Some topics not showing up in searches

[slug]

Specifically anything in Feminism has stopped showing up in the "Last Hour" or "Last 15 minutes" search.

I know they are there and I know there are recent posts so why don't they show?

Gosh I am really sad about this.

People (including me) have asked for a specific trans/gender issues board and been told no on many occasions.

Now FWR has become that de facto trans board and the content is being hidden.

This means a lot of the other important feminist discussions are also being hidden. Im thinking of things like the "do all boys strangle" thread, the birth injuries thread, threads about rape culture, how working class women are treated.

We have so many great discussions and I'm gutted that more casual users won't see them now.

If the trans stuff really is taking up that much time please set up a gender issues board and put it there.

I think it's crucial that people see the bigger picture here.

I highly doubt that MNHQ want to stifle this discussion, but can you imagine the pressure they must be under from certain sources to do so?

If we want to keep this space then we have to use our heads.

I'm sad about this move as I don't know if I would have come across the feminism board if it hadn't come up in active threads.

MNHQ Is there any way for individual users to opt to have FWR show up in the active threads (whilst remaining hidden for everyone else)? I'm finding it awkward to keep navigating to that topic separately to see if there are new threads there. I don't think I have ever posted anything goady on those boards and would like the option to see the posts easily if possible.

But there is so much more to FWR than just discussion on trans issues.
I do not feel this is a positive move.

*@KateMumsnet

Can you take a look at this thread, which is talking about this specific issue.

There was a suggestion (mine), that along with the sticky about self-regulation, you could perhaps suggest a three strike rule?

We're struggling to work out if unsustainable moderation is really the problem.

If it is, that would indicate that there is some groundless reporting going on. (Which a well-known tactic.)

Here is my post, cut and pasted, but whole thread is worth looking at. (It's fairly short).

"So the problem, as far as we know, is too many posts are getting reported and creating an unsustainable workload for the moderators?

And the solution is to hide this from active? Is that the only solution being suggested?

And this will help because it tacitly agrees that the reason people are reporting is because it's getting too wide an audience? It's becoming too influential? Have I got that right?

There are several issues about this. Firstly, anyone can report any post, which takes up mod time. Is the issue that assessing and forming a judgement on that post is what takes the time, or just the fact it's been flagged?

Because we cannot control the reporting of posts by trolls. They don't have to genuinely think we have overstepped any mark. They can just report willy-nilly. To piss off the mods. They're clever enough to take a phrase or word to make them sound authentically concerned.

Secondly, it puts us in a Catch-22. If we have noticed a sealion, and have alerted the mods, that in and of its self is just adding to their workload. Especially as the sealion posts often don't come across as particularly rule breaking. And they're often long. It's a pain in the arse for the mods.

Plus sealions do provide a very useful service. They think they are putting a spoke in the feminist wheel, but they're not. As long as one can remain patient and not rise to the obvious goadiness (always, always think of the lurkers), one gets the opportunity to restate one's case, over and over. It's a gift, really.

And their response is always incriminating. If not immediately, then eventually.

Asking feminist posters to remain above reproach should, in theory, work. But not if it's about the volume of reporting, rather than the real content of their posts.

I wonder if a sticky should also suggest something of a three strike rule? That if you are a serial post reporter, but your complaints are continually found to be groundless, you get a week's ban.

Because I think we do need to find out whether or not there is any real grounds for all this post reporting. If there is, then we can self regulate successfully. If there isn't, we can't, and there needs to be some kind of recourse for us. Banning serial post reporters for being arseholes could be a solution.

That's just me thinking out loud.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3219892-Reducing-Moderation-Load-for-MN-continuation-of-Dealing-with-Inflammatory-Posts?watched=1&msgid=77058335#77058335

If it's not about the volume of reporting, then obviously these suggestions aren't relevant.

It's temporary, so far, they have said.

If it's a sponsorship and money issue - companies threatening/being threatened - then I'd love their spokespeople to come on and have a webchat, or even to just have a thread where we could address their concerns directly.

That's aside from the moderation issue, which is a staff resource and an internal decision - you either decide it's worth it or not - but if it's external commercial pressures I would like, as a potential customer of these companies - to offer my opinion.

