What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

Just chiming in to say I hate this too.

‘Similar threads’ thing can be really insensitive and inappropriate on what is a support site for a lot of posters

Agree

I’ve noticed this several times

The whole idea is crap, sorry MN

The algorithm is idiotic, it seems to just pick one word and not even look at what topic the threads are in e.g. in Elderly Parents a thread about someone's elderly mother's small appetite has suggested 'similar' threads from Parenting about babies with small or large appetites.

Has my 9 year old been punished enough? asked a mum seeking immediate advice.

In March.

I rather imagine that's been resolved by now, one way or another.

They don’t care. Or they think their reasoning is far more valid than ours. Either way, if they were bothered enough, it would have been disposed off by now with an apology.

No matter how much evidence is presented they're set in their view and won't change, so it's pointless doing all their analysis for them.

This example is absolutely disgraceful, the poor OP seeing that on her thread. You can’t get any more insensitive than that @JustineMumsnet
An algorithm causing old threads = extremely annoying
An algorithm causing totally unrelated threads = extremely annoying
An algorithm causing the above example = disgusting and harmful

Specifically that you have to scroll past it in order to post on a thread.

Yes! This is massively annoying! On my phone, the reply box isn't even visible unless I scroll. I mentioned before that I thought I must have been logged out because the reply box 'wasn't there'.

It's ridiculous placement.

I lurked for a good few months before plucking up courage to actually post something.

I haven't rtft but was coming to this board to complain about this new feature. Specifically that you have to scroll past it in order to post on a thread. Very irritating and on fast moving threads, e.g. where posters are watching something on live TV, it's especially annoying. At the very least move it to below the posting box and before Trending. This would be a better layout for me on an android phone.

I know how this is going to sound, but I'm going to say it anyway. When I started posting on MN, which was probably in 2011 (gulp), I just spent a bit of time browsing the site to get an idea of what it was like and how it was organised, and then I made an account and started posting. It's not rocket science. Why does anybody need signposting to any of the content? It's already organised in topics.

And another one

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4520929-WHSmith-trendy-stationary-around-2000

From April this year. 😔

Is this dress OK for a wedding - wedding was in flipping July. Resurrected.

Ah just what new people to the site want. Spammy free money links. 😂

Not only does this show how an algorithm doesn't work on a site like MN, it doesn't help in the supposed aim of the new feature which I believe was

showing similar threads improves that experience, as it makes it more likely they'll find the answer to their query - and it's being used a lot so we do think it's a useful feature.

No doubt MNHQ will tweak it a bit more and exclude promo codes and bargains.

On trending right now:

To be disappointed that my child is not clever? 138
Whichusername · 21/09/2014 13:16

On that note, I'm going to go spend my Sunday doing something more productive than reading threads from 8 years ago.

Thanks Mumsnet HQ 👍

I suspect frustratingly that will be the response.

If it was 'only' a 1% increase the other day when active was predominantly resurrected threads then someone from MNHQ is bound to say it's hardly any % at all in terms of an increase even though we all have eyes and can plainly see it is.

I'm going to be annoyed when someone comes back saying it was "only a small %" when this morning all I've been on is old threads. The June and August thread OPs both had zero benefit from those threads being resurrected, so before someone comes along with that one..

I agree. There are so many this morning that are several months old.

Yes 3 - 6 months may not seem like a lot compared to threads from 2011 or 2007, like we've had recently. But there's no reason to bring up issues, problems and situations that are months out of date. It's shit for those who started the threads as they have to be reminded of a thread that they've moved on from, and it's shit for the posters replying as there's a very good chance the thread topic has been resolved or is now irrelevant.

MN is a forum that is popular because it's advice and comments given and made in real time. What's the point in sticking around if a good amount of the threads are months out of date?

Once again active is full of old threads, I've clicked on at least 8 in the last half hour but I'm sure the 'official' MN numbers will magically say otherwise and we're just imaging the influx of resurrected threads.

So many posts this morning being reanimated

It's really putting me off.

Oh and Can you dictate what people call your child? Or is that unreasonable? this morning again. From June. Again.

I can see people using mumsnet less and less in the very near future if all the content in Trending is old. No one wants to browse an out of date website. I can't think of one reason why old threads just can't be locked.

No doubt the newest poster found the thread from "you might also like" so that's fucking brilliant.

Of course they did and I'd wager my blooming house on the following 2 things being accurate:

A) The responder being a regular user so not one of the new lot mn say the feature is useful for.

B) The aforementioned poster having revived it unintentionally thinking it was a relevant recent thread as it showed up under the thread they were reading.

How anyone at MNHQ can think this isn't what will happen time and time again is bonkers.

I'm glad someone recently resurrected AIBU to expect my daughter to finish eating her meal on time from August, I'm sure the daughter was still eating the same meal all this time. What would the OP have done without this most recent comment?
No doubt the newest poster found the thread from "you might also like" so that's fucking brilliant.
Thanks Mumsnet 👌

Yes me too! It’s well known (and blindingly obvious!) that users find bumped zombie threads incredibly frustrating and MN have somehow managed to increase this tenfold!

Bumping this suggestion again as it is an extremely sensible compromise.

Since this new feature is apparently being frequently used, I'd like to know:

• how frequently?
• how long does the user spend on average on the page after they click on one of these 'you may also like' links?

I assume this is motivated by ad revenue. If the user clicks on one page, one set of ads get served. If they click on another before giving up and returning to Google, a new set of ads can be served up. If they have to click on six because all the links take them to threads from years ago ...