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

Step forward everyone who thinks that the way webchats currently work (where the sleb ignores most of the questions and is roundly barracked for so doing) is FINE.

107 replies

AitchTwoOh · 24/06/2009 22:33

... i'm not sure i do.

i can understand why some people have misgivings about the way that we have treated people on here, the jeering etc can't be that nice to be on the end of. otoh i feel that the schlebs are too able to skitter off the hook and treat us like dafties.

does the problem lie with MNHQ?

what are Justine etc saying to people?

are they advising them to look at MN first, or are they hopeful that they don't?

why on earth are we asked to waste our time coming up with questions that MNHQ then doesn't get them to answer?

are they even in the same room as MNHQ? cos if DG for example was just logging on from her home office (i imagine it a pale farrow and ball green, with floating shelves stuffed to the gills with byron - not tanya) then why all the 'oh she can give us a few minutes more' etc etc. why can't they just come back adn answer questions later?

and WHY do they think we're stupid?

OP posts:
Original poster
AitchTwoOh · 25/06/2009 21:25

she probably didn't treat us like thick bints, to be fair. she spun us. 'hard-core', blah blah blah, it was an effort to avoid the question and hope we wouldn't notice, which gets my back up. not even the avoiding so much as the thought that we wouldn't notice. we Always notice.

OP posts:
BecauseImWorthIt · 25/06/2009 21:17

Justine - I'm interested that DG wasn't happy with the webchat as well. What was her view? What did she think went wrong?

monkeytrousers · 25/06/2009 21:16

"I can see the rationale behind panels but instinctively they seem undemocratic and not v mn"

What is the House of Commons if not a mediating panel? Democracy isn't a free for all, but of couse falling prey to the corrupting force of power!

Original poster
AitchTwoOh · 25/06/2009 21:13

lololol at that clip eugene. those grasping bastards. [damp]

OP posts:
FabBakerGirlIsBack · 25/06/2009 21:12

I was going to offer the other day to do a live chat when the DG ones wasn't going well but then I took offence at you saying I was rude.

Original poster
AitchTwoOh · 25/06/2009 21:08

i think funnypeculiar's 5 questions asked by email followed by an open floor is best so far. agree it would be the same gobshites old faces very quickly.

and oh ffS if you're sending them that email Justine then i think they deserve what they get, the big-headed twats. it's as Clear As Day that they need to put a wee bit of work in and respect us as bright wimmin women and that we will respect the fuck out of them right back. because we ALWAYS do, we are not horrible people AT ALL.

it's a shame that DG was not happy with the way her webchat went but nor were we.

you've spelled it out for them, i think, in a clear-headed and fair way and if they're too up their own arses to treat us like peers then hell mend them. because we fookin' ARE dg's peers. i bet some of us went to school with her, some of us saw her at the school gates, some of us have worked with her etc etc etc. how appalling of the guests to come into our 'home' and think they can treat us like thick bints who need a lecture on what constitutes child abuse. (off the top of my head.

but you know, fair play to her for coming along etc etc etc. [reasonable] it could have been SUCH a good opportunity for entente and in fact friendship. from what the home schoolers said she's done good work for them in the past.

OP posts:
monkeytrousers · 25/06/2009 21:07

You could keep them here for longer by allowing dialogue with the people who posed the questions, i.e. they are allowed to respond real time and then a real, perhaps worthwhile exchange occurs?

There is still space there for lively debate rather than questions answered by rote which is incredibly dull and worthless.

tiktok · 25/06/2009 21:07

(Whatever the Oprah women are having....I'll have one.

Whatever it is.)

Swedes · 25/06/2009 21:03

We could give Mumsnet star ratings.

Swedes · 25/06/2009 20:58

We could have a yellow and red card system for webchats? Or if we think we're more Rugby than Premiership Vauxhall Conference (shows age) we could have a sin bin? With compulsory Fruit Shoots.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/06/2009 20:14

I think a pre-chat thread is a good idea - we'd just have to get pre-answered questions typed with both q&A at the beginning of the live thread. Think we'd struggle to get Dave Cameron types to stay 2 hours but some undoubtedly would, so we can try...

Anything else? What do folks think about a guidelines for MNetters re webchats - ie watch out we're going to actively moderate these and not let snidey stuff pass?

policywonk · 25/06/2009 19:53

What about hunker's idea of a pre-chat thread, then? And two hours instead of one? Could either of these be go-ers?

Swedes · 25/06/2009 19:21

Could unsanswered questions be neon pink and flashing, and make beeping noises, until they are answered?

EugeneHCrabs · 25/06/2009 19:15

well I htink on webchats if companies are involved then they need to give stuff away like Waitrose did to S

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/06/2009 19:12

I don't geddit

EugeneHCrabs · 25/06/2009 18:35

JUSTINE

READ THE OPRAH COMMENTS

hunkermunker · 25/06/2009 18:22

Justine, DG reads MN enough to slate it in print - you'd have thought she'd seen a webchat before.

Or a MNer riled

Lulumama · 25/06/2009 18:17

amen to that tiktok

DG did herself no favours by seemingly spending 13 minutes on the webchat.

good rules, justine, good rules

tiktok · 25/06/2009 18:13

Aha, Justine! That's what we want! A bit of mea culpa!

(are you reading this, Daisy? )

OTOH, Justine, DG is a meeja person, FFS, and she knows, or should know, the score...

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/06/2009 18:08

Yes I think that's right Tiktok - it was mutual . I rather blame myself for twisting her arm and not spelling out the consequences of lack of preparation tbh...

hunkermunker · 25/06/2009 18:06

I was disappointed-but-not-surprised with the Daisy Goodwin chat.

