MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔

[Wondermoomin]

AIBU to expect MN recommendations, where they quote a poster/member, to be genuine?

I like being able to rely on recommendations in MN swears by and other emails. I excitedly opened an email with the subject “Big bargains for our most loyal Mumsnetters” wondering what MN could make me buy this time (I should probably get other hobbies).

Imagine my surprise to see my own username quoted there with a recommendation! Imagine my further surprise when I realised it was a post I wrote almost 8 years ago, and it was being used directly under a specific product to give the impression I was recommending it - and I’ve never even owned that particular thing mine was more expensive.

I don’t like posts being misrepresented as a recommendation for a specific product. It makes me question the credibility of other MN recommendations.

Hoping I’ll manage to attach screenshots.

PS my gazebo broke but I’ve replaced it. Still not with the brand I supposedly recommended according to the MN email.

The silence on this demonstrates how laughably untouchable MN think they are 🤣🤣🤣

I’ve also just realised that ‘Mumsnet Swears By’ can mean ‘Just One Person’ has mentioned it. Even when the post mentions the actual product, the ‘Swears By’ makes me think many people have recommended it instead of one poster years ago.

Good point! It’s meaningless, even if it is genuine and not made up quote.

This robot mower example is a really good illustration of how nonsensical the Swears By concept is. The thread relied on by MN in their 27 April 2025 email is this short one from May/June 2022.

Recommendations or mentions were as follows:

Generic - no brand mentioned: 3 (of which one was negative)
Flymo: 2
Worx: 1
Husqvarna: 1
Bosch: 1

Brand recommended in April 2025 “Swears By” email on basis of this: Lawnmaster.

Yes, that stood out for me too. It's been a hollow project from the start, it seems. Mumsnet Swears By really has lost all credibility now.

And MN are arguing that they're not swearing by the product in Swears By that has a picture and a link. Of course not! They're just saying that robot mowers in general are useful. I'm glad they clarified that. My tiny brain didn't know that a robot that cuts your grass for you may be useful.

Seems like clicking through might give a good link to find out about older model recommendations

The Rodial thing is odd as other Rodial products do get regularly discussed. Why that specific product unless Rodial requested it?

Of course it is. Look at the link that popped up right above your post

It appears on a Swears By email and also in an ad with a 15% off Mumsnet specific code, described as a sponsored link.

I do understand that MN has sponsored ads, which is fine, but this supports the theory that what appears in the Swears By emails and articles is also spon con.

And there was me thinking I hadn’t been manipulated! I treated myself to a PS raincoat based on various MNers’ recommendations. I do love it* though - a quality item I wouldn’t otherwise have heard of, and the sort of thing Swears By should be about but apparently is not.

*For the avoidance of doubt, by “it” I refer only to the above-mentioned raincoat and not any other item of waterproof wearing apparel.

Just thought about editing my last post to quote @Chewygummy’s post immediately above, to be faced with the warning “Changing the context of posts is against Talk Guidelines.” The irony!

@Wondermoomin as the thread is so long maybe you could do a summary so any new people that come here and only look at Ops posts can quickly see what’s happened

@Wondermoomin might I sugggest a TAAT on the basis that this one doesn’t seem to move properly. It might get taken down but at least there a short while for people who may be free and browsing on bank holiday

I'd wondered the same thing. I've never suggested flying in the face of MN guidelines in all my years here before, but MN are trying to suppress an issue that affects every member.

I'm genuinely appalled at their conduct.

I did a TAAT a few days ago if that's of any use.

It’s a long thread, and I know that some people will show all of OP’s posts only, as a way of catching up on a thread they haven’t been following, so I’ll try to do a quick summary and will pull out some key posts/sources…

• MN were caught out, allegedly acting in breach of ASA guidelines among other things
• The thread was temporarily hidden
• MN then provided a few explanation posts saying that this was a one-off cock-up and sorry that we MNers were confused
• Then we were told that in 99% of cases, the quotes refer to the specific products being featured; in a tiny minority, they are referring to a generic product category and will make that clearer
• Several users easily discovered multiple other examples, suggesting that it wasn’t just 1% of cases, or a one-off cock-up
• MN went on an editing spree of their swears by/recommendations sections (editing about 64 out of 75 things), also suggesting it’s not just 1% or an isolated cock-up
• The thread largely disappears from active and trending, suggesting it’s been suppressed
• MN says it hasn’t been suppressed, threads appear in active based on popularity and how new they are
• Another MN source shows that they do sometimes remove threads from active to give them a chance to “calm down”

Let me try sharing a few posts for anyone just arriving who might be filtering only on my posts.

Take this one as an example

If I wasn't aware of this thread, and later heard about it and discovered MN had suppressed it I would feel incredibly cross about it

If you are making commission off the posts of your members you need to at least treat them with some degree of respect, however belatedly

Somebody has counted up which brands are referenced and which one ends up in the Swears By email

Remember that MN has said here on their Swears By stuff that every item is recommended. Nobody has recommended that robot lawnmower that they said “Mumsnet Swears By”