Re contributor names, perhaps we need to make the post author clearer. This one was Bobbie.

Currently, on the line following the post title (”Chris Watson: Whispering in the leaves”) we have the date and contributor (”February 27th, 2008 by bobbie”).

We’re thinking about a serious redesign at the moment, so perhaps that’s a useful piece of feedback for that process. Thanks.

(My only excuse is that the page on which I came upon your article didn’t appear to have any “Home” link — and I leapt, over hastily, upon the first “first name” I saw…)

Start the Week: unique in that, despite being built essentially around publicity for current or forthcoming books/tv programmes/exhibitions, etc. the participants (and the presenter) do all seem to have been required to have read, viewed, visited each other’s productions — which adds enormously to the value of the discussion.

Midweek: suffers, in my view, from the weakness that the “guests” are there basically there only to discuss their own PR agenda. Ms Purves goes to often absurd lengths to demonstrate how, say, ballet dancing and crocodile hunting have a very great deal in common, but the typical “cast-list” of yachtsman/luvvie cum charity-worker/unusual entrepreneur tends very much, IMHO, to the yawnsome.

In Our Time: if your brain isn’t aching by the midpoint of the programme, then Melvyn hasn’t been whipping this week’s contributors hard enough! Superb and incomparable radio-for-the-mind.

Woman’s Hour: I disagree with your characterization of this programme, Chris. Although it frequently features extended interviews, this is essentially far more of an “informative magazine” than a discussion programme like the aforementioned three.