I posted questions WELL in advance of her showing up and she didn't answer them.

I agree, it's not an easy gig, she did know we weren't keen on her and it can't have been pleasant to see work she'd done described as child abuse even if that was totally accurate...

But she could have done MUCH that was positive yesterday. Instead she tried to blag it. And we don't like blaggers, do we?

Am not happy with committee idea either, though I do type extremely fast and accurately, so I can always be sleb typist. And I could say "You might want to rethink that, you buffoon, they're pretty bright, y'know" too, to ward off any unpleasantnesses...

How about an advance thread upon which questions are decided, then posted by one person (a MNHQ bod?) onto the actual thread, which is set up in advance so people can watch it, but locked until the chat starts?

tiktok · 25/06/2009 18:02

Justine, them's are good guidelines

I think with DG it was that we knew she didnt like us - not the other way round. She was right to be a tad nervous, because she had made some plainly daft and unfair criticisms in a national newspaper whose readership is a lot larger than the MN audience (I would think).

But if she had matched us with a bit of brightness, and bit of savviness and a bit of irreverance, plus a bit of give on the whole BUB thing....we might have got on a whole lot better.

MerlinsBeard · 25/06/2009 18:00

Justine- that post is too long for my poor concentration today ()but i find them incredibly dull tbh. Lots of ppl piling in with questions and only about 4 being answered. Their computers can't ALL be slow!

And in any case, i never know who any of them are

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/06/2009 17:58

Aitch some folk come in - we always suggest they do. Fiona Millar did, and the maternity Tsar and Alan Johnson. DG didn't and nor did Waitrose guys.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/06/2009 17:55

More seriously...

Thanks for raising it Aitch - we are, like some of you, pretty depressed about the way the DG chat turned out (as indeed she was).
These are the guidelines we always send out to folk who do webchats - assuming they can't come into the MN Towers - and which were sent to DG. (We always try to encourage them into the Towers as obviously it seems some don't read the guidelines.):

MN webchat guidelines

  1. The answers will be typed up live on your own computer. We will set up your registration details (a chat nickname and password) and send these over in advance. These will enable you to chat. Please test the registration details in advance of the live chat by typing ?testing? in the ?add your message here? box and posting. If there are any problems we need to know a good hour before the chat starts so we rectify them.
  1. Approx four or five days before the live chat we will open a thread and start collecting questions. These are usually from people who can?t make the live chat, and there will also be a few who just can?t resist making a comment/asking a question! We will send over the URL of this live thread in advance, so you can pick up the tone of the discussion as well as see what people are asking. Almost inevitably there will be some trivial questions and jokey comments, but sometimes it?s just as useful/fun to pick up on these comments as on the more serious questions. If time is tight and the thread is already long, we?re happy to sift through in advance, separate the wheat from the chaff and send over the most crucial questions in a word document.
  1. In an ideal world you would prepare answers to most or all of these advance questions. If you type up the answers in a notepad or textedit document, you can then cut and paste each answer into the 'add your message here' box once the chat has gone live. This gives you the chance to focus on the live questions as they come in and gets the chat off to a good start. If it?s not possible to prepare answers to all the questions in advance, then just choose a few ? but it really does work best if you can prepare as many as possible.
  1. Please begin each answer by addressing the person you are responding to, eg ?Soupdragon, you ask about xxx?. It makes it easier for everyone to follow the chat and gives the chat a personal touch. Sometimes a few people have asked the same question and in those instances it?s fine to just write one answer to a group of posters, just use all their names at the beginning of the answer.
  1. We will be watching over the chat and at the other end of the phone /on email if you have any difficulties. If it?s really busy, it can get quite difficult to follow (there are often lots of references back to previous questions). If at any point you need help ? please do just call or email.
  1. We'll give you a call 15 mins or so before the chat is due to end. It may be that you have to leave after the allotted time, or that you want to extend your visit because you're having such a ball/there are so many questions you?d like to answer - it?s up to you. Once you?ve had enough, let us know and we?ll post drawing the chat to a close and thanking you. It?d be great if you could make a final post saying thanks and goodbye.
  1. Mumsnetters are a bright, savvy and irreverent bunch. If we were to give one top tip it would be to be as up front, honest and ?human? as you can. If you don?t know the answer to a question, just say so, or say you?ll find out and let them know at a future date. We can always get back to them for you.

We share your pain re the ones that don't work, believe me. In the case of DG she was understandably reluctant to come on and a certain amount of arm twisting had to be done to get her. But it was on your request, she gave up her time for free, knew you didn't like her/ she'd get taken to task and still came on. We can't force people to answer questions, we can only advise them to prepare well - as you suggest we should and as we do.

So what to do... I can see the rationale behind panels but instinctively they seem undemocratic and not v mn (I can't imagine deleting folk who want to join in) and with advance questions you lose the spontaneity that is often part of the charm of the thing.

Maybe we should collectively agree a code of conduct and strictly enforce it - e.g. no snidey comments, no badgering, no insults, only one question each - after all these people are our guests? And we can certainly re-write our guidelines to make them clearer about the consequences of not engaging/preparing well. We could also try to insist folk come into the Towers so we can press them on questions but with the best will in the world, not everyone will be able to I suspect - so it will mean missing out on some folk who we would like to come on. Maybe there's something we can do technically too - which might make them work better...

When they work well I think everyone gets something out of it - when they don't, no one does.

Do please continue to let us know what you think. Thanks.