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.

I sometimes wonder if this is a crisis of content.

Have the zombie threads now achieved greater importance because a lot of MNers are writing less content, especially since the relaunch?

(And also posters who previously provided a lot of decent, readable content said they were very unimpressed with the rather obvious Facebooking off of threads to the tabloids.)

Lack of new, good quality content could be a real downward spiral.

The "similar" threads on the current Strictly thread are all just previous ones which are 1) out of date and 2) full.

Agree. This seems such a good idea
@JustineMumsnet @LilyMumsnet @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

If it helps at all, 2 of the 5 active threads on both the first and second page (laptop) this morning are over three months old with no new posts from the OP. That's four out of ten. I've stopped using active, as nearly half the time they're zombie threads.

Sorry--trending, not active.

There's a current(ish) thread called 'Too soon?' on the Step-parenting board from a poster thinking she may have rushed into a relationship with her DC's new 'step-daddy'.

One of the recommended 'Similar Threads' is also called 'Too soon?' However, this one was started in Chat by a worried poster in February about being accidentally pregnant in a new relationship and wondering what to do. Part of the discussion was about the possibility of termination. The poster then said she was leaving the thread; and there it ended. In February.

It's a very blunt algorithm, I fear.

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

@BIWI

Just had a quick look at "site stuff".

There are 50 threads on the first page (all posted since 9th Nov).

This thread has 455 posts so far.

A thread analysing the number of times swear words are used has 135 posts.

The next highest number of posts is 120 - that one is about Zombie threads (surprise!).

No other threads on p1 have more than 100 posts.

27 of the threads don't make it into double figures.

Yes, but.... but but but....

The overwhelming majority of people on MN are regulars who don't go anywhere near Google in order to find the place. We just come straight here and get stuck in.

For instance, I first found MN when Googling an extra curricular-related question. Once.

I'm now on here most days and have been for at least the last ten years. That's an approximate ratio of 1/3650 times that I have used Google to get here. As statistics go, that's pretty damn small, and I won't be the only one, not by a long shot.

Please bear that in mind, and listen to us. It's all very well garnering new customers, but not at the expense of pissing off all the existing ones.

I really can't see why this wouldn't be an option, but I get the feeling MNHQ are pretty set on keeping the feature around for everyone so i'm sure there will be an excuse as to why it's not possible.

This feature went off/disappeared for a couple of days - I didn't see it Thursday OR yesterday (Friday.) However, it is BACK today (Saturday!) Grrrrrrrrr.

It would nice to have the basic courtesy of a response.

There's a thread about the touching chimpanzee mother-and-infant reunion scene.

The suggested 'Similar threads' are such that if I were a newbie I'd be thinking 'wtaf??' and not 'what an enjoyable user experience this is'. It's just a bunch of suggestions about crying babies and controlled crying.

Thanks for all your feedback. We'll go through all the points raised - please bear with us in the meantime.

It is undoubtedly the most stupid fucking idea HQ have had. All it’s resulted in is tons of old threads being bumped. Literally that’s it

Now I'm finding 'Similar thread' suggestions that are so old that MN have put that red box zombie warning on them - 'looks like this thread hasn't been posted on for a while ... are you sure you want to post on it ..?'

I cannot see how that improves a newcomer's user experience when MNHQ is warning people away from posting on its own thread suggestions.

Bumping this suggestion again as it is an extremely sensible compromise.

Since this new feature is apparently being frequently used, I'd like to know:

• how frequently?
• how long does the user spend on average on the page after they click on one of these 'you may also like' links?

I assume this is motivated by ad revenue. If the user clicks on one page, one set of ads get served. If they click on another before giving up and returning to Google, a new set of ads can be served up. If they have to click on six because all the links take them to threads from years ago ...

Yes me too! It’s well known (and blindingly obvious!) that users find bumped zombie threads incredibly frustrating and MN have somehow managed to increase this tenfold!

I'm glad someone recently resurrected AIBU to expect my daughter to finish eating her meal on time from August, I'm sure the daughter was still eating the same meal all this time. What would the OP have done without this most recent comment?
No doubt the newest poster found the thread from "you might also like" so that's fucking brilliant.
Thanks Mumsnet 👌

No doubt the newest poster found the thread from "you might also like" so that's fucking brilliant.

Of course they did and I'd wager my blooming house on the following 2 things being accurate:

A) The responder being a regular user so not one of the new lot mn say the feature is useful for.

B) The aforementioned poster having revived it unintentionally thinking it was a relevant recent thread as it showed up under the thread they were reading.

How anyone at MNHQ can think this isn't what will happen time and time again is bonkers.

Oh and Can you dictate what people call your child? Or is that unreasonable? this morning again. From June. Again.

I can see people using mumsnet less and less in the very near future if all the content in Trending is old. No one wants to browse an out of date website. I can't think of one reason why old threads just can't be locked.

So many posts this morning being reanimated

It's really putting me off.

Once again active is full of old threads, I've clicked on at least 8 in the last half hour but I'm sure the 'official' MN numbers will magically say otherwise and we're just imaging the influx of resurrected threads.

I agree. There are so many this morning that are several months old.

Yes 3 - 6 months may not seem like a lot compared to threads from 2011 or 2007, like we've had recently. But there's no reason to bring up issues, problems and situations that are months out of date. It's shit for those who started the threads as they have to be reminded of a thread that they've moved on from, and it's shit for the posters replying as there's a very good chance the thread topic has been resolved or is now irrelevant.

MN is a forum that is popular because it's advice and comments given and made in real time. What's the point in sticking around if a good amount of the threads are months out of date?

I'm going to be annoyed when someone comes back saying it was "only a small %" when this morning all I've been on is old threads. The June and August thread OPs both had zero benefit from those threads being resurrected, so before someone comes along with that one..

I suspect frustratingly that will be the response.

If it was 'only' a 1% increase the other day when active was predominantly resurrected threads then someone from MNHQ is bound to say it's hardly any % at all in terms of an increase even though we all have eyes and can plainly see it is.