Page 6 | What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

PalatineHill · 2022-11-15T14:07:30+00:00

Hi MNHQ. Please just take it out. Or let me opt out of it? It looks a mess. If here’s something that I might also like to read, I’ll find it by using the search function. These suggestions are just encouraging the posting of the same points on multiple similar threads, and that will discourage healthy normal thread death. It’s really distracting to look at visually, I really liked the uncluttered ‘clean’ MN format compared to other forums.

MissMarpleRocks · 22/11/2022 13:06

Well HQ are clearly not going to listen to their core users. Seems a Bit weird to me.

So as much as I hate doing this openly & because this is really the only place I know, any similar chat places?

Itwasntevenblackpudding · 22/11/2022 12:38

@PalatineHill

I definitely get other "site stuff" threads appearing in Active - and they certainly don't have anything like the number of posts on this thread.

tribpot · 22/11/2022 12:34

Ironically it looks like the one product that Mumsnet Voices doesn't do research on is .. Mumsnet.

Original poster

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 12:27

I just found this- www.mumsnet.com/voices

OP posts:

Original poster

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 12:24

Maybe this is what makes the discussion with MNHQ a bit tense sometimes. I definitely have higher expectations of them as a private business because MN invite and deal with such sensitive personal content.

MNHQ have been advocates for posters’ views in the past and they have their own media profile based on putting forward posters’ views.

All of which is good, because MN is an accessible place for women to talk and is unusual and important for that reason. But it gets difficult when different priorities clash obviously. Is there any policy about when or how MNHQ will consult with posters about the site?

OP posts:

Original poster

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 12:19

I hadn’t taken it in that this thread isn’t showing in Active, that’s disappointing.is that true of all of Site Stuff? (I can’t tell without bumping a thread just for the sake of it!)

I guess that if this thread is not showing in Active, then its more likely that we’re quite long term posters on this thread, who know to go over to site stuff to talk about site stuff.

Piggy’s AIBU thread shows how posters who find this subject via Active or Aibu might feel. Seems like a big majority of the several hundred votes over there dislike the new feature too.

I think your points and suggestions have nailed it BIWI and tribpot. Insensitive (or maybe worse) new monetisation features feel uncomfortable in a site which is supposed to be about support, and not just a neutral vehicle for discussion like Twitter (though Twitter still has responsibilities for its users)

OP posts:

barskits · 22/11/2022 11:16

Beees · 21/11/2022 18:16

Well - there are around 150 people on this thread, so given that 33k users have clicked on it, I'd say not many!

Sarcastic replies like this just make you look childish to be honest and don't address some of the very reasonable issues with the new feature discussed on this thread.

Only around 150 people have posted on this thread. How many people have read it and then gone to have a look and see what we mean?

Original poster

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 11:15

all the best to you HowDoYouLikeYourTea and thanks for contributing your experience. I think it’s really easy to get into that bad place online, I know I have done before when looking into information on illnesses that I’ve been worried about.

OP posts:

Itwasntevenblackpudding · 22/11/2022 11:05

This is clearly the most relevant thread - so why doesn’t it show up?

Probably for the same reason that this very active thread (with hundreds of posts) isn't showing up in...well...Active.

I don't think I can be bothered highlighting things anymore.

Justine's "factual" response to my question showed exactly what MN think of their users .

TrashyPanda · 22/11/2022 10:43

Just been over on the other thread ( www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4682399-should-mnhq-keep-the-similar-threads-feature?page=2&reply=121717884 )

and just look at what is on the suggested topics list.

absolutely no reference to this thread.

how peculiar. This is clearly the most relevant thread - so why doesn’t it show up?

What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

Beees · 22/11/2022 10:32

I'm sorry to hea that Howdoyoulikeyourtea hopefully things are a bit less chaotic now and your DH is OK.

I think this is one of the major flaws in the new feature along with the potential for OPs to be blindsided by an issue they had posted and moved on from suddenly and unexpectedly resurfacing.

