Active Threads : What is the real criteria? (as it is NOT activity)

I think it's important to keep this thread on Active Conversations - just so that more people are aware that Active Conversations are not necessarily the Active Conversations

....unless and until @MNTowers deigns to respond

But an algorithm hiding threads based on numbers of reports is very worrying

not as worrying as a mix'n'match approach depending on which mod is on at what time ?

The cruelest irony is that Brexit is already starting to have a disproportionate effect on women - mothers in particular. So it's entirely plausible to suggest that by obfuscating threads about Brexit, MNHQ is ultimately harming it's core demographic.

Go on, someone - tell me I'm being silly/hysterical or just plain male

MN's founding principles

Would have been the first thing on the way out as soon as the site accepted advertising and sponsorship.

it's the lack of transparency that really rankles

This^ I wouldn't mind as much if MNHQ said we they don't want Brexit threads in Active as it politicises the site or something. But an algorithm hiding threads based on numbers of reports is very worrying. Almost as worrying as if a mod was making those decisions....

I agree DGR - it's the lack of transparency that really rankles

But that's how censorship flourishes

As BIWI (I think) said earlier on this, the real disappointment is that they were getting away with doing this under the radar, because we trusted them not to be doing such a thing in such an underhanded way

And I know you say that this is a commercial enterprise and that we should expect no better (I disagree: we should expect better, even if it is a commercial enterprise) but I've been on this site for 17 years, since the very early days, and it prided itself on the fact that it barely needed moderators back then, so the hidden censorship feel like all the more of a betrayal to MN's founding principles

Our outrage is because this suggests that it is possible to manipulate free and open discussion if that is the case

I think any outrage should be directed at the fact that MNHQs policies on such matters are cloaked in mystery, rather than being openly transparent.

Does the OP get notified when a thread is moved ?

Is it possible to see how many reports a post/thread is getting ?

Is there a clearly stated policy that "what MNHQ says: goes ?"

No, I don't know either.

When did this change? I mostly browse to MN via Active, to pick up the most ‘interesting’ (aka busy, controversial, discussion worthy) threads. I have definitely noticed that very few of these now appear in Active and you have to hunt through individual topics.

@MNHQ need to explain this policy.

bsc (and others): the current Westministender thread is now showing in Active conversations but according to @MichaelMumsnet earlier in this thread, threads are indeed sometimes hidden/removed from Active conversations if there are too many "reports".

Our outrage is because this suggests that it is possible to manipulate free and open discussion if that is the case

It's either that or a new inexperienced moderator who was too quick to react to dog-whistle reports

In the absence of any response from @MNHQ , we have to assume that MNHQ is happy with manipulation and censorship

I bet this is one thread the Daily Mail don't ripoff feature in a balanced and level headed article ...

Well with nearly 1000 posts in about two days, yes a thread Ike this shouod have spent the whole two days in the active conversation page.
It hasn’t....

@MichaelMumsnet could you clarify what’s going with some threads?
I’m finding it quite uncomfortable to know that some form of policing/keeping quiet is going on in the background wo any information about it.

Brexit is probably the most important th8ng that is happening politically for decades. Everyone will be affected by it (regardless of whether you are a Leaver or Remainer, a bit short citizen in the U.K. or in Europe or an eu citizen in the U.K.).
I’m finding it scary that any thread on Brexit might be hidden because of your system (whatever it is). Or that it is open to abuse by some people (eg Leavers reporting in mass a Remain thread or the other way around)

I have just this minute seen a westminstenders thread in active... but it was under "Brexit" not "politics" board.

And there have always been people that falsely/maliciously report to manipulate threads... I'm a pretty innocuous poster, but I have been on the receiving end of this before now, at least 8 years ago!

@MNHQ

^Are you saying that if people keep reporting they don't want to see a thread - not because it breaks rules, just they don't like it -
then you keep it out of active ?
^
Do you mean that someone reports every single Westminster thread as soon as it is created - because they are 60 posts per minute ! - or do you automatically censor any new Westminster thread ?^
^
Or is it the whole Brexit topic, not the particular Westminsters series of threads ?

Is this because someone at MN decided they want to discourage Brexit discussion on principle,
or is it to save money, to reduce the number of moderators required ?

Do you just censor Brexit, or do you keep other topics out of Active, such as FWR ?

I am shocked & disappointed

This illustrates that the most effective censorship is by those we trust, because we never even realise it is happening^

The Westminster threads are the best political analysis on MN and maybe anywhere else on UK social media^
You should be advertising them, not hiding them !

Eh? Is this brand new? Westminstenders threads usually appear in active convos for me...
The ones which don't are things like sex (I think) and SN chat...

For all we know, Leave.EU may have bunged a wedge of wonga to skew the operation of "active topics".

Any denial would be subject to the Rice-Davies defence.

Well goodness me.

I'd understood that the threads within the SN section were kept outwith the promo umberella as well as others of a sensitive nature such as pg choices and a faint wisp on my memory that maybe the FWR threads were excluded also.

This method - using mass reporting to skew views/reach - is quite the eye-opener. Shorely shome mishtake as Mr Bond didn't say.

So it's clear that malicious reporting of threads with the intent to create political bias achieves its aim.

So at the very least Active threads should be divided into two categories and renamed to say :

1. Animated active threads and

Or similar ?

What steps does MNHQ take to stop malicious reporting of threads done with the intent to create political bias within the Mumsnet site?

In the absence of an answer, I'd suggest "fuck all" fits the bill.

Ultimately MN is a commercial operation (whether posters know or care is another matter) so the old question of "who pays the piper" seems appropriate. If it's a battle between mission statement and profit, profit always wins.

The 15-minute list is much more interesting and varied than Active. I've never looked in there before.

It is possible to hide full topics and individual threads from Active.

except those damn WAG threads, for some reason they aren't moved into the right topic