backstage.bbc.co.uk is for individual developers and designers to build things using BBC content and anyone who has an idea for how to use BBC content in new ways. It is not for big corporates to play around with. backstage.bbc.co.uk is for non-commercial use by the little people.
Even better,
You will own the copyright in any prototype you develop and send to the BBC for publication on the Backstage website. If we like it and want to use it other than in association with the Backstage website then we would have to come to an agreement with you first.
At the same time the New York Times is restricting online access to paid subscribers, the Beeb's approach looks like the real "web 2.0". posted by orthogonality at 3:40 AM on December 9, 2005
Somehow these articles were considered to reflect a very good mood:
I noticed that, too, allen. Maybe this site is designed for the wealthy rapists among us? posted by dsword at 3:50 AM on December 9, 2005
Great page title. posted by sveskemus at 3:57 AM on December 9, 2005
What a fantastic idea. I agree Ortho, (I can call you Ortho, right?) this is real Web 2.0 stuff. Now, if only it could detect my mood - and show me the bad stuff when I'm looking particularly cheery, just to level me off. posted by Dag Maggot at 4:00 AM on December 9, 2005
"A militia leader accused of ordering the killing of nine UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo earlier this year has been arrested."
This was all the way at the bottom, classified as the worst of all the news. I don't know how they classify the news but obviously the method doesn't work.
(Unless you think that the arrest of a man accused of killing of nine UN peacekeepers is bad news somehow, of course. YMMV.) posted by sveskemus at 4:03 AM on December 9, 2005
Furthermore: Ancient drought 'changed history' (prompting ancient humans to leave Africa in search of water, afterwards spreading across the globe) is bad news.
Which, actually, is probably true. Good work. posted by NinjaPirate at 4:07 AM on December 9, 2005
Dang, I've been wanting to do this idea forever. Danged procrastination. posted by TwelveTwo at 4:12 AM on December 9, 2005
Web 2.0 appearing anywhere in an article should automatically make it "bad." Worse than murder. posted by grouse at 4:25 AM on December 9, 2005
Wow, bloody interesting application but is it of any use? Is Web 2.0 of any use? posted by keijo at 4:52 AM on December 9, 2005
Where's the schadenfreude section? posted by ursus_comiter at 5:19 AM on December 9, 2005
"ipod" being called word of the year is good? posted by OmieWise at 5:37 AM on December 9, 2005
I want the "denial" section. posted by anthill at 6:56 AM on December 9, 2005
I want the "denial" section.
Why? We've already got the whole WSJ... posted by Dormant Gorilla at 6:58 AM on December 9, 2005
A lot of the "good" ones are completely neutral to me, whereas I was really excited about some of the neutral news (new mammal discovered!!!)
And why is the worst news of murder suspects being arrested? Isn't that relatively good, considering the circumstances? posted by easternblot at 7:25 AM on December 9, 2005
easternblot, I'd guess the algorithm works by scanning for keywords or key phrases, so it's not exactly failsafe. posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:43 AM on December 9, 2005
NEWSFILTER! posted by Balisong at 7:45 AM on December 9, 2005
Subscribe
posted by orthogonality at 3:40 AM on December 9, 2005