That's aside from the moderation issue, which is a staff resource and an internal decision - you either decide it's worth it or not - but if it's external commercial pressures I would like, as a potential customer of these companies - to offer my opinion.

I agree.

I have noticed that a key characteristic of this issue is the push me pull you aspect of awareness.

As public awareness becomes greater, the need to shut down discussion ramps up.

So you have this horrible equation of total public understanding on one side, so tantalisingly within reach, you can taste it. Versus permanent censorship and hellfire and damnation on the other, snapping at your ankles.

Being in a position to be able to decide which side is currently in the ascendancy, must be very difficult. If money is at stake.

Which is why facilitating discussion is so bloody vital.

But if the discussion is hidden away, and only found by the likeminded, doesn’t it just become an echo chamber?

For moderation, you don't need to go as far as actual volunteer moderators if your software people are able to do a small amount of adjustment. Suppose that (if you don't already) you stored per account how many reports the user has made, and how many were upheld by the moderator. Then use that data to weight the seriousness of current reports. Eg count a user as a "usually reliable reporter" if they've made at least 4 reports, at least 3 of which have been upheld, or whatever threshold works. Then present for review first those posts that have been reported by the most "usually reliable reporters". That way your moderation effort goes where it's needed, and doesn't get derailed by vexatious reporting.

I am another bemused by the "tone" argument against FWR, since its tone is generally extremely careful and polite. If you actually have a content problem with it, say so, and we can consider crowdfunding for an actual feminism chat venue online.

There have been many problems like this in the past, with serial reporters causing havoc in order to shut conversation down.

I've seen it suggested before that only posters not lurkers should be allowed to report.

I remember the multiple reporting of prolific posters (Anyfucker was one at one stage) where every single post they made was reported. And obviously if you report every post eventually there will be a (usually frustrated) delete-worthy one and the reporter can say "there you go, I'm right, ban her".

In my opinion, someone who joins the site purely to report should be completely ignored by MNHQ. But sadly we are back to the old MN belief expressed by Justine on more than one occasion that every registered member is equal - the one who joined yesterday is equal to the one who has been a member for ten years but only posted twice is equal to the one who joined ten years ago and has posted multiple supportive, interesting, amusing, informative posts over that time.

It's a shame.

Hi all - very briefly, because I'm on leave today, sorry: for now this is a short-term trial to take the heat out of the situation and hopefully give some space to allow a more measured tone to bed in. Datum - there's definitely no setting up to fail and we will deffo think about a sticky.

In terms of being clearer on 'rules' - we've tried hard to avoid that so far for two reasons: firstly, because by their nature they allow no flexibility and most people here seem to think this is a topic with lots of grey areas. Secondly, lots of people seemed to be of the view that if, for eg. 'non-preferred pronouns' were point blank outlawed, it would be difficult to discuss the scientific basis for your argument. We also think that generally, our Talk Guidelines cover most things because they allow for context and intent.

But it may be a price worth paying - and it might be possible, for eg, to formally nix the casual use of non-preferred pronouns where not used in a scientific context, or where they are attached to a particular person. We'll mull it here, and interested as ever in yr thoughts -apols, heading out with kids now.

I don't get why you would hide the board to take the heat out of a situation without first attempting to (a) discuss it (and by that I mean specifically discuss the option to hide) and (b) inform people what rules they are breaking.

I accept you are heading out (have a lovely day!) but surely there has to be a better way than abruptly hiding an entire board without informing the users of that board they are being hidden.

Quickly - Maryz, I see your point, but we're at the end of long series of conversations and warnings about the overall tone of the trans debate, the number of deletions, and the fact that inflammatory and goady posts on the subject are putting the whole discussion at risk. I'm sorry this feels sudden - but from our perspective, it's the latest in a very long process which hasn't really worked, and we've not got many more options in the bag. I hope I answered your questions about telling people what rules they're breaking more specifically above - but as far as our current TGs go, the posts that need to stop are those which are intend to inflame or provoke, ie are goady.

