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

What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

790 replies

PalatineHill · 15/11/2022 14:07

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
daisychain01 · 21/11/2022 18:41

@fdgdfgdfgdfg I was also thinking 'sunk cost fallacy' 👍 and an inability to have the humility to admit wrong-doing and to back down graciously from a position.

00100001 · 21/11/2022 18:36

SoupDragon · 21/11/2022 18:36

I don't even notice it now that it's underneath the New Post box.

Will be interesting to see how engagement changes over the next few days.

SoupDragon · 21/11/2022 18:36

I don't even notice it now that it's underneath the New Post box.

daisychain01 · 21/11/2022 18:33

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 21/11/2022 17:06

OK, that's good at the consumer end. But what about the other end - how are you managing contributor consent for a new use of their historic data? MN posts include sensitive personal information that is at best semi-anonymised. Threads going out of date and it being unacceptable to resurrect many of them has been part of the MN operating model for years and it has helped to maintain confidentiality.

Sorry to nitpick but I spend a lot of time at work managing half-baked ethics. Hopefully your new data officer can advise.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I work in a data rich environment and the topic of ethics and data protection is a daily topic of conversation. Not least of all the fact that even with GDPR/DPA2018 in place, a high percentage of organisations haven't the foggiest clue about what ethics actually equates to.

Hence this absolute clusterf**k unfolding before us.

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 21/11/2022 18:22

itsthefinalcountdown1 · 21/11/2022 16:51

Just because people are clicking on it doesn't mean they're liking what they find on there. You can only see how old the thread is after you've clicked. So if I've ever clicked it, just know that I was disappointed with the results every single time. You seem to have confused "clicked on" with "liked the results" if you're using the word "popular".

Secondly we've changed the formula for the Trending box so that only threads created within the last 30 days can appear in there.

This however is a good step forwards. Thank you!

The change to trending doesn't seem like a good thing to me. It seems like a bodge to hide the real issue.

There are reasons why a thread that's older that 30 days might trend. Maybe the OP has come back with an update, or something like the recent LGB Alliance case that has had big gaps between court days.

These threads have genuine reasons to be in trending, but will now be shoved under the rug for no good reason.

This whole thing smacks of sunk cost fallacy. "We've spent a month and £5000 on this new shiny thing, we must keep it even though it keeps setting the house on fire!"

itsthefinalcountdown1 · 21/11/2022 18:20

JustineMumsnet · 21/11/2022 18:12

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

Show quote history

33k people clicking on it doesn't mean they liked it.

MollieMarie · 21/11/2022 18:18

If MN think only 150 people don't like the new feature I think we should definitely start an AIBU poll to get some real figures Grin

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.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 21/11/2022 18:12

Itwasntevenblackpudding · 21/11/2022 17:27

@JustineMumsnet

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people on this thread clicking the links to get evidence to prove just how ludicrous the algorithm is?

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people who didn't realise that they were going to be taken to an irrelevant zombie thread.

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people just trying to post a reply to a current thread and getting caught out by the "new" box appearing?

Great news that we will have the option to turn it off, and even better news that we won't have to see zombie threads in Active.

Hope the person writing the code for this isn't the same one who came up with the algorithm!

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

ArcaneWireless · 21/11/2022 17:36

JaneJeffer · 21/11/2022 17:28

I think MN gave the troll a job to get it off their back.

And it has now morphed into the monkey on their back.

JaneJeffer · 21/11/2022 17:28

I think MN gave the troll a job to get it off their back.

MollieMarie · 21/11/2022 17:27

JaneJeffer · 21/11/2022 17:09

It's clear that it's a popular feature with some (there have been over 78,000 clicks on it by over 33,000 different users since release) but it's also clear from this thread that it's a pretty unpopular feature with others!
Why not do a poll in AIBU @JustineMumsnet?

That's a good idea. Maybe someone on here can start one?

Itwasntevenblackpudding · 21/11/2022 17:27

@JustineMumsnet

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people on this thread clicking the links to get evidence to prove just how ludicrous the algorithm is?

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people who didn't realise that they were going to be taken to an irrelevant zombie thread.

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people just trying to post a reply to a current thread and getting caught out by the "new" box appearing?

Great news that we will have the option to turn it off, and even better news that we won't have to see zombie threads in Active.

Hope the person writing the code for this isn't the same one who came up with the algorithm!

heldinadream · 21/11/2022 17:24

JaneJeffer · 21/11/2022 17:09

It's clear that it's a popular feature with some (there have been over 78,000 clicks on it by over 33,000 different users since release) but it's also clear from this thread that it's a pretty unpopular feature with others!
Why not do a poll in AIBU @JustineMumsnet?

