British Army Website

#1
Not sure if this is the correct place to post this thread, if not, apologies, sure the MODs will move it for me.

Just popped on the British Army website and I'm pretty shocked by how poor it is, its very much out of date, no mention of the ongoing conflict in Iraq on the "Where is the British Army?" deployments page, it only mentions Op Granby.

The "Latest News" Ticker at the top is talking about forthcoming events which happened last October.

The newest addition Kit UK Online, whilst looking quite good doesn't actually work (ironic really come to think of it..)

Today's possible recruits are going to look at the website to see if they want to be involved in the Army and from what they'll se at the moment I can't see any of them being impressed. I know we dont have the money of the American's but take a look at their site www.goarmy.com - it's up to date and provides good information and actually looks like effort has been put into it.

Rant over, I'll get back in my box. :)
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#2
I couldn't agree more. I think the problem is that it is trying to be all things to all men. The links into unit pages generally get you to bang up to date pages, but the overall Army current information is way out of date.

The reference material is also pretty useful, but time and again you get hit with classification problems - some of which seem pretty wierd. e.g the MCM Divs only publish the results of promotion boards on the Army intranet - even though these are unclassified (and indeed senior officer appointments are actually listed in the 'sensible' newspapers)
 
#3
Saying all that above, the new "Army Net" website www.armynet.mod.uk is pretty good, it's still having teething problems but it's certainly trying hard! I like the fact you can get pay statements etc and messages home etc on there, its much more up to date, BUT it's still no good whatsoever for recruitment. Now the Royal Navy website is pretty damn cool as it goes...
 
#4
Cowhead said:
Saying all that above, the new "Army Net" website www.armynet.mod.uk is pretty good, it's still having teething problems but it's certainly trying hard! I like the fact you can get pay statements etc and messages home etc on there, its much more up to date, BUT it's still no good whatsoever for recruitment. Now the Royal Navy website is pretty damn cool as it goes...
I normally have my pay statement 2 days into the following month and about 1 day ahead of armynet. Its not big and its not clever :evil:
 
#5
Well i for one have not received my pay statement, yet i can get it online today - to me that is very big and very clever. :D
 
#7
I have to agree with the original assessment. Seeing as we have x million civil servants and an MOD that's renowned for swallowing up a morass of SO2s with inane jobs, the state of the 'serving soldier' portions of the site are pretty poor. Presuming the links work - often they don't - the info is so out of date it's laughable. It's easier to keyword into 'Google' than it is to use the menus on the site itself.
Bad skills, someone!
 
#8
Whilst the Army site is far from perfect, I don't think it is quite as bad as Cowhead describes. The main problem appears to be accessibility of information - all the latest info on the current Iraq deployment is there but it does not leap out at you. Bizarrely, rather than locating information under Deployments, you have to go to News and thereafter to Op TELIC. Alternatively, you can go direct by following the link to http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/index.htm

Anyway, as the front Window of the site now appears to be serving as the recruiting office, we wouldn't want the poor little loves seeing what they might be in for too early, eh? It might put them off!
 
#9
Whilst the Army site is far from perfect, I don't think it is quite as bad as Cowhead describes. The main problem appears to be accessibility of information - all the latest info on the current Iraq deployment is there but it does not leap out at you. Bizarrely, rather than locating information under Deployments, you have to go to News and thereafter to Op TELIC. Alternatively, you can go direct by following the link to http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/index.htm
or you could go to Sky News, BBC, CNN et al :D
 
#10
Er...yes....you could.

Equally, you could be posting on any number of other websites with no military input whatso ever, oh man of letters....and your point is?
 
#11
Cowhead said:
Not sure if this is the correct place to post this thread, if not, apologies, sure the MODs will move it for me.

Just popped on the British Army website and I'm pretty shocked by how poor it is, its very much out of date, no mention of the ongoing conflict in Iraq on the "Where is the British Army?" deployments page, it only mentions Op Granby.

The "Latest News" Ticker at the top is talking about forthcoming events which happened last October.

The newest addition Kit UK Online, whilst looking quite good doesn't actually work (ironic really come to think of it..)

Today's possible recruits are going to look at the website to see if they want to be involved in the Army and from what they'll se at the moment I can't see any of them being impressed. I know we dont have the money of the American's but take a look at their site www.goarmy.com - it's up to date and provides good information and actually looks like effort has been put into it.

Rant over, I'll get back in my box. :)
As someone in the middle of joining, I agree that the site isn't that impressive.

A lot of doesn't work, or pictures are missing, broken links, etc.

I find individual regiment's websites and the ACO much more useful
 
#12
Cowhead:

Just popped on the British Army website and I'm pretty shocked by how poor it is, its very much out of date, no mention of the ongoing conflict in Iraq on the "Where is the British Army?" deployments page, it only mentions Op Granby.

The "Latest News" Ticker at the top is talking about forthcoming events which happened last October.