It would be nice if MNHQ could actually acknowledge that this algorithm will hurt and affect real han beings. At the end of the day the site is meant to be a supportive place and this just feels like users actual issues are being used as click bait.

ArcaneWireless · 22/11/2022 10:21

@Howdoyoulikeyourtea

I’m sorry you and your DH are having a horrible time of it at the moment. I hope things take a better turn for you soon. Keep kicking flower. 💐

tribpot · 22/11/2022 10:08

And that's the kind of behaviour that hellsites like Twitter feed on, @Howdoyoulikeyourtea - because it increases 'engagement' for advertisers.

I'd like to see Mumsnet publish and implement a corporate social responsibility strategy. to address issues like this.

Howdoyoulikeyourtea · 22/11/2022 10:00

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 09:04

Thanks tribpot I hadn’t seen that.

It just seems that algorithms used in online content created by and for potentially vulnerable people, (which obviously applies to MN which is all about supporting parents) would need to have specific limitations applied so as not to exacerbate anyone’s problems.

But as others have said on this thread, potentially any area of MN or keyword could involve something sensitive. And algorithms really aren’t sensitive enough to make those distinctions and judgements.

So there’s a few different user experience reasons why I think a ‘Similar threads’ feature is a bad idea, but this specific type of effect seems worrying. Other online platforms show that this sort of feature could nudge vulnerable posters’ problems to get worse. I don’t think many of us on here would want our previous threads or old posts to contribute to that. It just seems better not to have the Similar threads feature at all.

People can still use search with the keywords of their choice but that is different from an online platform officially recommending specific similar threads.

I found this a couple of days ago. DH is in hospital at the moment and I am not in a good place emotionally. I went on a thread about a 16yr old being put on a mixed sex ward, no problems for me and interesting and important discussion about safe guarding. But, I then clicked on a “similar thread” about hospital, then another, then another and ended up spiralling downwards fast. Now I know I could have ignored them and not clicked on them, but when you’re in a bad place you don’t make good decisions.

BIWI · 22/11/2022 09:58

What all of this illustrates is just how much MN has changed and developed since its inception.

Whereas we used to be people, with the numerous and diverse issues and conversation subjects, now we're reduced to numbers and statistics.

... which I suppose is inevitable. MN is a business after all.

Just a shame that the latter can't be rather more enmeshed with the former.

The big issue, it seems to me, is that this new feature can't take into account any of the nuanced human issues that make MN unique. And the fact that MNHQ seem determined to impose it upon its members only illustrates the shift towards becoming anonymous, AI-driven site. Which is a real shame.

TrashyPanda · 22/11/2022 09:37

This thread has 91% saying “no”

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4682399-should-mnhq-keep-the-similar-threads-feature

Itwasntevenblackpudding · 22/11/2022 09:35

If you must have links on the page, why not just link to the most recent page on that board?

Then the 33K people could click on real-time discussions instead of reviving zombies.

TrashyPanda · 22/11/2022 09:34

JustineMumsnet · 21/11/2022 19:21

Ok that wasn't meant to be sarcastic - it was meant to be factual. So I'm going to leave the thread now as it's clear that I'm not helping. We'll make the improvements as promised and check in after that.

Show quote history

Why won’t you answer the question about why this “useful” feature does not appear in Site Stuff?

it could actually assist folk who are experiencing difficulties with functionality

But… We know you don’t want to draw more attention to things that are broken on MN, so why not admit it, instead of ignoring the question?

AutumnCrow · 22/11/2022 09:30

There’s an AIBU thread at the moment from a woman who is very unhappy about being ‘fat’.

One of the similar thread recommendations is ‘AIBU to think people dislike me because I’m fat?’

So yes this is definitely a case where an algorithm is potentially putting an unhappy and vulnerable woman (and others) down an eating-related rabbit hole. It’s really quite irresponsible.

