Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Gov't To Review Hundreds of Websites, Axe Many of Them

Posted by timothy on from the scarce-resources-infinite-desires dept.

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."

6 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. YRO? by MessedRocker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:YRO? by value_added · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The actual monetary costs of web technology on the taxpayers is an interesting figure. The story is not necessarily saying that the money is wasted or that the government is evil for spending it on web2.0 twitter-enabled blogosphere enhancements to their local police station website.

      The story does suggest, however, that the number of users per month is a valid enough metric. I'm not sure I agree with that. The Trade and Investment website certainly isn't geared toward Joe Public, so if it's used primarily by trade or business groups, popularity with anyone but a meaningful few (those who make deals) is meaningless. The same would apply to a site that provides detailed or complex economic data. If only a handful of researchers visit the website, but each provides summary analysis to thousands of people (the news media, for example), should the website be considered "unpopular"?

      Transparency is generally a good thing when it comes to government. So the more websites the better. Compared to other government expenditures, I'd suggest the cost of website development is equivalent to a few red staplers. Besides, I think we'd all agree that the employment of developers and IT staff is preferrable to hiring more counter clerks.

  2. I'm always bewildered... government contracts by JansenVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I'm always bewildered... government contracts by sco08y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I worked for a small company that did a website for a local government agency years ago, around '97 I think. They wanted all kinds of bells and whistles so they could go to their bosses and show them what an awesome web site they had. It was designed far more to please government insiders than to be useful to taxpayers.

      I don't think we were milking them, rather, they didn't know what they wanted or needed, and it certainly wasn't our job to figure it out. They also didn't have any plan, really, to maintain it or scale it up or have it go anywhere. From going on to six years working in or around the government, that's just how they do stuff.

    2. Re:I'm always bewildered... government contracts by Chelmet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they didn't know what they wanted or needed, and it certainly wasn't our job to figure it out.

      Erm, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly your job. Its what a requirements capture is for. I feel quite offended by this attitude of yours - you're the expert. If I went to an architect and asked for a floating house, it would be his job to tell me that that's not what I really want, and to work with me on something more appropriate, rather taking the money and running away before my wife gets home.

      I hope you enjoyed the coke you snorted off hooker's cracks with my tax money.

    3. Re:I'm always bewildered... government contracts by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they didn't know what they wanted or needed, and it certainly wasn't our job to figure it out.

      Erm, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly your job. Its what a requirements capture is for. I feel quite offended by this attitude of yours - you're the expert. If I went to an architect and asked for a floating house, it would be his job to tell me that that's not what I really want, and to work with me on something more appropriate, rather taking the money and running away before my wife gets home.

      I hope you enjoyed the coke you snorted off hooker's cracks with my tax money.

      The Government employees paid to design projects like this are themselves on the take in a different way. They want to use the project as enhance their reputation. Key to this is having lots of bells and whistles. Flashing lights help too. If you can get the Minister a media opportunity then your career is looking up.

      The customer is always right, and frequently corrupt.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au