It's rubbish, people are using it because it's NEW not because it's POPULAR, they are just trying it out.
Get rid! It's awful!
Not replying to you @JaneJeffer just using your quote to add my rant on to.🙂
@JustineMumsnet can't you see what a pig's ear it is?

JaneJeffer · 21/11/2022 17:09

It's clear that it's a popular feature with some (there have been over 78,000 clicks on it by over 33,000 different users since release) but it's also clear from this thread that it's a pretty unpopular feature with others!
Why not do a poll in AIBU @JustineMumsnet?

Original poster
PalatineHill · 21/11/2022 17:08

Formatting went wierd in my post, sorry.

I’m confused whether the change in ‘Active’ is by going to customise to make active opt out or not, now. Maybe I misunderstood that bit?

OP posts:
barskits · 21/11/2022 17:08

Beees · 21/11/2022 16:19

It's clear that it's a popular feature with some (there have been over 78,000 clicks on it by over 33,000 different users since release)

I'd wager at least half if not more of those have been unintentional but I suppose you can make data say anything without proper context.

It seems very odd that you're now having to introduce more controls and features to counter the new feature when you could just remove the similar threads feature altogether.

It's got vibes of when someone makes a mistake at work so they can spend the whole day correcting the mistake and not actually doing any meaningful work.

And I suspect a considerable number of those clicks have been from us on this thread, trying to prove our point.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 21/11/2022 17:06

OK, that's good at the consumer end. But what about the other end - how are you managing contributor consent for a new use of their historic data? MN posts include sensitive personal information that is at best semi-anonymised. Threads going out of date and it being unacceptable to resurrect many of them has been part of the MN operating model for years and it has helped to maintain confidentiality.

Sorry to nitpick but I spend a lot of time at work managing half-baked ethics. Hopefully your new data officer can advise.

Original poster
PalatineHill · 21/11/2022 17:05

Thanks for the reply Justine but I’m not sure that creating an opt-out to this going to be a fix. Because even if some people know that they can go to customise and turn off:

  • seeing Similar Threads at all
-seeing threads in Active that have been started longer ago than the last 30 days…

Not everyone will do that or will know they can do it, especially as time goes on, so you will still have all the same problems of these features- inappropriate ‘similar’ threads being recommended, multiple zombie threads being revived, and overall, the encouragement by MNHQ of a much slower-moving site with even more of a myriad of similar threads on the go, with some of those current but some way out of date.

None of which seems like a great first-time experience to encourage coming back if you’re a new visitor - nor a great long term experience if you’re already a long term poster, which is the group that provides a lot of the posted content.

I had thought that backwaters are not encouraged on MN- aren’t the quietest cul-de-sacs of MN culled every so often if they don’t get much traffic? Yet this feature (even with an opt out) would seem to facilitate a massive drag on the momentum of discussion. As well as causing all the other very concerning problems that everyone on the thread has been pointing out. It still seems like it would be better and easier to pull the feature entirely.

OP posts:
itsthefinalcountdown1 · 21/11/2022 16:51

Just because people are clicking on it doesn't mean they're liking what they find on there. You can only see how old the thread is after you've clicked. So if I've ever clicked it, just know that I was disappointed with the results every single time. You seem to have confused "clicked on" with "liked the results" if you're using the word "popular".

Secondly we've changed the formula for the Trending box so that only threads created within the last 30 days can appear in there.

This however is a good step forwards. Thank you!

00100001 · 21/11/2022 16:50

Another pointless list of recommendations on the DH wants me the give up pork thread

What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?
TheYearOfSmallThings · 21/11/2022 16:32

I've clicked on it by accident a handful of times - the obnoxious and intrusive placement makes this inevitable. It doesn't mean users like it or want it to be there.

Actually the placement makes clear that Mumsnet know people don't want it and would never choose to use it if it weren't shoved in the middle of functions that are actually wanted.

DappledThings · 21/11/2022 16:29

Pixiedust1234 · 21/11/2022 16:24

It's clear that it's a popular feature with some (there have been over 78,000 clicks on it by over 33,000 different users

That doesn't mean its actually popular. So many threads right now have newer posts stating they didn't realise the date on first post as it was in trending.

And how many of those are people whom are also on this thread looking at the results and clicking on suggested results to see just how ludicrous/ancient/inappropriate they are?

Given how many people are annoyed by it the number of clicks is no indication as to how much it is wanted or found to be useful.

KozmicBlue · 21/11/2022 16:29

Clicks =/= likes