Skip navigation

About this site

2. Authoritative provision of in-depth briefings on Summit


2.1 "All unclassified policy papers accessible from londonsummit.gov.uk in web friendly form"

Not met



Not all unclassified policy papers were accessible from the site.

Details

All communiqués and statements were accessible through the site, but policy papers were often found to be dry and technical, and therefore unlikely to be read by much of the target audience.

Accordingly, rather than publish them verbatim it became an express goal of the project team to distil these documents into a web-friendly but no-less thorough format.

The Summit Aims section of the site achieved this goal, and with hindsight this KPI, which in any case is somewhat contradictory of KPI 2.2, should have been updated during the project to reflect this goal.

2.2 "Only the highest-quality content goes on the site based on the content guidelines. If it doesn't help to achieve an objective it doesn't go on"

Partially met



Details

As an index of the otherwise difficult to define idea of ‘quality’ we asked subscribers to rate how informative, balanced, and trustworthy they thought the site was. This rating was measured on a 5-point scale, and since the wording of the KPI states "highest" quality, this indicator was assessed against the highest possible rating of "strongly agree".

  • 22% strongly agreed that the information on the site was informative (274 respondents)
  • 11% strongly agreed that the information on the site was balanced (272 respondents)
  • 30% strongly agreed that the summit site was a trusted source of information (274 respondents)
By averaging these figures we can obtain a general quality index. This shows that overall only 21% of respondents could be said to strongly agree with the idea that the site provided the "highest" quality content.

However, by including the second highest rating of "agree", a different picture emerges:

  • 92% agreed or strongly agreed that the information on the site was informative (274 respondents)
  • 69% agreed or strongly agreed that the information on the site was balanced (272 respondents)
  • 85% agreed or strongly agreed that the summit site was a trusted source of information (274 respondents)

Again, averaging these figures to get a general index shows that 82% of respondents overall could be said to agree with the idea that the site provided high quality content.

Additionally participants were asked to give details of particular likes or dislikes about the site. Positive comments relating to content significantly outnumbered negative comments (51:16). Examples:

Positive: "[I liked] the absolutely level-headed approach of the excellent and comprehensive coverage"

Negative: "Far too much re-hash of speeches and articles containing nothing new or newsy. Lack of clear presentation of issues and possible solutions. In other words, too self-referential"
Overall it is clear that users found the site to be generally of a high quality. It is only the stringent wording of this KPI prevents it from being fully met and a rating of partially met is warranted.

2.3 "At least four expert bloggers providing authoritative real time content for London Summit"

Not met



There were no expert bloggers contributing ongoing content for the London Summit debate.

Details

Whilst this indicator was not met there was significant blogging activity around the London Summit site:

Of these, only the Government economists can be considered expert bloggers of the sort defined in the KPI, and here the post was made on the day of the summit, after a point at which debate was meaningful.

Read KPI section three: 'Effective operational functions for 2,000 journalists'


Back to KPI index

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




Share this with: