What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

@MNHQ cancel the check!

If it for newbies them why not take it off for those people logged in? Seems a simple fix.

Ah I think MNHQ (Justine) has answered this without meaning to. The new feature is for new users, who obviously have no idea of any problems / glitches or bugs on MN, so have no need for suggestions about how to fix problems as they don't stick around long enough to notice them. 😞

Still no response to this oft-asked question:

if the new feature is so good, why isn’t it on Site Stuff?

Not quite - you missed the step where they’re going to think really really carefully about it.

Then they’re going to keep doing it anyway

YY to traffic coming from google through a MN search because the previous search function was trashed on the relaunch. I certainly search this way now.

This is the data. Are you sure you're not thinking of a different time frame? As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

No I'm specifically think of the 2 days after this feature was launched. I'm not the only one who noticed a huge increse in my active being full of zombie threads directly as a result of this feature, there's lots of posters who said similar on this thread.

The zombie trolls revived threads from specific years or in certain topics yet after the new feature launched my active was full of threads from different years, topics and several of which had been revived clearly unintentionally by current well known posters.

As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

And then MN started doing it on purpose!

Exactly. And no recognition from any of the HQrs of how infuriating this is. Total disconnect between acting really quickly to zap the super troll and close some of the zombies they bumped but then absolutely encouraging all users to bump as many zombies as they want.

I just unbrandedly googled 'abusive ex' - which was one of the 'you might also like' categories queried upthread - and Mumsnet doesn't come up at all as a suggestion on the first page.

There is a 'how do I get back with abusive ex?' on page 2, which really is NOT n idea worthy of promotion, from 2013.

I do wonder if I'm now doing a Liza Minelli here and losing my mind.

As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

And then MN started doing it on purpose!

Your stats for "active" threads are a bit meaningless as everyone's "active" will be a different list.

I have a number of topics hidden as they are of no interest/relevance.

I would concur with a pp that the zombie threads in my active list were probably something like 75% at one point.

If you redid the data only looking at AIBU and Chat and maybe 5 or 6 other fast moving topics then I expect you would get a very different answer.

reading this back is like the worst aibu

mnhq; this is my idea.
everyone: you are being unreasonable. it doesn't work for these reasons.
mhhq: but but but but
everyone: still no. stop it please.
mnhq: oh well going to keep doing it anyway

We introduced this feature because a huge amount of visitors to MN (around 50%) arrive from unbranded search (ie they type query into Google and end up on a Mumsnet thread);

As a number of previous posters have pointed out, many of us use Google to search for threads because it's frankly a lot quicker and easier than pissing about with the MN site search function.

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

(a) How do you know that 'showing similar threads improves experience'? I find that clicking on them has led to disappointment and annoyance. How on earth are you able to monitor my annoyance?

(b) Being 'used a lot' does not mean that something is a useful feature.

<sigh>

Is this not because the Mumsnet search never works so people end up googling it with 'mumsnet' on the end to find things?

To be fair search these days is significantly improved but yes I think a significant amount of users do still do this, myself included, as we got so used to search not being effective.

Even this morning I used Google with MN at the end to search a specific query as its so ingrained to me to not use search. I didn't revive the thread though as there's no need and in the scenario where that one thread hadn't answered my query I just click back and then onto the next one in the Google search list, it's more accurate than a similar threads box would be.

We introduced this feature because a huge amount of visitors to MN (around 50%) arrive from unbranded search (ie they type query into Google and end up on a Mumsnet thread)

Is this not because the Mumsnet search never works so people end up googling it with 'mumsnet' on the end to find things?

highlighting when a thread hasn't been posted on for a while

One forum I used to read had a little 'Zombie' that appeared if the thread hadn't been posted on for a few months. [I know, it is this forum, before you point it out. I am being sarcastic].

I don't like to cast doubt on your numbers, but you seriously are saying that the increase in zombie threads in Active increased from 3% to 4%, yet regular posters were complaining that Active was over run with Zombies?