Apols -rushing and hit send too soon. Am off now - cheers everyone.

Since you want to hear thoughts: I do not think there are any circumstances under which using a word about someone that they would prefer you not use, but which is not in itself offensive - e.g., would not be considered offensive by any reasonable person to whom you applied it - should be forbidden. So everyone should be allowed:

• to refer to anybody by any pronoun

• to refer to anybody as "man", "woman", "transwoman", and indeed "cis-woman", but not "bigot", nor "TERF", because terfisaslur (and is not used, except in the spirit of reclamation - witness several users' nns - by anyone about themself)

• indeed to refer to anybody as "short person with blonde hair" or using any other description that would not be regarded by any reasonable person as an insult

without deletion. Should the person being referred to think the description is inaccurate, or feel offended by it, they may say so on the thread, and then readers of the thread will know there's an issue. You might need to make rulings on a few particular words or phrases, e.g. I'm not sure how "TIM" should be classified as I'm genuinely not sure whether it is widely used as a self-description, although I do feel confident that "man who identifies as a woman" is and should be allowed.

However, I don't think "if someone is offended, it's offensive" is a sustainable policy for a moderated message board, precisely for the reasons you're seeing. You have to have a reasonably objective idea of what constitutes offensive, and to minimise moderation effort and allow debate, you need to be pretty permissive. You can't adjudicate either on the truth of the matter or on posters' intentions and expect to get it right most of the time without a lot of effort. I think MN's problem at the moment is trying to do both: allow robust debate with swearing etc., and maintain "the spirit of mumsnet". You simply can't do both without huge amounts of effort. If you haven't got huge amounts of effort, you'll have to settle for the former, and accept that the spirit of mumnet emerges from mumsnetters. (I suppose you could alternatively have a very quick and automatic deletion mechanism that, say, deletes everything reported, but in that case MN will cease to be interesting for many posters including me.)

I know, I know. But if you applied the same to, say, aibu - how many more reports and deletions do you have there? How many goadyfuckers? How many people being deliberately hurtful? You don't hide the whole of aibu.

I believe the vast number of goady posts on FWR aren't from regular gender critical posters. They are from people who want the topic silenced. They are either goady (as in winding up the regulars) or deliberately aggressive (pretending to be gc and nasty with it) - and they are winning as things stand

Seriously, do enjoy your day.

What if allowing a free-for-all was likely to result in the topic not being able to be discussed at all, relaxitllbeok - even for those who are able to post without using those terms? I think that's the important question for people to ask themselves.

I don't understand - how could it result in the topic not being able to be discussed at all?

A free-for-all won't work.

But some system of working out who is doing the goading and who is doing the reporting and reacting accordingly would certainly help, don't you think? Rather than just reacting individually to each goady post and to each report. There is a bigger picture here.

Don't answer until you come home

Maryz, re AIBU yes completely understand - but if every single AIBU post was only ever about MILs, we'd deffo approach it with the same perspective.

I don't think what I suggested was a free-for-all, by the way! I suppose that in the TGs wrong pronouns must be being counted as either "personal attack" or "deliberately inflammatory behaviour" and my point is that in defining those, I think that for pragmatic reasons you have to have a general principle that it doesn't get to be called one of those unless any reasonable person would see it as such if it were applied to them.

I'm not saying something more nuanced, involving understanding the motives of the poster and the reporter, wouldn't be better, Maryz, but I'm getting really annoyed by a system that pretends to do the nuanced thing but actually isn't resourced well enough to do it properly. Better not to do it at all than that.

KateMumsnet, go away (and come back later/another day)!

STOP ANSWERING AND GO OUT

I bet there are more threads about mil's on mn than about trans, if you actually counted them.

x-posted relaxitllbeok, yes exactly. Except that atm they have decided to "not do it" - and just hidden it all instead [sigh]

... and in truth it's really not about who's reporting and who's goading; we see that stuff, but as I said upthread, there are as many deletions on threads where only a gender-critical view is being expressed (ie when you talk amongst yourselves). This is really about the big picture - someone said on a thread recently that the world is watching, and from the outside, this can often look like a pretty unpleasant place