What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

[PalatineHill]

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.

We introduced this feature because a huge amount of visitors to MN (around 50%) arrive from unbranded search (ie they type query into Google and end up on a Mumsnet thread)

Is this not because the Mumsnet search never works so people end up googling it with 'mumsnet' on the end to find things?

highlighting when a thread hasn't been posted on for a while

One forum I used to read had a little 'Zombie' that appeared if the thread hadn't been posted on for a few months. [I know, it is this forum, before you point it out. I am being sarcastic].

Is this not because the Mumsnet search never works so people end up googling it with 'mumsnet' on the end to find things?

To be fair search these days is significantly improved but yes I think a significant amount of users do still do this, myself included, as we got so used to search not being effective.

Even this morning I used Google with MN at the end to search a specific query as its so ingrained to me to not use search. I didn't revive the thread though as there's no need and in the scenario where that one thread hadn't answered my query I just click back and then onto the next one in the Google search list, it's more accurate than a similar threads box would be.

We introduced this feature because a huge amount of visitors to MN (around 50%) arrive from unbranded search (ie they type query into Google and end up on a Mumsnet thread);

As a number of previous posters have pointed out, many of us use Google to search for threads because it's frankly a lot quicker and easier than pissing about with the MN site search function.

showing similar threads improves that experience, as it makes it more likely they'll find the answer to their query - and it's being used a lot so we do think it's a useful feature

(a) How do you know that 'showing similar threads improves experience'? I find that clicking on them has led to disappointment and annoyance. How on earth are you able to monitor my annoyance?

(b) Being 'used a lot' does not mean that something is a useful feature.

<sigh>

reading this back is like the worst aibu

mnhq; this is my idea.
everyone: you are being unreasonable. it doesn't work for these reasons.
mhhq: but but but but
everyone: still no. stop it please.
mnhq: oh well going to keep doing it anyway

For the timeframe 13th-15th:
6 months: 94/2833 3%
30 days: 170/2833 6%
For timeframe 15th-17th (similar threads release):
6 months: 112/2924 4%
30 days: 304/2924 10%

This is the data. Are you sure you're not thinking of a different time frame? As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

Yes they do - that's why I talked about unbranded search.If you include branded search (ie including Mumsnet/ Aibu and the like then the % traffic coming from Google is around 70%)

As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

And then MN started doing it on purpose!

Your stats for "active" threads are a bit meaningless as everyone's "active" will be a different list.

I have a number of topics hidden as they are of no interest/relevance.

I would concur with a pp that the zombie threads in my active list were probably something like 75% at one point.

If you redid the data only looking at AIBU and Chat and maybe 5 or 6 other fast moving topics then I expect you would get a very different answer.

I just unbrandedly googled 'abusive ex' - which was one of the 'you might also like' categories queried upthread - and Mumsnet doesn't come up at all as a suggestion on the first page.

There is a 'how do I get back with abusive ex?' on page 2, which really is NOT n idea worthy of promotion, from 2013.

I do wonder if I'm now doing a Liza Minelli here and losing my mind.

As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

And then MN started doing it on purpose!

Exactly. And no recognition from any of the HQrs of how infuriating this is. Total disconnect between acting really quickly to zap the super troll and close some of the zombies they bumped but then absolutely encouraging all users to bump as many zombies as they want.

This is the data. Are you sure you're not thinking of a different time frame? As you know we've had a persistent troll who was bumping zombie threads for a while?

No I'm specifically think of the 2 days after this feature was launched. I'm not the only one who noticed a huge increse in my active being full of zombie threads directly as a result of this feature, there's lots of posters who said similar on this thread.

The zombie trolls revived threads from specific years or in certain topics yet after the new feature launched my active was full of threads from different years, topics and several of which had been revived clearly unintentionally by current well known posters.

Not quite - you missed the step where they’re going to think really really carefully about it.

Then they’re going to keep doing it anyway

YY to traffic coming from google through a MN search because the previous search function was trashed on the relaunch. I certainly search this way now.

Still no response to this oft-asked question:

if the new feature is so good, why isn’t it on Site Stuff?

Ah I think MNHQ (Justine) has answered this without meaning to. The new feature is for new users, who obviously have no idea of any problems / glitches or bugs on MN, so have no need for suggestions about how to fix problems as they don't stick around long enough to notice them. 😞

If it for newbies them why not take it off for those people logged in? Seems a simple fix.

@MNHQ cancel the check!

There are also a lot of posts tonight that seem just a tad fake. Peppered with the 'lols'. Suggested as being potential reverses. It's all very strange.

Oh, and don't forget the drip feeding.

The more we challenge and question the % the more HQ is forced to have to produce more evidence. As I said previously a percentage is meaningless (% of what?), so then it's scrabble scrabble behind the scenes to come up with more numbers to shut the punters up.

if this feature had been tested and the glitch around the increase of Zombie threads discovered, they would have sorted it out behind the scenes and not released the feature until all this tinkering with algorithms had been resolved.

For the timeframe 13th-15th:
6 months: 94/2833 3%
30 days: 170/2833 6%
For timeframe 15th-17th (similar threads release):
6 months: 112/2924 4%
30 days: 304/2924 10%

based on the above, however you look at it (and the statistician in me says that timeframe 13-15th shouldn't overlap with timeframe 15-17th - it should be 13-15th and 16-18), if the numbers above relate to actual zombie threads released back into peoples feeds, that's one helluva lot of zombies, which then perpetuated mayhem..

and zero acknowledgement, only politicians answers dodging the actual issue.

Why are you including the 15th twice?

Are You saying that there were only 94 zombies in 6 months? But 170 in 3 days? The numbers, what do the mean??

This is a great suggestion. @JustineMumsnet.

If the new feature is to help random people who find MN though a Google search then there's no need for it to be in place for those users who are logged in, as it doesn't improve their experience.

I assume the stats refer to threads that haven’t been posted on for over (a) 30 days and (b) six months.

I appreciate the numbers don’t look particularly high but again where is the UX? If those small number of zombie threads are on the first three pages of Active threads, say, then the user perception will be rhat ‘all’ Active threads are zombie.

I really don't understand why MNHQ are trying so hard to defend this new feature. (Or how much work you're having to do behind the scenes to tweak it to make it less irritating)

Zombie threads have been an issue for ages now, and all we ever get is 'we'll talk about it in the office' or 'it's on our list'. And nothing ever gets done.

Then you introduce a new feature which patently makes the situation worse! I don't care what you think those stats 'prove' @JustineMumsnet. The number of threads started about it, (at least one of which was closed for further comments by MNHQ ), and the number of posts on those threads - along with this one, surely would give you some idea as to just how much this isn't a good idea, and is just pissing off your content providers?

How often do Site Stuff threads run to this number of posts?

Perfect, this is exactly it!

Looks like it's gone for me this morning. 🤞It stays that way.

Sadly still here for me - I’m using my iPhone. So annoying.

Nope. Still there for me.