Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Top rating for Haringey Council website
Haringey’s website has been ranked in the top five per cent of all council websites in the UK.
The recently improved website earned a four-star rating, the highest available, from consultancy SOCITM.
The annual ‘Better Connected’ report – which examines the quality and performance of all local authority websites – has seen a rise in local authorities achieving an excellent rating. Haringey was one of just four London boroughs to earn a place in the national top 20.
The rating follows a re-vamp of the website to make it more accessible and user-friendly for visitors.
The Haringey website rated well in helping users to
- apply for a council job
- object to a planning application
- pay council tax
- find out about getting help at home
- find our school term dates
The site was also praised for its sections on rubbish collection information; library book renewal; information on winter gritting routes; local democracy, and its use of mobile technology.
In its overall summary of Haringey’s website, the SOCITM reviewer said:
“I can see that a real effort has been made to introduce a design and structure based around top tasks, and it has made my review very straightforward. Well done!
Tags for Forum Posts: haringey council website
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
They obviously didn't have to order any visitors parking permits as part of the review.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Hugh, as far as I can see, isn't it the same "story" which you posted on HoL in 2010? And here's the link to what I posted - after raising it with Kevin Crompton the Chief Executive.
I'm not clear if this is actually new information. Or perhaps a re-churning of the old. If the latter, then in fairness, shouldn't you ask Mr Crompton for an update? Maybe there's a perfectly fair critique to be made of Haringey's spending. But just maybe there isn't.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
No, it's not the same story. It's in the same vein which is why I've already linked to other similar stories, but this is about the results of a 2012 report by SOCITM. Only fair to profile the Council's good news as well as the more critical stuff, don't you think?
-
-
I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here.
The good news story from SOCITM is recent. I've no comment to make about the assessment of the website as I'm not a regular user of other councils' websites.
However, I question the fairness of profiling/balancing a good news story with a criticism from 2010 when Haringey gave a detailed, factual explanation and a refutation of that earlier critical story.
As you know, I am not an apologist for Haringey PR spin. Nor am I afraid to criticise the council sharply and publicly. (Much to the annoyance and sometimes anger of a few of my more closed-minded colleagues.) However, on the facts I got, it appeared to me that the Daily Telegraph article was simply wrong. At minimum I hope we would agree that was highly dubious.
-
-
Your post is there Alan. Thanks for pointing it up again. I think the linking is valid and hardly an unusual modus operandi.
-
-
Then we will have to agree to differ, Hugh.
Though sadly, you are right. It's not an unusual M.O. It's called "churnalism" and means that falsehoods and part-falsehoods continue to gain currency.
-
-
The only thing I've churnalised in any way at all here, Alan is the Councils press release. Surely you're not suggesting that it contains falsehoods and part-falsehoods? I don't think linking is what is meant by churnalism is it?
-
-
. . . and re-churnalised the Daily Telegraph article.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I'm not sure why discussion restarted on this tread yesterday, just after I posted a new story in a similar vein. May I suggest that discussion continues there?
I may be able to clear up at least one confusion.
The discusson on the thread (Haringey Council's Website "Better than Most") begun in 2008, was not restarted yesterday.
It was re-started two days earlier on Monday, by me and included a link to a Register article titled Brits trapped in confusing council website labyrinths - survey.
"Too few council websites are sufficiently focused on the top tasks that are of most interest to their users, according to an annual report by Socitm."
It wasn't about Haringey Council's website, but I put the link into that older thread, because I searched for an HoL thread on council websites and that one seemed to fit the bill. I know there are some sticklers for keeping related matter together and keeping out extraneous matter.
The Register's article was also about the SOCITM survey. At the top of this thread, SOCITM are described as a consultancy. I took a look at the SOCITM website. How independent they are?
-
-
Sorry Clive. Yes, a consultancy. That was one of the words I changed in the Haringey press release, which called them "independent watchdog", which they are not, as far as I understand it.
They're one of those think tank/consultancies around in the public sector who operate as an association and as a commercial operation. I don't doubt their impartiality, but in their shoes you would most likely make sure that you're not too challenging to the group who is both membership base and client base. You tell me if you think that the term "independent watchdog" is misleading.
-
-
"Watchdog" suggests official statutory regulator, with powers of enforcement (not that "Government Regulator" always means much these days).
If "independent watchdog" was on the LBH press release, this is spin.
SOCITIM sounds less of a toothless "watchdog", perhaps more of a playful puppy.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
