What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

Now I'm finding 'Similar thread' suggestions that are so old that MN have put that red box zombie warning on them - 'looks like this thread hasn't been posted on for a while ... are you sure you want to post on it ..?'

I cannot see how that improves a newcomer's user experience when MNHQ is warning people away from posting on its own thread suggestions.

It is undoubtedly the most stupid fucking idea HQ have had. All it’s resulted in is tons of old threads being bumped. Literally that’s it

There's a thread about the touching chimpanzee mother-and-infant reunion scene.

The suggested 'Similar threads' are such that if I were a newbie I'd be thinking 'wtaf??' and not 'what an enjoyable user experience this is'. It's just a bunch of suggestions about crying babies and controlled crying.

It would nice to have the basic courtesy of a response.

This feature went off/disappeared for a couple of days - I didn't see it Thursday OR yesterday (Friday.) However, it is BACK today (Saturday!) Grrrrrrrrr.

I really can't see why this wouldn't be an option, but I get the feeling MNHQ are pretty set on keeping the feature around for everyone so i'm sure there will be an excuse as to why it's not possible.

Yes, but.... but but but....

The overwhelming majority of people on MN are regulars who don't go anywhere near Google in order to find the place. We just come straight here and get stuck in.

For instance, I first found MN when Googling an extra curricular-related question. Once.

I'm now on here most days and have been for at least the last ten years. That's an approximate ratio of 1/3650 times that I have used Google to get here. As statistics go, that's pretty damn small, and I won't be the only one, not by a long shot.

Please bear that in mind, and listen to us. It's all very well garnering new customers, but not at the expense of pissing off all the existing ones.

How often do Site Stuff threads run to this number of posts?

@BIWI

Just had a quick look at "site stuff".

There are 50 threads on the first page (all posted since 9th Nov).

This thread has 455 posts so far.

A thread analysing the number of times swear words are used has 135 posts.

The next highest number of posts is 120 - that one is about Zombie threads (surprise!).

No other threads on p1 have more than 100 posts.

27 of the threads don't make it into double figures.

There's a current(ish) thread called 'Too soon?' on the Step-parenting board from a poster thinking she may have rushed into a relationship with her DC's new 'step-daddy'.

One of the recommended 'Similar Threads' is also called 'Too soon?' However, this one was started in Chat by a worried poster in February about being accidentally pregnant in a new relationship and wondering what to do. Part of the discussion was about the possibility of termination. The poster then said she was leaving the thread; and there it ended. In February.

It's a very blunt algorithm, I fear.

Sorry--trending, not active.

If it helps at all, 2 of the 5 active threads on both the first and second page (laptop) this morning are over three months old with no new posts from the OP. That's four out of ten. I've stopped using active, as nearly half the time they're zombie threads.

Agree. This seems such a good idea
@JustineMumsnet @LilyMumsnet @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

The "similar" threads on the current Strictly thread are all just previous ones which are 1) out of date and 2) full.

I sometimes wonder if this is a crisis of content.

Have the zombie threads now achieved greater importance because a lot of MNers are writing less content, especially since the relaunch?

(And also posters who previously provided a lot of decent, readable content said they were very unimpressed with the rather obvious Facebooking off of threads to the tabloids.)

Lack of new, good quality content could be a real downward spiral.

Nope. Still there for me.

Sadly still here for me - I’m using my iPhone. So annoying.

Looks like it's gone for me this morning. 🤞It stays that way.

Perfect, this is exactly it!

I really don't understand why MNHQ are trying so hard to defend this new feature. (Or how much work you're having to do behind the scenes to tweak it to make it less irritating)

Zombie threads have been an issue for ages now, and all we ever get is 'we'll talk about it in the office' or 'it's on our list'. And nothing ever gets done.

Then you introduce a new feature which patently makes the situation worse! I don't care what you think those stats 'prove' @JustineMumsnet. The number of threads started about it, (at least one of which was closed for further comments by MNHQ ), and the number of posts on those threads - along with this one, surely would give you some idea as to just how much this isn't a good idea, and is just pissing off your content providers?

How often do Site Stuff threads run to this number of posts?

I assume the stats refer to threads that haven’t been posted on for over (a) 30 days and (b) six months.

I appreciate the numbers don’t look particularly high but again where is the UX? If those small number of zombie threads are on the first three pages of Active threads, say, then the user perception will be rhat ‘all’ Active threads are zombie.

This is a great suggestion. @JustineMumsnet.

If the new feature is to help random people who find MN though a Google search then there's no need for it to be in place for those users who are logged in, as it doesn't improve their experience.

Why are you including the 15th twice?

Are You saying that there were only 94 zombies in 6 months? But 170 in 3 days? The numbers, what do the mean??

Oh, and don't forget the drip feeding.

The more we challenge and question the % the more HQ is forced to have to produce more evidence. As I said previously a percentage is meaningless (% of what?), so then it's scrabble scrabble behind the scenes to come up with more numbers to shut the punters up.

if this feature had been tested and the glitch around the increase of Zombie threads discovered, they would have sorted it out behind the scenes and not released the feature until all this tinkering with algorithms had been resolved.

For the timeframe 13th-15th:
6 months: 94/2833 3%
30 days: 170/2833 6%
For timeframe 15th-17th (similar threads release):
6 months: 112/2924 4%
30 days: 304/2924 10%

based on the above, however you look at it (and the statistician in me says that timeframe 13-15th shouldn't overlap with timeframe 15-17th - it should be 13-15th and 16-18), if the numbers above relate to actual zombie threads released back into peoples feeds, that's one helluva lot of zombies, which then perpetuated mayhem..

and zero acknowledgement, only politicians answers dodging the actual issue.

There are also a lot of posts tonight that seem just a tad fake. Peppered with the 'lols'. Suggested as being potential reverses. It's all very strange.