Active Threads : What is the real criteria? (as it is NOT activity)

[Ta1kinPeace]

If I click on Active threads I would expect to see the threads with the most posts in the last half hour
but I don't

there are INCREDIBLY active threads (running at a couple of hundred posts a day)
that hardly ever appear there

so what is the criteria?

And why do MNHQ actively keep certain topics away from quick links?

I'm flabbergasted by this. Surely you can see how this policy lends itself to being influenced by people with nefarious motives? Not to mention that i.e. the Westministenders threads are top quality political analysis that can only encourage posters to spend more time on Mumsnet.

Just to chip in and say that along with the weather threads, Westminstenders is one of the most valuable threads on here for providing clear and easy to understand information on the current political situation. It would be a real shame if it wasn't readily available for those who might find it useful.

ta1kin

I would also be curious to know whether they delete based on requests from non-mumsnetters as they do with the FWR board

Well how naive am I?

I genuinely thought Active conversations was a board for the conversations that were the most active.

This is deeply disturbing.

I generally browse the site through active conversations and I'm really shocked by this. It's no wonder that I can't keep up with the Westminstenders threads - I'll dip into the start of a thread and the next time I see it, it's got 100s of posts and I kind of give up because I'm so far behind.

"Threads which have drawn lots of reports are less likely to be featured in the active threads area"

I am very disappointed with this.

It's akin to the (abandoned, fortunately) policy of making unmarked deletions to keep a thread 'nice'

Active Convos should feature all active conversations irrespective of whether there are reports.

There is a specific topic available for people who want to post a thread that will not appear in Active. And users can hide topics or threads in which they are uninterested.

It strikes me as just plain wrong to censor what goes into Active.

Censorship by another name. Very disturbing.

I wonder if @MNHQ will be brave enough to come back to this thread to justify the unjustifiable apparent ability to force censorship?

Threads which have drawn lots of reports are less likely to be featured in the active threads area.
Yet, at the same time, Trending (a select list of only 5 threads) often displays threads that have deleted (not individual posts have been deleted, the whole thread has been deleted).
It seems inconsistent.

The more I think about this, the more shocked and disturbed I am. For a site that claims to be unmoderated, this is no longer the truth.

It's also very parental. When did you start treating us like children, @MNHQ?

I can see why you're doing it - it makes life easier for the community team - stops threads that are controversial attracting too much interest or becoming bunfights. But what the fuck is wrong with that?

No wonder MN feels so mundane these days compared with what it used to be like.

If you can't deal with the trolls at your end, and we aren't allowed to call them out on threads ourselves, this seems to me to be the inevitable result - threads that are deemed 'troublesome' and somehow need to be quarantined from the rest of the site.

'needed'

Sorry. So disturbed my grammar has shot out of the window!

I could maybe understand the point if it was a bunfight, and there were lots of deletions, BIWI. I don’t agree with it, but it would prevent more people piling in.

Isn't it amazing that people who wish to can use reports as a sneaky way of controlling things quietly?

Likely that people were complaining about threads/topics they've hidden still appearing in most active and the only way to stop the complaints is to remove whole topics from active. Seem to recall MNHQ stating it wasn't possible to tailor "active" to individual accounts.

I think you might be right there. Threads in the brexit topic don’t seem to appear in most active.

That wasn’t the reason HQ gave though.

It is possible to hide full topics and individual threads from Active.

except those damn WAG threads, for some reason they aren't moved into the right topic

The 15-minute list is much more interesting and varied than Active. I've never looked in there before.

@MichaelMumsnet
Please could you do me the courtesy of a reply.

What steps does MNHQ take to stop malicious reporting of threads done with the intent to create political bias within the Mumsnet site?

What steps does MNHQ take to stop malicious reporting of threads done with the intent to create political bias within the Mumsnet site?

In the absence of an answer, I'd suggest "fuck all" fits the bill.

Ultimately MN is a commercial operation (whether posters know or care is another matter) so the old question of "who pays the piper" seems appropriate. If it's a battle between mission statement and profit, profit always wins.

So it's clear that malicious reporting of threads with the intent to create political bias achieves its aim.

So at the very least Active threads should be divided into two categories and renamed to say :

1. Animated active threads and

2.Anodyne active threads

Or similar ?

Well goodness me.

I'd understood that the threads within the SN section were kept outwith the promo umberella as well as others of a sensitive nature such as pg choices and a faint wisp on my memory that maybe the FWR threads were excluded also.

This method - using mass reporting to skew views/reach - is quite the eye-opener. Shorely shome mishtake as Mr Bond didn't say.

For all we know, Leave.EU may have bunged a wedge of wonga to skew the operation of "active topics".

Any denial would be subject to the Rice-Davies defence.

Eh? Is this brand new? Westminstenders threads usually appear in active convos for me...
The ones which don't are things like sex (I think) and SN chat...

@MNHQ

^Are you saying that if people keep reporting they don't want to see a thread - not because it breaks rules, just they don't like it -
then you keep it out of active ?
^
Do you mean that someone reports every single Westminster thread as soon as it is created - because they are 60 posts per minute ! - or do you automatically censor any new Westminster thread ?^
^
Or is it the whole Brexit topic, not the particular Westminsters series of threads ?

Is this because someone at MN decided they want to discourage Brexit discussion on principle,
or is it to save money, to reduce the number of moderators required ?

Do you just censor Brexit, or do you keep other topics out of Active, such as FWR ?

I am shocked & disappointed

This illustrates that the most effective censorship is by those we trust, because we never even realise it is happening^

The Westminster threads are the best political analysis on MN and maybe anywhere else on UK social media^
You should be advertising them, not hiding them !