Agree completely. I don't want to be a twat and say this is a lie but your data is not accurate, there is absolutely no way the increase was only 1%. Active was about 85% zombie threads at one point.

Actually, in fairness to MN Admins, the in-house search facility used to be pants, but it has much improved with the upgrade that was applied to the boards.

That said - this 'feature' is bumping up threads that are old, that the last post on them was several months ago and is more than a single percentage point rise in the number of zombie threads being resurrected. It was worse than an Easter Sunday here with the number of resurrected threads going on over the past few days and that because they were resurrected, they no longer appear as true zombies but they really are.

PLEASE @JustineMumsnet, see sense.
We understand that we are both the product you're selling and the consumer of the product. As the consumer, we're complaining that the product has disimproved as a result of this 'feature'. It's made the site worse, not better. I really don't care how you weight the threads, as so many others have suggested, anything that hasn't been posted on in the past 90 or even 180 days should be locked with no further posts being possible on them. That would stop the 'zombie' threads from happening. Then if someone in that magic 50% of new joiners wants to read a thread, they can, just like the rest of us who have been here longer. If they have a question, they can link the thread to their own new post in the opening message and ask their question.
As the product, if we don't like the site, we can leave. You won't have a site to sell
advertising areas on if the life blood of the site isn't there.

We introduced this feature because a huge amount of visitors to MN (around 50%) arrive from unbranded search (ie they type query into Google and end up on a Mumsnet thread); 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.
And if any of those new users find an old thread and revive it to ask their own question they will get robustly told by older users it isn't the done thing on MN and to start their own thread. Making the experience of new users confusing and unwelcoming. Bonkers.

It's clear from this discussion that some folks really, really don't like these older threads appearing in Active at all, so we're going to think about how we can address this

Well the answer is obvious, but because, it's not want MNHQ want to hear, you're just going to plough on with it anyway. It's ok to admit you got it wrong, we all make mistakes.

I'm sure there are issues with Mumsnet, but they invariably respond quickly, politely and effectively if you contact them.

Which doesn't always happen with other platforms.

or by highlighting when a thread hasn't been posted on for a while and/or via a user setting for excluding older threads in Active altogether.

Sigh. Which is exactly what people have been asking MN to do to solve the issue of zombie threads. MNHQ have been "having a think about this" for as long as I can remember so it seems unlikely that you will suddenly find a solution.

If you can come up with an algorithm to make "you may also like" suggestions based on a single thread, then surely you can come up with one that looks at the date the thread was posted (we used to be able to see that before opening a thread but you took that option away) and either label it CLEARLY as a zombie or just close it to new posts.

It still doesn’t solve the issue of threads which are distressing to the OPs coming back to life and giving them notifications about new posts, though? Lots of those are on AIBU or Chat, rather than in specific topics boards.

@JustineMumsnet Surely the best way to improve the experience for this amazing 50% (are you SURE the decimal point isn't in the wrong place?) is to improve the in house Search feature?
I'm a regular but I leave the site and use google to find stuff back on MN because the in house Search feature is pants.
Though frankly if Google is generating providing half your traffic, I can see why MN cant be arsed to improve their own search function.

Thank god for this thread - I thought I was the only one who was getting thoroughly pissed off with yet another useless and unwanted feature. Seriously @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet etc - do you do any testing before you introduce these nonsensical tweaks and are you actively trying to put people off using the site? The amount of scrolling that’s required now to get to the bit of the screen where you can actually post is beyond a joke.

It's clear from this discussion that some folks really, really don't like these older threads appearing in Active at all, so we're going to think about how we can address this - either via further tweaks in the formula, or by highlighting when a thread hasn't been posted on for a while and/or via a user setting for excluding older threads in Active altogether.

I'm sure it's more than 4%, but thank you for looking into this and we'll all definitely appreciate an update soon. I can't think anyone enjoys seriously enjoys the old threads for posting in. I understand someone may want to read them, but I can't think of one reason why they should be left open to post in a year out of date!