andy Quested is doing a sterling job for BBC, Nick, in my opinion, is a dreadful Host (far too pernickity - discussion does not flow because he cannot allow ANY "OFF" topic to stay). More comments seem to be hidden for being OFF topic than for being offensive or deliberately breaking the House Rules. The blog authors post and run, and I would have to single out Danielle Nagler for blogs which antagonise posters more than address issues. Far too many blogs have NIL comments, and some are posted effectively as a Noticeboard. I think BBC have to decide if they simply want to TELL people what they are doing, or if they REALLY want to enter into dialogue. If they don't want their blogs messed up with articulate posters asking searching questions then they should just introduce a NOTICEBOARD area, and post their announcements. If they want dialogue with their viewers/listeners/posters then they need to put in far more time on EACH blog. Don't write one if you are not going to monitor it and respond. And, sorry to be personal, but I wouldn't let Nick anywhere near a blog, in a hosting capacity, if I didn't want him simply to wind all the posters up, by constantly telling them they are OFF topic. No-one can fathom HIS thinking for narrowness of ON topic (the recent HD blog by Danielle Nagler resulted in him telling posters off for talking about SOUND and not PICTURE Quality). One of the major problems with BBC blogs, is the sheer number of very similar ones. Why write one blog, when you can write ten seems to be a mantra. Too often posters are told they are posting to the wrong blog, simply because there are several similar ones going at the same time. The whole area is so difficult to navigate that information is disjointed and difficult

I completely agree with every word that Niclara has said. The POV boards have been ruined, and the blogs are a disaster.

I've been a poster on the POV boards for 5 years, and they've deteriorated considerably over that time.

We've got no message board now to comment on Radio 5 ,and those that run the Radio 5 blog very seldom respond to peoples' comments.

The whole thing's a farce and a smoke screen, and the BBC are not being accountable for their actions.

Matthew

Apologies for coming back after writing such a long comment, but, I think the following comment is very telling....

"It is also worth pointing out that people also complain about BBC people not engaging on message boards either. So it's nothing to do with blogs as such."

Made by Nick Reynolds on your own blog on BBC Internet Blogs area. I think THAT succinctly sums up the problem. BBC staff ARE aware what the audience want, acknowledge it, and do.................nothing.

There are good blogs, Fiona Wickham seems to be a real find, but equally, there are abysmal blogs. On the other hand the user-generated messageboards are far more vibrant. THAT is where the bulk of posters to BBC are, and yet, BBC WILL NOT engage with poster ON the messageboards. You may ask why they don't want to go into the area where the posters are feeding back their views, and the answer is simple. Again a quote from Nick, "3. It's precisely the fact that BBC people can start and control the topics on a blog that makes them more likely to participate. It feels like a safer space where they have more "editorial control" (rather important to BBC people). They are less likely to be ambushed and dragged into places they don't want to go."

From his "Points of View Message board 3:Football or Rugby? blog..http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/points_of_view_message_board_3.html

Says it all really. BBC staff will only engage when they can control the discussion. That would not appear to be Accountability to me.

Matthew, popped back to respond to your comment above...."but it is useful to hear your experience directly in this forum too."

The point is that, like so many former BBC POV Message board posters, I have been banned, so there is no opportunity for me, and those others to comment about BBC’s Accountability WITHIN BBC. As you can see from the interaction with Nick and bloggers on BBC Internet Blogs, we were not the only ones who found his approach to SOCIAL Media ........wrong. By being banned we have been hushed, but, are able to watch the ongoing attempts by Nick to teach people using SOCIAL Media how to abide by HIS rules on SOCIAL Media. Nick has been unable to grasp that SOCIAL Media IS NOT improved by nit-picking hosting, and doesn't seem to get the "SOCIAL" aspect of SOCIAL Media. If BBC genuinely wants feedback and to be able to respond to that feedback, they MUST allow posters to put THEIR views forward, and not insist on such rigid House Rules that it actually squashes debate. Because Nick would not allow "open dialogue" during his "open dialogue" with POV posters, we now see the complete mess which has been made of the POV boards as a DIRECT result of Nick's non-ACCOUNTABILITY. He continually told us he was "in charge", and he rolled out exactly what HE wanted, without implementing EVEN ONE suggestion by posters. Six months of "discussion" and the outcome was that the boards ended up being decimated, and lots of posters CHOSE to leave as a direct result of the fiasco which was NICK's version of "open dialogue", and "improvements". This is not meant as Nick-bashing, but Nick put himself forward as the "named" BBC employee dealing with POV, and then took huge offense when people called into question HIS decision making and "improvements" of the POV Boards, which then resulted in posters being banned. There is a very easily followed trail of lack of accountability/empathy throughout the whole POV Message boards “improvements” debacle. But, it is not just Nick who has this attitude. BBC employees do not like to be told that they are not delivering what the public/posters want on the blogs/boards, in the form of accountability for their actions (Danielle’s blogs being the obvious examples). They don’t actually appear to very much like interacting with non-BBC employees, and they most certainly don’t appear to feel that posters have any right to question BBC or its employees.

Accountability would be improved, IF employees of BBC actually went onto the Message boards and spoke to the huge numbers of posters who are there, over-turning their dogmatic approach that they will only hold discussions on blogs written by BBC employees. After all, BBC employees control the topics discussed on blogs. True Accountability would be to answer the questions the general public want answers to, and not the ones BBC feels “comfortable” to address, and control.
Thank you.
Nic