Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't To Review Hundreds of Websites, Axe Many of Them
krou writes "The UK government is to review all of its 820 websites after the Central Office of Information revealed that for 2009-2010, the government spent '£94m on website development and running costs and £32m on web staff,' which each site visitor representing a cost of £11.78 to the government. 'The UK Trade and Investment website averaged 28,000 users per month but cost over £4m ... 16% of government departments did not know how their own websites were being used by tax payers, and almost a quarter were not aware of the running costs.' There was also anecdotal evidence of departments bidding against each other for search terms on Google. The review is to be carried out by Cabinet Minister Francis Maude, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, and Digital Champion Martha Lane Fox."
I'm not sure what this has to do with my rights online. This pertains to an internal governmental review of *its own* websites, not other people's.
As a web designer / developer I am always bewildered by the obscene costs I hear for government websites, especially given their terribly below level of quality and usefulness.
People with government contracts must really milk it for all it's worth.
As a Google advertiser, I've yet to find a way to prevent bidding against any other specific site.
I don't believe Google allows that level of detail. I'm also not aware that you even know the other bidders.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Is £11.78 inherently too much to spend for a web site visitor? When I need to renew my vehicle registration, a web site visit that let's me do it online is certainly worth more than that to me rather than spending half a day at the DMV. For some business-oriented sites that deal with licenses, £11.78 per visitor could certainly be worth bringing in a few more £1,000,000 per year businesses to town.
This 'revelation' is simply another illustration of how bureaucracy works.
No one should be surprised to find competing layers of effort, working from silos, oblivious to duplication of effort when they look at this.
It's a symptom, not the issue. It's how govt. works.
Good luck making any effective changes at the delivery level...
I regret to inform you, that the UK government has recently begun conducting a review of 820 websites, and your web site is to be terminated immediately, due to excessive costs to the taxpayers.
The UK Central Office of Information recently revealed the high cost per visitor of £11.78 to our websites.
Your recent article linked to the BBC, making your web site part of ours. The BBC.CO.UK received nearly 100 million page views, referred by the slashdot.org page, costing the taxpayer £1 billion.
Therefore the Central Information Office has issued an order that slashdot.org be shut down immediately, as a cost saving measure. Please comply, or the ramifications could be dire.
" UK Gov't To Review Hundreds of Websites, Axe Many of Them"
Axe them? Axe them what?
I worked in local government from 2005 to 2009 where I was involved with the 'Priority Service Outcomes' basically a list of targets with a value attached; if you do x number of these you'll get to keep a boat-load of money from central government. We were quite a small council and I built a website and CMS which met the targets of guidelines; I used all open-source tools and implemented things in a very standards compliant way. Other councils I met with (we all had the same targets) were spending £100K+ on proprietary systems and adopting non-standard approaches. It's pretty criminal really; ~450 councils in the UK all going off in different directions and spending the same amount of money. Whitehall should have spent £200K on open-source projects such as Drupal or Django and an army of volunteers through sponsorship; they'd have a much better system with no waste and no repeat of effort, not to mention the improvements that could be brought back to the projects themselves.
I left the public sector very frustrated; jobs for the boys. There's a lot of talented people in local government, but, they're usually not at the top which is full of lifers with no ambition or clue.
And that's the way I like it!
The kind of country where contradiction is not welcome is not the country where I'd want to live. There may be pros and cons to eating chips or fries, and I think the government should release all that data and let the public decide.
Think of your mini-rant on how that food is called. What would you say if some "Royal Council on Nutrition Terminology" decided that "chips" should be called "fries"? Geroge Gershwin said it best:
"You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto;
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let's call the whole thing off!"
It's not the contradiction that gets me - it's that anyone in gov thinks that it's necessary to promote eating chips.
Every town has several chip shops, most pubs and restaurants serve them, all the supermarkets sell them surveys show that people are eating them several times a week and some people at every (non-breakfast) meal time. They are considerably less healthy than other options ... so government are spending money promoting them and hiring (C-list) celebs to do videos and such.
There can be no one in Britain that lacks knowledge of chips.
The other more general issue I have is that the gov do individual tendering and have individual web departments to manage all those sites - they should just use a standard couple of CMSs across gov. They don't need to brand everything or have bespoke sites all the time. They should be providing information not marketing things to us.
My blog had 280357 visits in the last year - that means if it were a gov site it would have cost £3.3 Million GBP to upkeep.
Actual costs assuming I'm paid £20 per hour, so est. £40 per hour employer costs, would be less than £2k for sure. If you assume those costs include all background research and what have you then maybe it would be as much £4k.