Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Does MNHQ Check Our Inboxes?

469 replies

Chillyourbeans · 14/04/2020 22:43

Just wondering. I received a private message and sent 2 replies and now the recipient has received a message from MNHQ saying the replies were removed at my request. Except that's not true, I made no such request.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
MNHQ
MichaelMumsnet · 15/04/2020 10:20

Hi @Chillyourbeans we're scratching our heads here - we really haven't deleted any of your messages.

Please could you ask the recipient to check what account the deleted messages were from. We suspect that they were the ones sent from the spammer that we banned yesterday.

LetTheCabbagesDie · 15/04/2020 10:19

This happened to me too, a few hours ago. The subject was Hello, Sorry for the out of the blue PM but if

I had exactly the same message and it had also been deleted.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 15/04/2020 10:14

Confused at people more miffed at MN deletion message than an unknown spamming links via PM that not only could be seen as poaching/spamming but also is it wise to just give your details out to a random site that seems to have been set up just because some members are sulking at MN lol

Original poster
Chillyourbeans · 15/04/2020 10:08

@MNHQ I am deeply confused. I was sent a private message and sent two replies. You deleted both replies and told the person who had messaged me that they had been deleted at my request - that was untrue. Neither of us had reported the messages - why would we?! So you have clearly looked at the message of your own volition - fair enough, but why not just admit that? Why lie publicly about what you did? You're clearly using some kind of algorithm to pick up on things in private messages. Yes, the person who messaged me asked me for the new site details. Yes, I provided them. Fair cop, I hold my hands up but I would have far more respect for you if you had actually admitted what had happened here.

OP posts:
ArriettyJones · 15/04/2020 09:58

Fill your boots dear, but that wasn’t exactly the tone of your pp was it? It did rather seem as if you were doing it in response to all this.

So I am @Epique

“All this” being spamming, poaching, whining, and some hyperbole about MNHQ resembling the North Korean government Smile

Epique · 15/04/2020 09:49

Ahhh, the old ‘HTH’ snark. 👍

MilesJuppIsMyBitch · 15/04/2020 09:47

Anyway, this thread is clearly being used to advertise the other site, so will prob be zapped.

MilesJuppIsMyBitch · 15/04/2020 09:46

Epique no I don't use other forums.

I like the way MN is run & I admire Justine. I think she is ethical and decent.

HTH

SleepyNightOwl · 15/04/2020 09:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Epique · 15/04/2020 09:40

“I wouldn't join a site where people can go back & edit their posts after they've had a response. Bonkers.”

So pretty much all other internet forums then? Which kind of explains your surprise at peoples reaction to paid subscribing, I’m guessing you don’t really use other forums?

bruffin · 15/04/2020 09:35

I've got a feeling Justine meant wage bill of around 350k a year, not month

I doubt it a wage bill of 350k a year with a hundred staff is average £3500 a year. A wage bill of 350k a month on hundred staff averages 42k per person .

MilesJuppIsMyBitch · 15/04/2020 09:33

"Some (not all) from what seem to be new posters. Funny, that."

Yep

It is odd that so many people are so seemingly incensed by the subscription idea.

I wouldn't join a site where people can go back & edit their posts after they've had a response. Bonkers.

Eggcited · 15/04/2020 09:31

If you want all the snazzy features then pay £5 a month

I don't believe there are any snazzy features if you pay £5 a month. It's just fewer ads and potentially a 15 second edit button in the future. Happy to be corrected by someone who has premium if that's not the case.

ulliva · 15/04/2020 09:29

I've got a feeling Justine meant wage bill of around 350k a year, not month. As someone later enquired how many employees MN has and she said around 100 earning a rough average of 35k per annum.

I don't think it's per year as that would make each wage for the 100 people £291 a month. That's below minimum wage and they're based in london with london waiting.

ulliva · 15/04/2020 09:28

I don't see the outrage over this all. If you want all the snazzy features then pay £5 a month and if you don't you don't need to. It's not hard.

Epique · 15/04/2020 09:26

So why say it Errol? Try being more specific if you are going to troll hunt passive agressively.

ErrolTheDragon · 15/04/2020 09:24

You don't need to justify yourself. 'Some' .

Epique · 15/04/2020 09:19

“Some (not all) from what seem to be new posters. Funny, that.”

I’m a very long term ex poster (de-regged before christmas. I finally cracked with the dire moderation and archaic site style here) who re-regged a several weeks back before all of this came about, to seek out some old friends here to discuss Covid19 and check they were ok. Not that I need to justify myself to anyone.

ArriettyJones · 15/04/2020 09:15

Some (not all) from what seem to be new posters. Funny, that.

Quite.

Eggcited · 15/04/2020 09:14

I've got a feeling Justine meant wage bill of around 350k a year

We'll never know. She had a lot of opportunity to correct it if it was an error, but she didn't.

TheSkyIsFallingIn123 · 15/04/2020 09:13

I've got a feeling Justine meant wage bill of around 350k a year, not month. As someone later enquired how many employees MN has and she said around 100 earning a rough average of 35k per annum.

ErrolTheDragon · 15/04/2020 09:11

I can’t believe MNHQ are getting more of a bashing over a pre-programmed message used for deleting PMs than the anonymous spammers are getting for being so shady.

Some (not all) from what seem to be new posters. Funny, that.

Anonuser1 · 15/04/2020 09:11

I've had a few PMed links to the other site linked to the new one. It seems to be how they try and poach posters from other sites.

Epique · 15/04/2020 09:09

“No, to support this one. If that’s okay?”

Fill your boots dear, but that wasn’t exactly the tone of your pp was it? It did rather seem as if you were doing it in response to all this.

ArriettyJones · 15/04/2020 09:06

Why? To spite the other site?

No, to support this one. If that’s okay?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread