MollieS - on re-reading your post I saw the "How would you improve the program or what would you change...and what do you like about it?" and instantly thought 'a BBC plant' trying to do undercover research.
Apologies, I assume that is not the case, but they might well have considered asking the questions...
Just that the BBC MessageBoards used to have one dedicated to WH, which was, apparently, very popular. So popular, in fact, that they closed it down.
They cited too much cost (for BBC moderation) because the topics sometimes got heated. It apparently (closed before I looked into the BBC MessageBoards) included lots of feedback on their programmes, and suggestions for future ones, yet the web team (or someone) decided to close it.
The Archers, by comparison, has several very busy boards, and no hint in the past of them being closed.
I resisted using the BBC boards for years, because they had daft policies like only being open for a number of hours (not 24x7) and (because they employed staff to monitor) had strict rules which some staff applied more strictly than others... unlike 99% of discussion boards where a small number of (usually) voluntary moderators act to remove hate posts, spam, and so on (and consult before banning anyone).
The moderators are often active participants (whereas on MN, apart from a few threads, one sees hardly any posts from MNHQ even if they do read a proportion of what's going on each day).
Oh yes, the other thing is the BBC messageboards had very clunky software and (perhaps because of potential number of users) seemed to have no plans to change. Then they moved to having blogs in parallel, and the impression given was that the MBs were 'old hat' and Blogs (rather like Twitter and FaceBook) would be the way they were going.
Pretty typical of media mentality, partly driven by ego (so 'friend count' on FB or 'followers' on Twitter are being used as a judgement on popularity - I bet the figures will be included in CVs for new radio jobs in future!)