Original poster

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 09:04

Thanks tribpot I hadn’t seen that.

It just seems that algorithms used in online content created by and for potentially vulnerable people, (which obviously applies to MN which is all about supporting parents) would need to have specific limitations applied so as not to exacerbate anyone’s problems.

But as others have said on this thread, potentially any area of MN or keyword could involve something sensitive. And algorithms really aren’t sensitive enough to make those distinctions and judgements.

So there’s a few different user experience reasons why I think a ‘Similar threads’ feature is a bad idea, but this specific type of effect seems worrying. Other online platforms show that this sort of feature could nudge vulnerable posters’ problems to get worse. I don’t think many of us on here would want our previous threads or old posts to contribute to that. It just seems better not to have the Similar threads feature at all.

People can still use search with the keywords of their choice but that is different from an online platform officially recommending specific similar threads.

OP posts:

tribpot · 22/11/2022 07:56

I think David Baddiel made the same point in his documentary on social media @PalatineHill . His daughter has suffered from eating disorders and she talked about the impact of social media algorithms on her disease.

Original poster

PalatineHill · 22/11/2022 06:58

I just read this article about a new BBC documentary about disordered eating (and social media) and it very much seems to suggest that on social media on difficult subjects, similar threads- type recommendations for more content by algorithm can be very unhelpful for vulnerable people.

Zara McDermott: ‘I considered deleting social media after learning impact on disordered eating’
www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/88b8852b-79ec-4821-a7c3-01dd8bf3e245

‘Zara also believes social media companies need to do more to combat the promotion of eating disorder content on their platforms, including by users who use coded terms to evade existing content bans.
With TikTok especially, she says, “you can get yourself into a real hole and the algorithm can really start to suggest posts that you might like based on your searches. It's almost a bit of a trap.”
A TikTok spokesperson said: “We care deeply about the health and well-being of our community. We do not allow content depicting, promoting, normalising, or glorifying disordered eating, however we do support members of our community sharing their personal experiences with these issues in a safe way to raise awareness and find support.”’

OP posts:

Whinge · 22/11/2022 06:07

BruceAndNosh · 21/11/2022 21:25

@JustineMumsnet We'll will also introduce two new setting in Customise
One to turn off seeing Similar Threads at all and one which ensures you only see threads in Active that have been started within the last 30 days. We're aiming to release both of these changes in the next week or so. Thanks for your input and for your patience.

Is that before or after the Edit Function which you said was under development and on its way last year...?

@BruceAndNosh That's a good question. Where is the edit function? 😀 It seems to have been in the works since 2020 (or perhaps even longer) but still hasn't been implemented.

PurpleButterflyWings · 22/11/2022 00:26

HereComeTheGrannies · 21/11/2022 20:34

A flounce? 😂😂 how did you ever get MN as big as it is with this attitude?

Genuine question to any other @mnhq person watching this thread since Justine has spat her dummy out and ran away, why are these new features pushed when they’re CLEARLY not functional? It took fucking ages for the new and shiny website to work properly. Now creating an algorithm that gets it right every time is tricky is certainly true, but it appears that it’s not getting it right at all. Why are you refusing to answer what UX dev/testing has been done? You refused to answer this when you rolled the website out too… is it because the answer is fuck all?

Show quote history

Oh dear. @HereComeTheGrannies I think you need to take a chill pill dude!

PurpleButterflyWings · 22/11/2022 00:24

ArcaneWireless · 21/11/2022 20:12

I think I have the solution. I’ve asked how to make this better in Chat and checked what came up in the popular and helpful suggested threads

Take your pick…

Boiling a ham for 3 days in cola.

Inflating a burst tyre with a straw.

Using chuddy to hang a mirror.

A pea - the new MN chicken?

1993 - only 6 more years til I can dance like it is 1999 - can’t wait.

Problem solved. Probably….