The newest addition Kit UK Online, whilst looking quite good doesn't actually work (ironic really come to think of it..)
Simple answer is that there is no money for ongoing maintenance / site updates. The COI and Recruiting group (when the site was first launched) would not commit budget to updates or site maintenance - hence an outdated site...
 
#13
Line_Grunt wrote:
Simple answer is that there is no money for ongoing maintenance / site updates. The COI and Recruiting group (when the site was first launched) would not commit budget to updates or site maintenance - hence an outdated site...
Sad really as the sophistication of web sites is rapidly improving and the cost of setting them up coming down. The 'expence' in maintaining them should be put in perspective to say, the recruiting budget or money spent on communicating public information.

The current site is in fact a double wammy. Not only is it failing to attract people but it is giving the service a bad look.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#14
Birdie_Numnums said:
Line_Grunt wrote:
Simple answer is that there is no money for ongoing maintenance / site updates. The COI and Recruiting group (when the site was first launched) would not commit budget to updates or site maintenance - hence an outdated site...
Sad really as the sophistication of web sites is rapidly improving and the cost of setting them up coming down. The 'expence' in maintaining them should be put in perspective to say, the recruiting budget or money spent on communicating public information.

The current site is in fact a double wammy. Not only is it failing to attract people but it is giving the service a bad look.
The fact is that you could probably give some 19-year old Signaller a couple of hours ED pay every week to keep it fully up to date and cutting edge.
 
#15
chickenpunk said:
The fact is that you could probably give some 19-year old Signaller a couple of hours ED pay every week to keep it fully up to date and cutting edge.
Are you kidding me?? :D

There is already an SO2 (supported by an SO3 and 2 WOs) who run the Army Website. Mind you, it may be a case of 'too many chiefs...' :D
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#16
The_Sloping_Wire said:
chickenpunk said:
The fact is that you could probably give some 19-year old Signaller a couple of hours ED pay every week to keep it fully up to date and cutting edge.
Are you kidding me?? :D

There is already an SO2 (supported by an SO3 and 2 WOs) who run the Army Website. Mind you, it may be a case of 'too many chiefs...' :D
Whilst at the advanced age of 40 I struggle to send an email, my experience is that the majority of moderately well educated spotty-faced teenagers can - when persuaded to stop masturbating over FHM and sniffing glue - be coaxed into creating very reasonable websites in very short order. Giving the job to an SO2, an SO3 and 2 WOs seems rather like making a chimpanzee a Professor of Evolution Studies.
 
#17
chickenpunk said:
Giving the job to an SO2, an SO3 and 2 WOs seems rather like making a chimpanzee a Professor of Evolution Studies.
:D :D :D :D :D :D

And let's face it, they're doing a pretty bonk job!!
 
#18
The SO2, as well as the WO and 1 Sgt who run the infrastructure and unit training part of the Army Website are in fact running around trying to get everyone else who has a stake in the Army Website to get their acts together. Their job is NOT to manage the Army Website content - but make sure those who are are able to do so. What has been achieved with Army Net is excellent, considering the lack of resources allocated to it.

My unit page is updated by me everyday - if everyone else did their job the whole site would be excellent. The problem is that those above us do not regard the Web as important as any other organisation in the World.

From experience, individuals and units think that having a Website is a great idea until they realise that it involves work!! Considering that we recruit soldiers who are Web savy - maybe it is time the Army pushed more money, resources and established posts to resolve the issues. The R Sigs, Gunners and Engineers have their own webmasters - why not the rest of the Arms and Services!
 
#19
The SO2, as well as the WO and 1 Sgt who run the infrastructure and unit training part of the Army Website are in fact running around trying to get everyone else who has a stake in the Army Website to get their acts together.
Yep, they have a tough job, but after having worked with them on a number of projects including the Army and TA websites, they do not make life easy for themselves.

Their job is NOT to manage the Army Website content - but make sure those who are are able to do so.
They caused a large amount of delay and financial cost due to the development and of the site by demanding control over the content and it's management, whether they got control over it or not i don't know and frankly don't care now.

The main issues are that there is no money available for updating the site - money to pay for imagery, copy and the time necessary to update pages. There is also a serious issue in getting the relevant copy from all parts of the Army, as it is seen as such a low priority.

A website will only ever be as good as the time, money and effort invested in it, and in the case of the Army that means a big initial splash and hype and the sod all.
 
#20
Line_Grunt said:
The main issues are that there is no money available for updating the site - money to pay for imagery, copy and the time necessary to update pages. There is also a serious issue in getting the relevant copy from all parts of the Army, as it is seen as such a low priority.
Whilst I agree with most of what L_G says, the RLC has a very competent bunch of photographers who work in the Media Ops environment; these guys even produced a book on their own a while back (The Fight for Iraq) so its obviously possible.
 

Latest Threads

Top