http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/17/online-recipes-off-the-menu-of-slimmed-down-bbc?CMP=fb_gu
>Approximately 11,000 online recipes are to be dropped following a review of the BBC’s online output that promises to save £15m a year by cutting back on magazine-style content as well as local news.
>Although the recipes will still exist online they will be hard to find. One BBC source said: “The website will be closed and viewers will have to make a concerted effort to access the archive.”
What does /ck/ think?
Lol bbc
>>7682228
Anything that fucks the BBC over is a good thing, I want them to go bankrupt.
>>7682233
Hi Rupert
>>7682228
Fair move, a government organisation like the BBC shouldn't have such a monopoly over things like this.
Plenty of alternatives out there.
Maybe they need to increase the licensing fee that you britcucks have to pay for having a television
>>7682293
Lets be fair, they should be funded by adverts, it levels the ground and makes the market completely fair.
A lot of people watch the BBC because it has no adverts, if they have adverts as well that means people will have no reason not to watch the other TV networks in the UK, meaning the market will be more fairly distributed.
>>7682293
Many people are refusing to pay it now and they have no way of enforcing it, the BBC seriously needs to reform or it won't last much longer.
>>7682228
Daily reminder that Sky are bidding to get the Bakeoff and are courting some of the other popular chefs on the BBC such as the hairy bikers and mary berry.
Food on the BBC is dead. Hope you have a sky package!
What they need is a fairer tax system in so much as it refers to the BBC. Instead of making everyone pay a flat amount, which is what they do now, they should make poor people pay more because they spend all day indoors watching TV instead of working and making a living. The middle class people on the other hand only really want to watch cable or satellite TV and yet they're forced to subsidize their indolent compatriots.
>>7682293
>Maybe they need to increase the licensing fee that you britcucks have to pay for having a television
Stop poking my weakness!
Yes licensing fees are incredabollocks, but getting it changed to contract is like trying to change the electoral college in ameriburger so you can have fair elections.
>>7682305
>Hope you have a sky package!
I'll just torrent anything worth watching. The more money Murdoch spends and the less he makes the better.
>>7682296
So basically, the BBC can produce content that people want to watch (television programs) without annoying people with things they don't want to watch (adverts) and people chose to watch the BBC because of that.
So you want to...make the BBC worse...because it's "unfair" to other television channels that show networks?
Okay. I guess we should cripple every athlete so that everyone competes at the same level of the Special Olympics, too. Wouldn't want it to be unfair now, would we?
>>7682359
>I believe germany's is equivalent to about £270 a year
Germany is worse because they have to pay it even if they do not own a TV or Radio.
>>7682359
What? The Germans have got to pay 270euros a year for the privilege to watch that guy who pretends to be a midget and plays golf?
>>7682366
The BBC is a relic, the sooner it is done away with the better. It was necessary when it started but since then many commercial solutions have emerged. But it can't be killed off swiftly as needed "the public" see it as some kind of "institution"
Stop clinging to your socialist nostalgia and let the march of progress take charge.
>>7682381
>muh free market libertarianism
Okay.
>since then many commercial solutions
Yes, and they're all shit. Unless you genuinely enjoy the high quality output from the likes of Channel 5 or ITV794610562+1 (Home to "When Bears Attack Z-List Celebrities Island 5: The aftermath")
>>7682391
Wouldn't know, i never watch terrestrial channels out of principle.
>>7682393
Then your opinion is entirely invalid as you have no basis for comparison.
>>7682391
>Yes, and they're all shit. Unless you genuinely enjoy the high quality output from the likes of Channel 5 or ITV794610562+1 (Home to "When Bears Attack Z-List Celebrities Island 5: The aftermath")
And what delights are on BBC1 tonight?
>>7682401
Eastenders, which attracts audiences of millions and is very popular, Holby City which is a drama that has also been running for what, a decade now? Never seen In the Club so I can't comment, and the 10 O'Clock news which is the news.
Looks fairly standard for a Tuesday evening, what of it?
(If it helps I think they're pushing Eastenders way too much and it's pretty much a parody of itself at this point, and I wouldn't shed a single tear if it was cancelled immediately.)
>>7682381
it's not socialist nostalgia, the bbc just makes the best tv in britain, no fucking contest
>>7682393
>pay a mandatory fee
>refuse to utilize what it pays for
principle, ladies and gentlemen
>>7682228
The important question is: what other reliable recipe websites are there out there?
>>7682414
I don't pay the licence fee.
>>7682455
Ol tappa tappa
>>7682296
>no adverts
Have you even watched bbc m8?
>>7682542
Trailers are not adverts. The BBC isn't paying itself to show it's own trailers.
real talk, are any of the recipes on there good? has anyone tried them?
>>7683728
there are fucking thousands of them and many of them are from some of the world's most celebrated chefs, what do you think
>>7683728
Yeah, they're one of my favourite recipe sites. Have a screencap of my favourite brownie recipe. Now i have to go through and save all those recipes i liked before they're hidden away forever
>>7682228
What? That's retarded, they dont have to cut the whole content. The hosting barely costs much in comparison to their overall costs, especially when considering the visitor counts it helps add. Just stop updating it and let it live on, if it really bothers them that much cost wise just branch it off from the bbc site and add ads. No need to continue development or add content, just there's no point of tossing it all away.
>>7682547
>The BBC isn't paying itself to show it's own trailers.
Not directly, but that same time could go to a paying customer, so it is lost revenue. They are certainly ads
>>7684565
> but that same time could go to a paying customer, so it is lost revenue.
what?
>>7682353
> trying to change the electoral college in ameriburger so you can have fair elections.
The Electoral College IS about having fair elections, otherwise politicians would ignore 90% of the country and only focus on a handful of heavily populated cities.
>>7684873
>presidential candidates give a fuck what wyoming and vermont think
campaigning is 99% swing states and heavily populated states. the rest means absolutely nothing.
>>7683765
No you don't. BBC Good Food is a commercial venture owned by BBC Worldwide and is staying. What is going is bbc dot co dot uk slash food, and iirc the recipes aren't actually going to be deleted but they won't be searchable, and a bunch will be moved to Good Food.
>>7682293
Paid for TV always provides better quality programming than advert funded TV.
>Advert funded TV
Honey Boo Boo
Storage Wars
>Subscription funded TV
Planet Earth
Orange is The New Black
>>7682228
the BBC needs to stay as an institution. I would rather keep paying for David Attenborough or quality dramas rather than have the trite nonsense peddled by the other channels even if it is "free".
and I use BBC food all the time for old recipes and whenever I cook something for the first time. it's utter bollocks it should be cut to save money.
I'm considering scraping the site. Is this a bad idea?
>>7685666
As long as you sort all the data you pull it should be fine.
